I see they’re back down to 0.5% in the latest Roy Morgan poll. After rising to the dizzy heights of 1% in the previous poll. Now people are always saying that ACT has some good people “but”.
That but is it for sure. But what but? What the hell is it with ACT that they can’t get traction? I’ll take a stab at it. ACT are flotsam and jetsam. The driftwood of politics trying to meld into a cohesive political force. Some came from Labour. Some came from National. Some came from who knows where.
It won’t work because there is no unity of purpose. No like minded thinking. Rod Hide presides over a herd of ideological cats. Talk to one ACT guy you’ll get one perspective. Talk to another you get something completely different. They’re unified in believing that Labour and National can’t do it right, but hopelessly split over how do it right themselves.
At the heart of ACT’s failure to progress is the manner in which the left have managed to fragment their opposition. I’ll reproduce Sid Hollands founding principles, those ideas that gave NZ the best government ever and the the Nationals their best time in government.
“To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”.
The left have put decades into attacking those principles and they’ve succeeded. What was their strategy? To cloud everything. Make politics a muddy indiscernible mix but slowly out of that mix they’ve made socialism/ Progressivism the dominant political force in the country.
Sid Holland’s brave and principled ideas were put through the socialist mincer. The National Party today doesn’t have a clue what it stands for. The country slides to the left. Out of that confused political landscape comes ACT. So we have confusion layered upon confusion. ACT is a party of wisdom and idiocy. Coddington’s shambling and disorientated political stance is one good example of the latter. The insane bigotry and hatred expressed by ACTS fiercely pro-homosexual social liberals towards some Christians is another. Hillary Calvert makes some great speeches. Rodney Hide has achieved some successes in government, but in reality, there is no meat in the sandwich.
ACT are disunified in their mission. At the root of this disunity is a failure to recognise the enemy. The enemy is Progressivism. ACT takes a view against Progressivism here, but then, over there is a view that is pro-progressivism. ACT is even more muddled than the Nats in not knowing what to fight against and what to fight for.
ACT will not achieve anything because it is another layer of confusion on top of National’s confusion. Its harrassed and harried by criticism from all sides from people who disagree strongly on where it should be headed. ACT is finished because its past and present confusion offers no clearly defined path for the future.
Footnote:
There is only one real force that can successfully repel socialism/ Progressivism and that is Conservatism. Only that political force provides the rock solid political concepts that are strong enough and firm enough to repel Progressivism. Only that political force provides a standpoint whereby the enemy can be clearly seen at any distance. Conservatism is in a weak state in NZ because it has not been defended or fought for for three or four decades. The restoration of Conservatism and the restoration of Sid Holland’s principles to National will save NZ.
There needs to be a line drawn in the sand in this country. The confusion has to end. You’re either a Progressive or a Conservative. If you don’t know what either of those terms are then seek out the information because you’re confused and therefore part of the problem that allows the left its ascendancy. Seek out the information you need and stand on the side of the line you identify with. Those who oppose Progressivism must unify but more importantly, they must clearly identify what they stand for and what the enemy stands for.
We simply have to rebuild Conservatism. There is no other way.
TrueblueNZ 
8 responses to “The ACT Party- Like Wrestling With A Column of Ideological Smoke”
It makes one think doesn’t it, that if we had had an alternative to ACT kick off all those years ago, but firmly committed to real Conservatism, where it would be today. If all that energy and work that went into building ACT had gone into the re-establishment of Conservatism, how far we would have driven the Progressives back by now.
Its never too late.
LikeLike
The question really is whether you’d want a separate party/entity to do that or whether you’d reorganise national from within. In the US it looks like the tea party approach is having an effect in reforming the GOP. This is an uphill battle, but if it succeeds one that will provide a better option to beat the dems, as there will be no different entities to play against one another, only a division within the ranks, i.e. playing numerous individuals out against one another, which is much more difficult.
Something similar might be possible in NZ as well, albeit much harder as we have no true founding principles/constitution to go back to. Hence I think that a “conservative” movement (and I don’t like using that term too much, as it con-notates several aspects that are not necessarily helpful), should focus itself on creating and pursuing a constitutional movement from which solid principles can be inserted in NZ politics, and which can be used to gather the population behind such principles rather than continuously bribing them with their own money.
LikeLike
“(and I don’t like using that term too much, as it con-notates several aspects that are not necessarily helpful),”
Aspects that only exist as a result of Progressive inspired disinformation. We have to stop allowing them to ascribe meanings to words that do not exist in reality, and we have to stop allowing them to remain in command of our language. Use that term. Bring back its true meaning.
Agree with most other things you said. My preference is to work within National. Take the party back from the Progressives. That is basically what the Tea party is doing in the states.
First though we need to establish the grass roots movement.
You’re right, its difficult to do that with out a clearly defined focal point such as the Constitution. (always hard in politics) That’s why I propose Sid Holland’s founding principles.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree on taking back the language. I am a Conservative, and proud to be so. They are not Progressives. The only direction in which they’re ‘progressing’ is to turn Washington, Wellington, Canberra and London into 1955 Moscow. That ain’t progress. They are Socialists. They are Communists. And they need to be called out as such.
I also agree about reorganising National from within. National should be a mile to the right of the party of social liberalism (ACT). That it’s not, and that ACT is smeared as ‘far Right’, is a travesty. That the sheeple of New Zealand swallow it hook, line & sinker is a testament to the success of the Communist experiment conducted on New Zealand over the past 4 decades.
The main problem with National is the whipping process. Any real Conservative, who voted against measures that increase the hand of nanny, who voted against tax increases, who voted against the racist separatist agenda, would be about as welcome as Chris Carter in a rugby changing room. That person would likely not survive six months in the National party cess-pool.
LikeLike
I really wonder whether it is possible to transform a party from within. If we look at the Tea Party’s attempt to transform, or hold to account, the Republicans we can already see a backlash from within the main party against such a transformation and ideological shift. If the main organisation/party has corrupt elements within it then, I believe, it is almost impossible to bring about real and lasting change. It is better to leave it to just die, and those so motivated start completely afresh with an entirely new entity.
I’m reminded of a spiritual principle, but it holds true in secular and political arenas as well:
– where “leaven” is symbolic of impurity, poison, or corruption. And this “leaven” once a part of the main entity cannot be removed from the greater whole.
So, on the basis, I believe we would be better leaving both National and Act to die from their terminal illness, and go on to create a “New Zealand Tea Party” – one which has no affiliations with other parties; a truly stand-alone Conservative political party founded upon Judeo-Chrstian principles.
I believe the time is right, and this needs to happen sooner than soon!
LikeLike
Kris, the problem with leaving National to wither on the vine and starting a new party is one of critical mass. National has a party machine which is ready-made and although the party will attack any attempt to move it towards what it should be, I think far easier to fight that fight than try and launch from scratch and fight a war on all sides.
There will always be a Liarbore party because the unions provide both their funding and a continuous stream of willing useful idiots to represent them (either in Parliament or to ‘volunteer’ with letter drops, etc.).
There will always be a National party because there are plenty of New Zealanders who want to vote themselves a larger portion of pie but can’t bring themselves to support the union movement.
National will exist until a palatable alternative appears. The problem of course is the term palatable. A Conservative party will treat people like adults, but along with that is the expectation that people actually are adults, and want to operate as adults. Too many of the sheeple who have the privilege of a vote don’t want to operate as adults. That’s why they keep voting for either blue socialism or red socialism. The worst will vote for green communism. The ones who think they’re adults will vote for yellow progressivism. There is no available option for people who actually want to be adults and even if the option existed there are too few people who desire adulthood.
Hasten the day when New Zealand either erupts into the race war that John Key and Chris Finlayson have brought that much closer, or the IMF and World Bank (and the Chicoms) call in their loans and the true financial position is revealed to the sheeple.
LikeLike
I talk about the re-emergence of Conservatism in Europe in this post here:
Generally done via the vehicle of new parties, defense leagues, etc. The Party for Freedom from Holland mentioned in the post is a good example of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom
LikeLike
Nice post Red, a good summary of ACT I think. Which makes me sad, as I thought they might pull National back from the left and become a counter force, but I think that lack of unity in purpose might be the thing stopping them from reaching cohesion.
I think Rodney Hide has done an admirable job of trying to herd the cats, but has to overcome a biased media that calls anything centrist far right and then paint Hitler mustaches all over their blatherings they like to call “articles” but are nothing more than free advertising for the Greens and Labour.
I don’t see any reform from within National because Key can argue that being popular and easy going is all that is required to win. In a system different from MMP he might be right, but I suspect the next election may not go National’s way, and I’m beyond caring who actually wins because they all implement the same policies, and it seems we have to be completely ground into the dust and destroyed before any alternate voice will be considered.
So there is a lot of room for a Conservative Party, and they may as well start forming now because it gives them a few election cycles to ramp up before NZ is prepared to listen to them.
LikeLike