Monday, April 14, 2008

Why ACT is polling so badly

Rodney Hide, commenting on Kiwiblog, summarises political options as follows:

Labour and National = short-sighted Labour policies + Winston Peters; ACT = far-sighted plan to bring our kids home + Sir Roger Douglas.

National and ACT have two things in common: Not many know what their policies are, and they are chasing the same vote -ACT more so. But Labour and ACT also have a point in common: Most are not listening to them, and those who are are either rejecting them or blindly following them. Given the injection of Roger Douglas, who can blame people for ignoring or rejecting ACT?

Douglas has been sacked twice while either a Minister or spokesperson. The last time Douglas entered cabinet, the Prime Minister immediately resigned and Labour lost the subsequent election. If Douglas is either number one or two on the party list, a Hide success could bring him into Parliament. An unexpected lift in the ACT party vote will take more votes off National.

If ACT is so great, why has the party not polled more than 2.5% since February 2006? Perhaps it is because ACT supporters are beltway supporters, party members, students or bloggers, nearly all who know each other. Many are either single, rich or childless - some all three. Perhaps ACT is polling badly because it is because Rodney Hide is expected to win Epsom and a vote for ACT is not going to change the Government. Interestingly, in the latest Political Science journal, there's a piece on ACT - a study of a small party that fails.

ACT party campaigner John Ansell queried whether ACT is the only party in the centre -right. There are only two parties on the centre right - UnitedFuture, and National. If you want to change the government, vote National, if you want to dilute it, vote ACT to enable it to be a support partner - with Roger Douglas outside of cabinet. But there are not enough of you to vote ACT in such a way as to make any real difference.




Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only because the centre-right fail to understand MMP - unlike Labour, who have the Maorimander --- not to mention Welfare for Families, the Electoral Fraud Bill, Kiwistealer, and all the rest..

The Maorimander gives Labour 7 extra seats. It means that National+ACT Polling at 51% will not form government. Every 20,000 people who party vote ACT while electorate vote National is another "Free" vote for ACT. If only 100,000 people did this, Labour would never manage government again

Frankly if I really wanted to change the govt, though, I wouldn't piss about with the tarnished ACT brand. I'd take a bunch of well-respected regional NZ people: Michael Laws, perhaps, Annabel Young, Charlie Pedersen, and the like -
and run an electorate only party in country & regional seats.

Labour's got 10 Maori seats in overhang. The National party could have 10 or 20 rural seats - a guananteed permanent majority

April 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM  
Blogger Just my opinion said...

Touche Dave, and very very simplistic. I fear you don't have much of a grasp of how MMP works.

Let me try and go through your points and raise a few questions.

I don't blindly follow ACT. I am astonished that as a Nat you are so anti ACT. Especially as Brash ran with many ACT policies and almost WON the last election.

Douglas was voted back into cabinet and this forced Lange to resign.

Your analysis of an average ACT supporter is nonsense too. You're a clever chap, but you're wrong. I am not from a rich (or even close to it) family. When I ran Campus ACT in the late 90's all my branch (40+) were from middle to low income families. We had less money than the socialists and the Nats who did bugger all but sck up to the student unions. We supported ACT because we were not afraid to challenge the arrogance and sofly sofly approach that National adopts when they are in power.
National is the party that lost the nerve to cut taxes properly, fired Ruth, and couldn't even tame Winston consequently somebody you are trying to get back on board with.

Are you really sure Dunne is on the centre right? How long has he supported a Labour Govt? Is he your pin up boy for CR politics? And you wonder why the Nats can't deliver a undiluted policy agenda.

Every ACT member has been saying to party vote ACT, we are not interested in fighting every constituency seat as we know the goal is a National Govt. Name for me ONE party that has pretty much voted with and supported National for the last decade.

And get over the whole Roger in Cabinet idea. Even though he is better qualified than anybody in National for the job, it was not a serious proposal.

Why don't you get on board and support what is best for NZ, and that is a National led Govt that dismantles Labour policy and gets us back to a nation that isn't ruled by envy and greedy politicians.

April 20, 2008 at 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice one Heine....well said.

Thats a bitch slapping if I ever saw one....

April 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 22, 2008 at 1:31 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

Clint Heine,

Firstly I am not a Nat. Haven't voted National in an MMP election. Ever - and I know how MMP works. Inside out.

Secondly, I`d be pleased to see the back of WInston Peters when he doesnt get back in to Parliament after the election.So I am hardly hoping the control freak will get back in.

Third, Dunne is definately on the centre right, despite beinga pin boy for nothing( much).Sounds like I know him better than you do - after all he is my MP.

The Roger in cabinet was a very serious proposal if you talk to Douglas.

Finally a National led government does not mean that I have to support National. If so, you wouldn't be supporting ACT.

April 22, 2008 at 1:33 PM  
Blogger Just my opinion said...

At least we agree on Winston. apologise for assuming you voted National during MMP.

Dunne is hardly anybody you could categorically say is somebody burning the torch for the CR. He is flakey and not anybody we should trust with the CR policies. He has always been like this - and entire political success was based on the TVNZ worm. At best lucky.

I haven't spoken to Roger lately, nor Rodney. But it was a proposal designed to get the pundits talking. He is more than qualified to help the Nats strengthen their policies and give it some meat.

I don't get your last bit, sorry.

April 23, 2008 at 6:05 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics