I said a while ago that Brash should be fired for airing his views on cannabis de-criminalization. Not for any reason related to the right or wrong of that view, but because it was a strategic blunder that should not have been made by someone in his position.
There are rumblings that Brash is to be replaced. “I’ve got no doubt that the board supports me,” he says. Hmmm, well yes, of course.
I thought it would be too close to the election, but hell, could it get any worse? Maybe ACT need to finally and once and for all, bite the bullet and exorcise the cancer that has made it impotent for so long. That cancer being the misguided view that ACT is a “socially liberal” party.
ACT is an acronym for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. How does that imply that its involved with socially liberal ideas? In fact, given that those ideas naturally and automatically impose an enormous cost on Consumers and Taxpayers, it could well be expected to be opposed to that destructive ideology.
The simple concept of small government should be ACT’s primary message and its primary focus.
If Brash goes, so should Lindsay Perigo and the rest of the social liberals. Make it a clean sweep, and finally clear up the confusion as to what ACT stands for. So called Libertarians, fixated on drug liberalisation and homosexual issues, should rejoin their own basket case party and stop fouling ACT’s brand.
That leaves Banks and his faction in control. I only hope he can step up to the plate on leadership and be firm and steady in his course. I wish I could believe that will happen.
TrueblueNZ 
11 responses to “Brash Gone From ACT?”
Or bring back Rodney… (except he’s probably not interested). JB will get my electorate vote, but my party vote hangs in the balance, and it won’t go to Act while Brash is in charge. He must be the greatest political disappointment since, well, Goff.
LikeLike
“He must be the greatest political disappointment since, well, Goff.”
Yep, wonder if he’s yet got back to that polling company that predicted a big vote swing to ACT if he was leader?
LikeLike
Could not agree with you more. To my mind the people who want a free market are fine. But to get prosperity we need lower taxes and less government interference. But the people of the left also want the sexual and social anarchy of modern liberalism. Which leads to a big welfare state and armies of social workers to clean up all the broken families. Which leads to higher taxes and more government.
Modern liberalism inevitably leads to a big welfare state which hampers our prosperity. What we need is real freedom which can only come through people acting responsibly and looking after themselves and their families. Not expecting the government and the taxpayer to clean up after them.
LikeLike
Palin should now pick up an Arizona Senate seat.
Keep powder dry.
Who knows what 2016 will look like.
LikeLike
You’ll notice that a lot of the prominent social liberals don’t have families.
LikeLike
Some of them are starting to outsource baby production (but supplying some of the DNA) and buy them once they are ready. That’s fairly liberal.
LikeLike
Don is right the board does support him. The left wing Herald has done everything in their power to destabilise ACT. Any board member would have to be a total idiot to consider changing leaders this close to the election. Even after the election it would not make sense. All ACT members are not libertarians. There are many older conservative members who do not share their views. Most are not as vocal as me.
Another coup would destabilise the party. I cannot see it happening. If ACT does not survive and National is dependant on the Maori Party. that will be almost as bad as a Labour led government.
LikeLike
Thanks Chuck. Appreciate your comments.
LikeLike
Red I think Chuck is the leftist Herald reporter just made stuff up. Here is the hint from the Herald article.
Herald quoted…
He was responding to questions from the Herald put to him after talk that the party board could move to replace him with Epsom candidate John Banks, a former Mayor of Auckland and National Party Cabinet minister.
I suspect that Audrey Young:
#1) was interviewing herself,
or
#2) she talked to someone within the ACT party, but misquoted that person’s comment deliberately.
or
#3) she rang up someone from the ACT party and try to put words into that persons’ mouth (as lawyers call it in the courtroom – leading the witness), so as a result, Audrey had manufactured a story from a non-story.
All newspaper journos do this sort of self-interviewing themselves all the time. This is the biggest con from reporters/journos in our established MSM. I know this former Herald reporter, John Manukia, who was sacked for making up stories a few years back. Mr Manukia was only the tip of the iceberg at the Herald. They all do make up stories at the Herald, which is easy to do, since no one knows apart from the reporter him/herself. This story about ACT is just one of them and it is easy to make stuff up like that, since they (Herald) are no danger to any lawsuits because the story is not a defamation one at all.
LikeLike
I meant to say:
Red I think Chuck is right, the leftist Herald reporter just made stuff up.
LikeLike
Nice to see the Herald is banned from Parliament because of that dishonest hack, Audrey Young who just makes stories up.
LikeLike