Coddington Wrong About ACT

Deborah Coddington, writing in the progressive newspaper the NZ Herald, claims that ACT was originally formed as a “Libertarian Party”.

“the fact is that Act was formed as a libertarian party”

I think this is quite incorrect. From Wikipedia-

ACT grew out of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, although the organizations remain legally separate. Sir Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley, both former cabinet ministers, founded the association in 1993. The organization was intended to be a lobby group, promoting the economic policies that Douglas and Quigley stood for (sometimes known as “Rogernomics”).

The driving force behind the original ACT was economic reform.

It was later infiltrated by culturally Marxist poseurs describing themselves as “classic liberals” who ruined it with their insane demagoguery.

Just as they have ruined the Libertarian Party, or though the similarly deranged Objectivists must share a large part of the blame there.

If any new liberty based political party is formed, it must keep the self professed “classic liberals” out, (and the Objectivists) or it will meet the same sad fate as ACT and the Libertarians.

These people are political poison. Their record proves it.

Deborah goes on to say that John Bank’s presence in ACT has destroyed it and

“It is thus fatally tainted and should wind up and allow a new, true libertarian party to arise.”

Funny- thought there already was a “true Libertarian party”…???

What’s that outfit that Cresswell and his loonies run?

Deborah Coddington- ACT’s demise leaves gap for libertarian rebirth

25 thoughts on “Coddington Wrong About ACT

  1. It’s absolutely no wonder my once-beautiful homeland is economically, culturally and societally rooted. With this silly bint woman scorned rewriting history when in fact it was the progressives that destroyed ACT. In the same vein, Dave at Big News has an attack piece on the Conservatives (via Kevin Campbell) and of course, like the lemmings they are, Farrar and SlAter join in the attack.

    What is it about the fake right that they hate genuine conservatism and free market capitalism so much?


  2. I think 55,000 votes inside 3 months terrified them. If that’s the result in 3 months, what will it look like in 3 years?

    First they ignore you
    Then they ridicule you
    Then the attack you
    Then you win

    And win we will. We have history and simple mathematics on our side. There simply is no more money for their socialist adventure.


  3. And when it comes to stringing up the traitors the Farrars, Slaters and all the other faux rightwing [and/or] conservatives should be the first to ascend the gallows.

    I have at least some respect for those like Klark who are openly our enemy and make their agenda plain, but these two-faced yellow-back poseurs are even MORE dangerous as the sheeple take them at their lying word.

    And Gantt, I hope you’re right about the “Then you win” bit, but I have my doubts. I know we win in the end [according to the good Book], but we’ve got at least seven years of hell on earth to work our way through first. And I think many of us who love freedom will be paying a very high price – especially when you look at how the communists and Islamists have treated those who opposed them in the past.

    But when they come for me I intend to take as many with me as I can – you have my word on that!


  4. Deb reckons, “A libertarian does not believe it is his or anyone else’s business if you want to marry your horse.”

    I have never heard a libertarian state such a thing. However, I have heard them seriously argue that incest between consenting adults should be legal.

    she also reckons that, “My guesstimate is that about 10 per cent of the population has libertarian views ”

    RB, you are spot on about the history of ACT. Some nutbars within the party like Master Whittington support some of these flaky ideas but they are in a small vocal minority.

    If ACT is to survive it must separate moral issues from real political issues like the economy, crime, ETS and one electoral rol from moral issue. They should be decided by referendum not by the supposed conscience of MPs.

    Those who want the right to fuck their mother’s if she consents should join libertariansNZ or start their own white motherfuckers’ party.


  5. What is it about the fake right that they hate genuine conservatism and free market capitalism so much?

    Because – just like the lefties they ape but claim to despise – they and their kids would end up starving to death or being shot within the first month.

    Unlike us, they don’t think this is a good thing.


  6. They should be decided by referendum

    Another fucking democrat.
    Another fucking leftist
    Another fucking believer in equality

    No: all those things are far far too important to be decided by a referendum

    Which part of:

    The rich man in his castle
    The poor man at his gate
    The LORD hath both appointed
    And ordered their estate

    don’t you understand?

    The idea that poor, blugers, civilservants, unionists, lefties, greenies, non-taxpayers etc deserve any kind of input whatsover especially over things as important as the economy, crime, elections, tax policy, spending etc is the lie that is the very root of leftism


  7. “If ACT is to survive it must separate moral issues from real political issues …”

    Chuck, you actually [unintentionally] highlight the problem with the political elite and indeed wider society. You simply CANNOT separate “moral issues” from “real political issues”. Indeed every political issue has wider values based implications. And as every individual on the planet has some form of moral code they bring that code to bear on most decisions they make. This obviously includes politicians.

    Some might indeed argue that the less moral a person is the less likely they are going to make policy and/or decisions which benefits others; especially those they perceive to be different to themselves. There is no coincidence that the further one moves away from Judeo-Christian values the more self-centred and selfish they are, and the less concerned for others they.

    As our parliament is increasingly made up of both the amoral and immoral is it really any surprise that society is becoming worse, and the laws and policies which used to protect us are now becoming more the rod by which our Marxist political elite beat us?!

    Give me strongly principled and moral politicians any day over the low-life amoral and power-hungry traitors who deign to rule us currently!!!

    PS If ACT doesn’t refind its moral base then it will most definitely NOT survive!


  8. Coddington is a flake and has issues with her failed tenure as an ACT MP ever since. She went to pieces when Cosgrove & Mallard got into her over the dodgy dealings of her former husband, the sniveling leftist Alastair Taylor.

    And . . what the fuck was that bestiality reference all about ?? This libertarian bullshit always comes down to sexual depravity and drug taking.


  9. This libertarian bullshit always comes down to sexual depravity and drug taking.

    Yeah well, that must be what all that “classical liberalism” they keep talking of is all about.


  10. Kris, firstly did you know that the Conservatives support CIR. Under the present system most legislation relating to moral issues is passed by so called conscience votes. When they think they may not have the numbers like on the smacking debate it is done by party vote. Surely a voter’s veto would improve the situation.

    Secondly, ACT policy does not support what some of the libertarian members may like it to be.


  11. Chuck, my MAIN point was that most/all legislation is flavoured by the morality (or lack thereof) of those who formulate our laws. All laws, IMHO, have a moral component as they affect other members of society. For example, even [so called] purely economic legislation has a moral component. As I said above, most/all decisions we make as individuals has a moral component. And as a result the less moral a person is the worse decisions they will make on behalf of others. Which was my whole point about the need for our politicians to be “strongly principled and moral”.

    And of course the phrase “conscience votes” implies that those politicians actually have a conscience – something many of the regulars at TrueblueNZ may seriously question regarding many of those currently in our parliament.

    Sorry if I was unclear earlier.


  12. PS Chuck, I’m all for BINDING CIR. If it’s not binding then we just end up with another “John Key ignoring 88% of the population” fiasco as per the Anti Family Bill.


  13. Kris, I have heard libertarians argue that all legislation is moral legislation. However, most parties found it was not in their interest to try and force MPs to vote a certain way on some issues like abortion.

    I think it would be good if ACT and the conservative could combine. However, to do so successfully would require both parties to compromise. I do not think Craig is the sort to compromise. I think John Key would rather deal with a party whose future does not depend on one person. Therefore I think he will be struggling to make the 5% if the Peters First is still there.

    We have just had an election. I think it will take a few months before we know what is going to happen to ACT. Libertarians only like referenda if they think they will win.


  14. I guess, Chuck, I’m getting a little tired of all the compromising lowest-common-denominator stuff which goes on in parliament; especially under MMP. I think a large portion of the electorate is MORE THAN ready for a party which refuses to compromise – I know I am.

    Red just recently did a post on the Canadian Conservative Party which is well worth a read:


    Colin Craig’s political strategy emulates that of the Canadian Conservative Party, now the most powerful political movement in that country.

    The Canadian Conservative party came to power in the 2006 federal election as a minority government, a position it maintained after the 2008 election, before winning its first majority government in 2011. The current party leader is Stephen Harper, who has been the Prime Minister of Canada since 2006.


  15. I wonder why it is always Conservatives who are expected to compromise? Liberals and Progressives (really just two sides of the same coin) are never expected, nor willing, to compromise. Conservatives have compromised again, and again, and again, and that’s why we are coming to the end of the disgusting evil of ratchet socialism.


  16. Kris, I voted against MMP. The fact is we now have it and it likely to be around for a long time. Suppose Key had of given Rodney to Craig instead of Epsom to Banks and Craig made unreasonable demands what would happen? I think there would be a new election and NZ would be another Greece.

    There is one difference between ACT and the Conservative Party. That is partial asset sales. Key may not have considered helping Craig in Rodney in any case but partial asset sales would make any agreement difficult be it the Conservatives and National or he Conservatives and ACT.

    There is no way we can turn the clock back on civil union but we could stop homosexual adoption. The is no way abortion will be made illegal but we could get parental notification.

    BTW do you know Bob McCoskrie? If so do you support Family First. I do. However, I do not agree with everything Bob says.


  17. Thanks for the link, Red [14:51] – inspirational stuff, and highlights perfectly the point I’m trying to make to Chuck. That being the need for “strongly principled and moral” politicians who WILL NOT compromise with evil:

    2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked … for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    Until the righteous refuse to compromise with the unrighteous; until those of the light refuse to compromise with those of the dark … then those unrighteous and evil ones will continue to hold the upper hand in our society. And lets be clear, some of the most evil individuals in this nation are those who currently fill the halls of power; those who infest our Marxist media; and those who falsely pose as rightwing bloggers [but are in truth Marxist facilitators of the Marxist elite in the seat of government].

    And Chuck, this is so much more than merely the issues surrounding abortion or homosexual adoption. It is the issue regarding the very moral character of those who sit in our parliament, and the ideologies and authorities they prostrate themselves before. We all serve somebody – and I have a pretty good idea, when you strip away all the layers, exactly who MOST of our politicians serve …

    No prizes for guessing.


  18. Kris, unlike the Greens and communists I believe it accepting human nature for what it is. On average you will find a difference in the personality between a funeral director and a policeman. Many police are good caring people but you will find a few aggressive bullies amongst them.

    Many politicians have a personality disorder – a mild form of narcissism. New Zealand politicians are on average betters than some in the US. Many have their snouts in the trough but ones like Fields are rare. If you want to change the system you have to accept that the vast majority of politicians self serving. Most probably do not start that way but soon change.

    There is no perfect system or democracy. You are not going to change the system by camping in the centre of cities. You will not change the system either by just being negative. The best way to change the system is join the political party that has the most policies you support and/or the least you disagree with.

    BTW – what did you think of my comment in the Herald?


  19. Chuck, while I like to think the best of people, and upon first meeting someone generally give them the benefit of the doubt, I believe human nature is basically flawed; that we are all fallen creatures. This is revealed in a person’s moral character (not so much their personality), and one doesn’t have to limit themselves to only the “Greens and communists” in parliament to see just how widespread the rot is in this regard in our halls of power. In my estimation I would say over 90% of those in parliament are seriously lacking in moral character, and not only that but have bought into Marxist/Greenist/Racist/Separatist ideologies – all these things seriously compromising their ability to lead this nation and/or represent the best interests of the majority of the people who put them in power. I would also argue that very few of them actually embrace Judeo-Christian values and principles – not that anyone would be surprised about that.

    And while I agree with you about democracy not being a perfect system, it is certainly the best system of human government in my estimation (I’m sure others would agree). But it relies on a moral people and especially a moral leadership for it to both function and survive. Democracy without a Judeo-Christian moral foundation will ALWAYS devolve to Socialism/Marxism/Communism or will become ripe for the plucking by the likes of the death-cult of Islam.

    If we want to survive as both a culture and a nation we need to get back to a MORAL and PRINCIPLED based system of government. Horse-trading with the devil will only lead to our guaranteed demise. We must refuse to compromise with the agents of evil.

    PS I thought your comment in the Herald was right on the money.


Comments are closed.