All posts tagged Act

Act II, John Boscawen

After being an observer at the ACT Scenic South Regional Conference I’ve posted my impressions of one of the John Bs – see Act I, John Banks.

The other ACT John B is party president John Boscawen. He also gave a speech at the conference, and I was able to have a good chat with him afterwards.

Boscawen was one of the five ACT MPS last term. He decided not to stand again in 2011 for genuine family reasons.He had a reputation of being down to earth, a hard worker, reliable – but was described as being not so good in the arts of communication.

I thought he gave a good speech. He wasn’t as animated or funny as the other John B. He didn’t drop any media H bombs like Rodney Hide. But he was clear and informative, giving a good explanation of his aims and priorities, and where he hoped to help take the ACT party.

My impression is that Boscawen is a very capable speaker, he’s just not flashy, nor is he an attention seeker.

I’ll deal more with his speech in later posts.

Afterwards he had a long talk to myself and another non-ACT observer, Hamish, who is a Young Nat. I was interested in asking, listening and learning what I could about Boscawen and what he was doing.

And Boscawen was interested in asking, listening and learning about what I was doing – unusual in my experience with politicians (although I have had a similar long talk and listen with the United Future president).

Boscawen has taken on the job of ACT president and has committed himself to working full time for the party up to next year’s election, doing what he can to help ACT return to Parliament, hopefully with several more MPs. He is financially self supporting so is able to put substantial time and effort into this.

He sounds very determined and clear about the required tasks. The Banks John has a heavy workload being an electorate MP, party leader (something he said he hadn’t aspired to be), and Government Minister. He returned to Parliament in 2011 after an absence of many years and with a gutted party in disarray. Then last year he had to weather substantial targeted attacks by opposition parties.

So the role of the Boscawen John is very important. He has the time and determination to rebuild support for his party. And he’s not shy about recruiting new party members, he asked both Hamish and I what it would take to get us to join ACT. He couldn’t afford me.

ACT has had a very difficult few years, with MP misteps, revelations, party takeovers and cups of toxic tea.

But despite this with John Banks they survived. And he will probably ensure they will survive until the next election – unless Kim Dotcom is holding a bomb in reserve. It is up to Banks to keep the party running.

John Boscawen is in a position to rebuild the party and regain support. He seems a genuine nice guy, but very focussed and determined, has lived through and learnt from past mistakes, and has success in his background.

ACT have John Banks to thank for having hung on. If they are to become a significant force in New Zealand politics they will have a lot to thank John Boscawen for.

I’m not and have never been an ACT supporter, but I do want to see a strong presence of a range of large and small parties in Parliament, including ACT. Diversity strengthens democracy.

I see hope for ACT, and for Parliament, in the two John Bs. And that must be a hope shared by National, for different reasons.

by Pete George on March 5, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 5, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/05/act-ii-john-boscawen/

Act I, John Banks

I was invited to be an observer at the ACT Scenic South Regional Conference held in Dunedin on Saturday. It was interesting to hear the two John Bs in person, Banks and Boscawen.

I’ve seen John Banks many times on TV, and I think he can to be too much of a “same old” political reciter of phrases (Winston Peters and Phil Goff can sound like that too).

As a more relaxed free flow speaker he came across much better than as edited soundbites. This isn’t uncommon, I’ve seen the same from John Key and Peter Dunne (I’d love to see David Shearer and Russel Norman in person to get a better idea of what they’re really like too).

Banks is a consummate politician, he knows the well worn ropes, and he has a clear idea of what his job is. His main task is to put the tea party media fiasco, donation and Kim Dotcom issues as far behind him and focus on leading ACT to a much better performance in next year’s election.

His base philosphy was clear and simple – every child should have two things, unconditional love and a good education. If that can be provided it will flow through and address many problems. It’s something that may take generations to bear fruit but the end harvest is worth it.

Banks reiterated the importance of providing National with a reliable coalition partner, and is targeting at least 5% party vote next election (far more realistic than the Brash target in 2011). Holding Epsom is crucial but getting a half dozen or so MPs would make a huge difference – for ACT obviously, but also for National’s chances of staying in Government.

Alongside this he stressed the alternatives:

  • the Maori Party being able to decide which of left or right formed Government – and he is cerftain if they had the choice they would choose Labour over National
  • a Government of Labour, Green and NZ First with either or both the Maori Party and Hone Harawira.

Banks also promoted the key ACT policy that will differentiate the party – what they are calling Partnership Schools (aka charter schools). I’ll address this more in a separate post.

I can’t say I’m a John Banks convert, to be frank I’ve never been a fan of his. But seeing him speak in person and being able to take in the whole performance – including his rapport with the small audience and his interaction with people before and after – I certainly have a better idea of what his public persona is like, and my impression was improved on decades of media fed snippets.

I’d have liked to have talked to him directly but apart from him introducing himself  time ran out, while it had been suggested that joining them for lunch would be possible Banks was keen to take the other John B and do a walk through Saturday shoppers in the Dunedin CBD.

I’ll post in more detail on his speech.

ODT coverage: Act must perform, Banks says

by Pete George on March 5, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 5, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/05/john-b-act-i-banks/

Poll, and National’s strength and weakness

The first Colmar/TVNZ poll of the year:

  • National 49.0% (+5.0%)
  • Labour 33.0% (-2.0%)
  • Green 11.0% (-1.0%)
  • ACT 0.0% (-1.0%)
  • Maori 1.0% (nc)
  • United Future 0.0% (nc)
  • Mana 1.0% (nc)
  • NZ First 4.0% (nc)
  • Conservative 1.0% (-1.0%)

[PG: I have corrected these results, the United Future and Conservative results were misreported (and are still incorrect at TVNZ)]

‘duggledog’ comments on this at Kiwiblog:

Like Tony Blair’s Labour, National have swallowed up the entire middle ground and kept the left leaning voters JUST happy enough, and the right leaning National voters JUST happy enough.

Labour under Clark didn’t allow any fresh blood in so we see the desert they are still floundering around in five odd years later. Labour are being squeezed by an increasingly mental Green Party to the left and a soft mass appeal National Party to the right. Labour have nowhere to go, no plan, no leader, no financial nous except for robbing taxpayers, insane coalition partners and it gives the vast majority of New Zealanders the shits.

Ergo National is still riding high. They don’t have to do jack shit

And Kiwi in America (ex Labour stalwart):

duggledog has nicely summed up the political situation in New Zealand. National however will need to be on their A game from now until the election. MMP has made this a knife edge situation with the margin between centre-left and centre-right very close. National has no clear right leaning ally as yet and with the likelihood of the threshold being lowered to 4% retreating, the chances for the Conservatives making 5% are slim indeed.

John Banks may try to cling onto Epsom for one more term but his re-election there is nowhere near as sure as it was in 2011 due to the Dot Com saga. NZ First’s woes will play in National’s favour very slightly because if Winston cannot haul his controversial party across the 5% threshold then more of his voters are likely to go to National than Labour.

Despite Labour’s paucity of talent and ongoing leadership issues (a resurgent activist base clearly more hard left and not enthusiastic about the caucus backing Shearer) and the Greens starting to show their red statist hands a little more, both parties can count on mostly favourable media coverage to give them a tail wind. Any potentially troublesome issue for National will be beat up as a crisis and a scandal and the lazy young cadre of political reporters have an ongoing love affair with all things Green and so we ought not count on their more nutty and damaging policies ever receiving mainstream media critical scrutiny.

John Key remains National’s most potent weapon. His breezy kiwi bloke manner layered over his steely resolve to aggresively manage politically risky issues and Ministers and his sharp mind that remains on top of most issues means the Opposition continues to underestimate him.

For National to be polling a shade under 50% after what was (even allowing for media exaggerations) an annus horribilis for National in 2012 is testament to Key’s likeability and political management skills. There is still much that can go wrong but if the first 6 weeks of 2013 are anything to go by, if National can keep this new focus and discipline up for the next 18 months and Labour, the Greens and NZ 1st carry on like they are right now, an elusive 3rd term is possible.

With a lack of potential coalition partners of any size National have something else working against them – voter resistance to giving one party a majority. And there’s no obvious sign of a solution.

Even if the threshold is lowered that won’t happen for the next election. That makes it unlikely the Conservatives will make it – they were 0% in this poll.

Act have a major challenge – they need to visibly get their act together, and they could do with an electable replacement for John Banks. And they (and National) have to avoid getting sucked into damaging media circuses like the tea party. Key will have learned his lesson but Act will be desperate for media attention.

I still think the best potential is United Future, not based on what the party is now but what it could be. A lot will depend on whether Peter Dunne stands again or not. If he does he has a reasonable chance of retaining Ohariu, he proved he can do this by beating off a combined Labour-Green campaign against him.

But it will take major changes in the party. The policy base is sound, but UF is short on talent. In particular it needs an injection of new generation candidates who see the potential and the opportunity to fast track themselves a significant position of power. And party leadership will be available in the not too distant future.

Using an established party without significant baggage would be far more effective than trying to start a new party from scratch.

And it provides a much quicker and easier path to a significant position of power than working your way up a large party to get a winnable electorate to stand in or a decent position on the list, and then having to wait your turn in a large caucus.

Of course it’s also riskier because the future of United is in question. But people who recognise opportunites and take risks are often those who succeed.

I don’t think I’m the future of the party, it needs a new generation. But I can help anyone who’s interested.

by Pete George on February 18, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 18, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/18/poll-and-nationals-strength-and-weakness/

State of the parties

Coming in to the middle year of the term I thought it was worth looking at the state of the parties. Two are in strong positions, they rest have significant problems to address.

National

Not without problems last year but National are still in a strong position, and with virtually half the MPs they should be. And they are polling nearly 50% higheer than their nearest rival. National’s main challenges will be to progress their MOM asset sales programme without too much damage, and to establish a much clearer and stronger vision and mode of operating.

John Key has had his problems but still has very good public support. His health could become an issue.

Labour

After losing the 2008 election Labour are on their second new leader but still show little sign of reinventing, reinvigorating and rebuilding themselves. They are dogged by an old guard dominated caucus split by leadership issues, and the party has problems with factional infighting that involves old guard union interests and old guard activists.

Labour seem to have settled for being a second tier party reliant on the Greens to compete with National.

After promising a difference David Shearer has failed to inspire or excite the party nor the public and looks owned by the old guard. He may learn and transform but that will take a major change in tactics and tact.

Green Party

The second party in positive territory, the Greens have built support well since a successful leadership transition. If they can hold their current level of support to the next election they will have done well. There main problem is a lack of a stong senior partner – if Labour remain weak the public may be wary of a stronger but smaller Green Party pulling a centre-left coalition too far left.

Both co-leaders are doing well in their constituency. Greens even managed a genuine leadership batle where Metiria Turei prevailed over a more extreme left looking Sue Bradford.

NZ First

The Peters Party did well to get back into parliament with a good muster of MPs to make up the numbers for Winston, but the old campaigner is not as sharp or persistent as he was and there isn’t a lot to stand out amongst the rest. If they maintain support they could be a coalition playmaker next time round but at this stage they don’t have a lot to offer a new Government. They have become a grey and protest vote party with little more of note to offer. It’s hard to see NZF surviving when Peters goes.

Maori Party

The Maori Party was already struggling to maintain levels of support and this was complicated when Harawira split away. Now their leadership transition is not going well. They will have difficulty maintaining relevancy, especially if they lose any more seats and if they don’t get a coalition deal next time. Whanau Ora could cause them problems.

Act Party

John Banks is still there but the party is in a precarious state. He isn’t making much impact in his return to parliament. National will be much more careful (or they should be) helping Act in an electorate next elexction, and they will be grateful if Banks fades off the scene. Act have to completely reinvent themselves or they won’t survive past 2014.

United Future

United Future has one of the most experienced and long serving MPs in Peter Dunne but it’s survival is totally reliant on him not retiring, and even if he stands again he will have another battle to retain Ohariu. His party has a sound and palatable set of policies but fails to appeal, so unless electable candidates inherit an opportunity the party is Dunne. The Super review this year may raise some interest in the party.

Mana Party

Hone Harawira should ensure a seat and a presence, and Mana may possibly find a way of picking up an extra seat, but then their only hope is being essential to make up the coalition numbers. How Harawira would deal with being in coalition is like a Maui voyage, totally uncharted territory.

by Pete George on January 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 22, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/22/state-of-the-parties/

Dunne on parties and Christmas

Peter Dunne has been tweeting his thoughts on how the political parties might view Christmas.

Greens…

…want Santa’s sleigh run banned – inadequate effluent collection systems in place for reindeer and tipsy Santas flying across skies

Labour…

…worried Santa’s elves non-unionised, so possibly exploited and under paid. Want them covered by Actors Equity, with no special deals

NZ First…

…angry North Pole elves being used to make toys for Kiwi kids – opposes foreign influence of Christmas

Maori Party & Mana…

…decry lack of iwi influence on Christmas – now seeking urgent hearing before Waitangi Tribunal

ACT…

…has forgotten altogether about Christmas this year

National…

…believes Christmas lacks a a hard commercial focus – will sell shares next year to Kiwi mums & dads in a competing Santa business

And UnitedFuture?

It just wants everyone to be nice to each other and get along this Christmas.

Some responses:

Jeff ‏@sthnjeff

@PeterDunneMP ‘s Tweets quite humorous this morning. Must have a new Press Secretary or intern.

Peter Dunne ‏

@sthnjeff No, just a fun, quiet morning dispensing Christmas cheer – I’m not allowed to be grumpy!

Dene Mackenzie ‏@mackersline

@PeterDunneMP That seems fair as we have forgotten about Act.

And a serve back:

Joel Rowan ‏@RealJoelRowan

UnitedFuture can’t decide whether to have Christmas with Mum’s side of the family or dad’s side?

by Pete George on December 19, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 19, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/19/dunne-on-parties-and-christmas/

Rating the parties for 2012

This is my view of how the parties have performed over the first term, based on an outsider’s media and online impressions as an interested follower of politics, plus some interaction with some MPs via Twitter and emails.

National 5/10

National have attended to the key things steadily and competently – they have continued to manage the economy in an extended period of difficult worldwide conditions. So they get a pass mark overall. But balanced against that are a number of poorly managed issues, especially in education, and difficulties dealing with their MOM asset programme (although that was predictable) and the ongoing Dotcom dealings.

Online – their interaction is sparse. John Key’s ID is used for party PR (I don’t expect him to have time to spend online). Stephen Joyce uses Twitter for diary announcements. Tau Henare is active but it’s mostly trivial. There’s occasional bits and pieces from others. Judith Collins has dipped her toes in Twitter and has seemed to genuinely attempt to engage. Very little email response from National MPs, and they are not visible in the blogosphere.

Maori Party 7/10

The Maori Party keep achieving what they can as a reliable part of the coalition government, but maintaining their independence by voting against National and for their ideals and committed positions. They are not very visible online (Te Ururoa Flavell tweets a bit) nor much in media but that’s not where they need to be to engage with their constituency.

UnitedFuture 7/10

Peter Dunne has a very heavy workload in a one MP party, representing an electorate (in which he is active) and as a minister. As usual does what’s required reliably and industriously, and he is active online, engaging on Twitter and Facebook. He does his parliamentary and electorate jobs capably, but has a challenge reviving his party.

Act 3/10

John Banks had a very difficult reintroduction to MP duties due to excessive media coverage and hasn’t risen above this. He has also been dogged by his Dotcom dealings. Seen as little more than a proxy for National. I acknowledge that after a long absence it was a huge task returning to parliament and setting up office in a gutted party. Much to do for Banks and Act to survive.

Labour 3/10

Labour have continued their disappointing last term non-recovery. They are struggling with an impatient party that feels alientated from caucus, and David Shearer has failed to measure up as a great fresh hope – the measure is heading downwards. A dysfunctional caucus, maverick MPs, poorly prepared policies and botched hit jobs all make 3/10 seen generous.

A number of Labour MPs are active online, some doing well and engaging but with a few notable embarrassments. Their Red Alert blog is ineffective. Some will respond to emails.

They have to deal with major dissent and competing factions, plus some interesting changes to their selection rules. Much to do.

Greens 8/10

The Green Party grown it’s parliamentary footprint, they have grown in stature with Russel Norman’s leadership in particular significantly outshining all other opposition leaders. New MPs have added to their strengths. They have some challenges proving the viability of some of their policies and selling themselves to a wider (non-adoring) audience but have made excellent progress.

Their biggest problem is being seen as a party that wants to ban too much and wants to impose their social ideals on everyone. They should work on addressing these to maintian their gains.

Their MPs and party are the most active online through their blog, Twitter and social media and they will engage, and will respond to emails.

New Zealand First 4/10

Struggling to make a decent impression. Winston Peters tries hard in Parliament and challenges the Government at times but is not the dogged Winston of the past, he often seems dog-tired and battling with motivation.

The rest of the MPs seem to be minor shadows under the wily but wilting wizard.

Not much online, Richard Prosser tweets a bit but little of significance. Early email response have tailed off.

Mana Party 4/10

Harawira mostly works within his own realm and seems to be maintaining a following but only sometimes comes out into the open – sometimes controversially. Little impression in parliament (difficult for a one MP party). He may maintain a niche but could struggle to grow beyond that. Active on Facebook and one of several Twitter accounts is active.

If any parties or MPs want to respond please comment, or email – petedgeorge at gmail.com – and I’ll post it.

by Pete George on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on November 29, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/11/29/party-review-2012/

Banks should resign himself to back bench

John Banks shouldn’t force a decision on his future on John Key.

It’s been Bank’s laxity on campaign donations, it’s been Banks who has not been upfront and honest with his responses, it is his ethical standards that are being questioned.

So Banks should take responsibility, make his own decision and send himself to the bank benches.

That would make it harder for Act this term.But it would repair some of the damage and give them a slightly better chance of surviving the next election.

If Banks clings on to his ministerial position now Act’s cling on Parliament will be precarious.

Banks continues to get savaged by media. Today’s ODT editorial:

Politics and smelling a rat

But in terms of Mr Banks, and the Prime Minister’s support of him, it seems the accusations, denials, ducking and diving and semantics will continue until someone – all that remains to be seen is who – gives in.

To avoid such doubts and clear the air, the Prime Minister should stop playing politics, and send Mr Banks to the back benches.

And John Armstrong’s column at NZ Herald:

Backed into a corner, so come out joking

Banks maintained his Churchillian facade. There was no sign of contrition or meaningful apology.

In that context, his joke about fundraising was a conscious effort to retrieve a few crumbs of dignity in the face of what amounts to a humiliating and very public dressing-down.

But it was also a two-fingered salute to those disturbed by his seemingly cavalier regard for the laws on campaign donations.

The end of Banks’ political career probably, and the end of Act?

At least it can be said that $50,000 bought Dotcom absolutely nothing by way of influence over Banks.

But that is about as good as it gets for Act’s sole MP – and by implication for Act itself.

The latest revelations have made certain that his dream of retaining “Fortress Epsom” and using it as a platform for Act’s regeneration is now pure fantasy.

Banks now has not a snowball’s chance in hell of holding the seat. Although he insists otherwise, it consequently seems highly unlikely he will stand again in 2014.

And in the meantime?

Act’s leverage – minute as it already was – has been heavily discounted accordingly.

Banks is now essentially an irrelevance. His only other options are to resign his ministerial warrant and go to Parliament’s backbenches, where he could choose to vote against the Government on some measures – something which would lead to even more scorn being heaped upon him.

Alternatively, he could resign from Parliament. No one would bet against that happening.

But the more immediate question is how much damage Banks’ remaining a minister is doing to Key’s reputation.

Banks has dragged Act lower, but the longer he remains a Minister the greater the risk of dragging National down with him.

It may well be too late to save Act, but the least Banks could do in his last significant political act is to give National a fighting chance of success in 2014.

by Pete George on September 22, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 22, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/22/banks-should-resign-himself-to-back-bench/

John Banks bad, Labour and media worse?

Pressure continues on John Key to do something about John Banks regarding his mayoral campaign donations from Kim Dotcom.

Banks didn’t deal very well with donation law that doesn’t deal very well with political realities. And Banks didn’t deal very well with questions put to him about this. And the recently released police report doesn’t show Banks in a very good light.

But Key continues to refuse to deal with Banks on this. Andrea Vance sums this up:

Master of Keyvasive action

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And in John Key’s case, read no evil.

The prime minister is resolutely refusing to take a look at the 126-page dossier from the police investigation into “anonymous” donations to Mr Banks’ 2010 mayoralty campaign.

It all looks very messy politics. So why is Key tiptoeing through the murk? He made this clear on Q+A on Sunday. First, he made it clear that he thinks the law is at fault for allowing the pronblem in the first place:

So, in my opinion, that law is very badly drafted, which is why my government’s going to fix it up.

He then repeats this, and then points to the real issue as he sees it…

What I can tell you is the law doesn’t work. What I can tell you is this is a politically motivated attempt by the Labour Party to get at the government.

And then again:

I accept that the law is very ambiguous, and I accept that the Labour Party are using this as a politically motivated attempt to get to the government. Because they’re not going after – this is a guy that lost the mayoral election. They didn’t try and test this out after he lost. They didn’t test it out for every other candidate. They’re not testing it out around the country.

And, by the way, when they changed the central government law around donations, they didn’t bother to do it for local government. But today they care about it, and that’s because it’s politically motivated.

There has been some justified criticism of Banks, and there has been some legitimate questioning of Key on ministerial standards. That’s where all the media attention seems to have been aimed.

But I think it’s also important to question the politics involved here.

The Labour Party has waged an ongoing  deliberate campaign against Banks for one reason – they want to destabilise Government, and they have seen Banks as a vulnerable part of the Government.

It’s a political hit job. Labour’s aim is to destroy Banks as a minister, and to destroy the Act Party. And their ultimate aim is to bring down the Government.

This is dirty politics. Labour see their best way to gain power is to destabilise Government, which will destabilise the country. They don’t care about the damage they might inflict, as long as they win power.

And some of the media keeps playing along with this. Presumably messing up the country would be good for ratings.

What’s worse – Banks’ bumblings to try and avoid trouble? Key’s resolute blind eye to try and avoid trouble?

Or the trouble makers?

I disagree with Key on one thing. He said:

Fair enough. That’s called politics.

Some in politics think that the dirtier the better, especially when in opposition. All’s fair in power and war.

I don’t think it’s fair enough. From what I see and hear dirty politics repulses many people outside of politics. They want politicians to do their best for the country. Not their worst.

Politics should be about running the country, not ruining it. Shouldn’t it?

by Pete George on September 18, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 18, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/18/john-banks-bad-labour-and-media-worse/

John Banks: leave alcohol purchase age at 18?

The Alcohol Reform Bill will be back in parliament this month. One of the main proposals is to raise the alcohol purchase age at off-licence retailers such as liquor stores, dairies and supermarkets. This will be decided by a conscience vote instead of along party lines.

John Banks had been reported as undecided, but it was thought he would have a conservative view.

Act on Campus are claiming that Banks is now backing no change to the alcohol purchase age.

ACT on Campus pleased with Bank’s alcohol position

ACT on Campus is today praising ACT Leader John Banks’ announcement that he believes blanket measures against alcohol are unfair and ultimately ineffective.

“We do have an issue of problem drinking in New Zealand. But punishing everyone is not the way to go about solving it.” said Mr Banks.

“We are extremely pleased that John has come around to our argument that changes to alcohol law must be targeted at those acting illegally and carelessly, rather than punishing the thousands of New Zealanders that enjoy alcohol responsibly,” said ACT on Campus President Hayden Fitzgerald.

“Just as with minimum pricing, raising the alcohol purchase age is a blanket measure that will only succeed in punishing responsible 18 and 19 year old drinkers – myself included,” continued Mr Fitzgerald.

“Addressing our binge drinking culture requires better education, more involvement from family and communities and sensible targeted law changes; not poorly thought out policies that only punish responsible drinkers.”

“ACT on Campus is looking forward to John Banks’ vote to Keep It 18 and we encourage other MPs to listen to his well thought out and reasoned position”, said Mr Fitzgerald.

I can’t find confirmation on this, but if it’s correct then Act on Campus have done a good job getting their MP to listen and agree.

by Pete George on July 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 4, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/04/john-banks-leave-alcohol-purchase-age-at-18/

Holyoake’s 80%

David Farrar raised an interesting historical fact on Kiwiblog:

Even Keith Holyoake once said he only agreed with about 80% of what his Government did.

I often think of 80%. If you are in agreement with 80% of 80% of a party’s policies you should be doing pretty well.

I think I’m around 80% agreement (give or take a bit) with United Future and National at the moment. And I may not be far off 80% with Act either.

I wouldn’t be far off that with Labour either on policy, except that some of their recent major policy lurches I haven’t agreed. I’m at a lot lower % on agreeing with their methods at the moment though, they’re far too negative.

I think a problem a lot of bloggees have – like Harawira – is they want 100% their way, which means they get closer to 100% frustration and 0% results.

Another 80% I think of is an 80% positive approach to politics (unlike some parties currently in opposition). I think it’s nuts not to try and achieve positively most of the time, but you have to allow for being sucked into the hubris at times, and especially allow for confronting and standing up to crap.

It’s obviously not a fixed amount, there are plenty of variables, but 80% seems like a good focus to base things on.

I support Peter Dunne’s efforts throughout his political career about 80%, he’s generally done very well including unique achievements, but anyone who has been in politics as long as him will have clocked up a few disagreements and mistakes.

But I’d rate Dunne somewhere around 90% over the last year, he’s achieved, he’s done some very sensible things, and he has been very good to work with.

I’d put Key at around 80%, generally he gets an easy pass mark but there are some notable disagreements, like on NZ Super and the monarchy and NZ flag.

It’s too soon to judge David Shearer, but I’m about 80% hopeful he will turn around to being 80% positive and will have then 80% ready to form the next government.

 

by Pete George on June 25, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on June 25, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/06/25/holyoakes-80/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers