Herald’s John Armstrong Needs To Swot Up On Basic Political Concepts

As far as the bias of the mainstream media goes, I’ve always reluctantly had to give John Armstrong credit for at least trying to be objective. Same goes for Fran O’Sullivan. I think that in spite of general disdain for media and journalists in particular, these two have managed to retain a reasonable degree of integrity.

Even if you disagree with their POV, you can usually get something from what they write, as opposed to so many others who are so narrow and so left wing they only generate instant contempt and its seldom one can even get to the end of their articles they are so partisan.

I was put off by Armstrong’s opening paragraph in the Herald today wherein he suggests that ACT should automatically attract the support of Conservatives. John is described as “the Herald’s chief political commentator”. As such, it baffles me as to why he would apparently bracket Conservatives with ACT.

For the several hundred thousand voters of conservative mind, Rodney Hide has a message. If they think they can afford to watch Act go down the gurgler, they should think again.

ACT has some good economic policies, but unless I’m missing something here, I don’t know why Conservatives should support a party that has consistently presented as liberal, mostly in the modern sense of the word, meaning on social issues they lean left. I have always seen ACT as being more opposed to Conservatism than for.

The real Conservative Party is meant to be the National Party. They have betrayed everything they are meant to stand for in recent times it is true, (see founding principles in side bar) but I still think that Conservatives are better served attempting to put National back on track than messing with the crazy social liberal faction that infests ACT.

However the real point is John Armstrong, as “the Herald’s chief political commentator” needs to bone up on the true meaning of Conservative, and think about how any person of that political bent could ‘automatically’ support a party as socially liberal as ACT. A Conservative might actually feel his vote is best placed with ACT, but I doubt the base reason for that action would be that the party is conservative. Link to article.

Update- Fran O’Sullivan, in her column suggesting Rodney is past his use by date, has an intriguing comment too-

It’s obvious from their own polling and feedback that many Epsom voters do not want to give their “strategic” vote to Act’s candidate if that means that they have to suffer another three years of rightwing antics.

“right wing antics”… ?? What the hell does that mean??

8 thoughts on “Herald’s John Armstrong Needs To Swot Up On Basic Political Concepts

  1. I dunno if the right’s best interests are served by re-electing ACT and National. That’s something I ponder often, and I am yet to convince myself that another term of National is really beneficial.


  2. “and I am yet to convince myself that another term of National is really beneficial.”

    National are just somewhat delaying the inevitable agony. Another couple of terms with the country being run by ex-student politicians, simpering left-wing queers, class-envy driven unionistas and lofty academics (aka the Labour Party) and the place will be pretty much fucked.


  3. I’m sorry but I cannot, will not, vote National in November. It’s unthinkable to give my vote to a pack of cowards and traitors like the Nats.

    Let the left bankrupt the country first.


  4. I can’t peer into O’Sullivan’s mind, but, if I had to guess, I’d imagine that “rightwing antics” simply means “antics by the rightwing”. E.g. rumours of a leadership coup by the the Douglas/Roy faction and subsequent deputy leadership row, the David Garrett issue. You may disagree with O’Sullivan’s characterisation of ACT as “rightwing”, but I think that is probably what she means.


  5. Not sure about O’Sullivan, or Armstrong for that matter. They’re MSM and that means they’re Progressives until they prove otherwise (which neither has managed to do thus far).

    What I do know is that it is a great shame Sir Roger Douglas isn’t 20 or 30 years younger. His speech to the ACT Conference is a piece of oratory the tone of which, if ACT could adopt it confidently and consistently, would see their share of the vote go through the ceiling.

    Link: http://www.act.org.nz/news/stop-buying-the-bullsht


  6. Yep, its a great speech alright. I’ve been singing the praises of Singapore for some time, (lived there for a while) but with most of the brain damaged ignorant leftist fuckwits on Kiwiblog and other blogs, you can’t get past-

    “but its a police state”

    Couldn’t get a point if you choked them with one.


  7. Singapore’s story is an amazing one alright. By rights, Singapore’s and New Zealand’s economic positions should be reversed, but where NZ embraced soft velvet-glove socialism and is proving to be yet another of the states where socialism has failed (the others being everywhere else it’s been tried) Singapore, through sheer determination and strength-of-will, gets more powerful, influential and wealthy by the day.


  8. Sinner, if you’re looking for an insight into where Saint Ruth’s head is at, have a read of Fran O’Sullivan’s column.


    “Brash … [has] recently been pressured by a number of players – including former National finance minister Ruth Richardson – to re-enter the political fray.”

    Now don’t get me wrong, I think The Don would have made a great PM … in 2005. He made the mistake the Right always makes, and that is he let the left set the terms of battle. He punked-out when the going got tough. And yes, I know the communist lesbian stole the election but boo fucking hoo, it’s politics not kindergarten.

    What we need now is Don Mark II. WhaleOil reckons it might be Colin Craig, but he looks too much like just another wet liberal to me (although I confess I haven’t done any real research – just looked at his website).


Comments are closed.