Saturday, September 25, 2010


with your latest post. I have said it before and I repeat it now that as a National supporter I want to see a strong and responsible ACT Party in coalition with us (and yes, as counter to any coalition partners we might have to our 'Left').

And the Hide and Boscowan ACT faction are exactly those people. They understand what is achievable and what is not and the fact that MMP politics requires all parties to compromise to a greater or lessor degree in order to achieve the possible.

The Douglas/Roy faction are by nature wreckers; incapable of recognising the reality of MMP politics. They would much prefer to see ACT remain ideologically 'pure' even if it means the destruction of ACT as a parliamentary force.

Consider this. It is acknowledged (by Rodney) that he, Roy, Douglas and Boscowan were all briefed on the Garrett false passport issue at the time Garrett was parachuted into their number five List spot. Question ... who 'leaked' the info to Espiner two weeks ago. Certainly not Hide, Boscowan or Garrett. That leaves only Douglas and Roy and the motive ... utu for the dumping of Roy and a further attempt to destabilise/depose Hide.

And a side-bar to this. They were quite happy to break the suppression order still in force at that time in leaking the information. Question ... why shouldn't they be prosecuted exactly the same as Whaleoil.

ACT is better without those two. FFS, Phil Goff spends his waking hours waiting for Cunliffe to stick the knife in. Rodney doesn't need that distraction.

Finally Adolph and back to your post. Very few would see the Anglican church as captured by 'fundamentalists'. Captured by the Liberal elite yes ... and their adherents decrease by the minute as they walk away from a Church where PC rules supreme and bugger the 'Confession of Faith'.


Anonymous said...

Like you, I believe Roy's revenge (whether she or her supporters initiated it) was extremely shortsighted, and may ultimately lead to ACTs demise, especially with the cretin they used as the expose merchant. Espiner despises anything that stands for property rights, wealth creation and hates anybody who may possibly represent an assault on the liberati. The only time I have ever seen him take a stand against the Liberati was when he interviewed Cullen with regards to overtaxation of those in his tax-bracket.
What is so wrong with being principle centred? Where do you draw the line, and say enough socialist bollocks, enough troughing enough big govt, enough intrusion into the taxpayers' lives, enough treating the taxpayer as a personal pocketbook for my current flight of fancy....?
If not the 1st term, then when? Surely the argument that you don't want to get chucked out at the end of the 1st term holds true, then it will be applicable in the 2nd and possibly the 3rd term if the populace give you that opportunity (which I doubt, bdecause all your hollow promises from your period in opposition were just that. Instead you have just entrenched another layer of socialist PC nonsense, all the while letting Australia slip further and further away on the wealth comparability stakes. Wasn't the yard-stick by which Key wanted to measured by? So far his measurement is in the negative, admittedly, not as far negative as Labour would have us being.

Anonymous said...

A plague on all their houses.

Nobody who has worked with Rodney for any length of time can stand the man. He is fundamentally two-faced and dishonest with his colleagues. He can't lie straight in bed. Any ACT MP who didn't want him removed as leader would be nuts.

But of course, timing is everything, and egos get in the way. Heather Roy has had hers stroked far too much, and was a fool to try and act against Hide prematurely. And she would be a lousy leader anyway.

Believe me, Boscawen despises Hide just as much as any of them, but is smart enough to know what side his bread is buttered on. He knows not to rock the boat.

This has nothing to do with ideology. Hide is just a lousy leader, and some of the egos in his caucus are bigger than the talent they represent. That's all there is to it. And you are mad if you think syncophancy and being a loyal lapdog gets you votes. Why don't you ask Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Winston Peters and Tau Henare how well that worked out for them?

The Veteran said...

Oh, and while I am about it. If Woger is going to put out a blurb attacking his coalition partner then he had better (1) ask permission of his Leader first and (2) at least get his sums right - DPF at Kiwiblog has done a comprehensive analysis of Woger's figures and exposed his muddled thinking and arithmetical shortcomings.

Douglas is incapable of being a team player. Never has and never will be. For him it's 'my way or the highway".

Two of the best decisions made by John Key were to exclude him and Peters from his cabinet.

Anonymous said...

The NZ political spectrum NEEDS an ideologically pure ACT. What is the point of their existence if they are not ideologically pure? They got 7 to 8% of the vote when they were first formed, and they were ideologically pure then. Saying they need to be "pragmatic" is like saying that we should all just succumb to the slide into socialism and abandon any clearly opposed position that would enable everyone to tell more clearly how far we had slidden.

When the big bust comes, (when socialism runs out of other people's money) it is essential that SOMEONE is still there saying "told you so", rather than everybody looking at their feet saying "what went wrong, no-one warned us about this". You know what happens then? We slide into Bolshevism or Pol Pot-ism or Naziism, looking for conspiracy theories about "who did it" - "big business" or "the Jews", or some such. None of which makes our problems anything other than worse, and indeed terminal.

I really agree with the poster's comment about the Anglican Church. Someone who sees "fundamentalism" emanating from the ANGLICANS is a raving loony paranoid who sees fundamentalists behind every tree and rock.

".....Finally Adolph and back to your post. Very few would see the Anglican church as captured by 'fundamentalists'. Captured by the Liberal elite yes ... and their adherents decrease by the minute as they walk away from a Church where PC rules supreme and bugger the 'Confession of Faith'."

HEAR, HEAR. C.S Lewis would have agreed. Here he is in the 1940's, in "Christian Apologetics":

" at the outset I must deal with an unpleasant business. It seems to the laymen that in the Church of England we often hear from our priests doctrine which is not Anglican Christianity......But I insist that wherever you draw the lines, bounding lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will cease either to be Anglican or to be Christian; and I suggest that the lines come a great deal sooner than many modern priests think. I think it is you duty to fix the lines clearly in your own minds, and if you wish to go beyond them, you must change your profession.

This is your duty not specially as Christians or as Priests, but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue........which so gravely scandalises the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held; what we complain of is your continuing your ministry after you have come to hold them........"

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Vet and anon.

Here's what I actually say about the Anglican Church in NZ - in a comment on another thread.

"I'm surprised you hadn't noticed that the Anglican Church, like ACT, is ripping itself apart as we speak. In the case of the Anglicans, over the issue of homosexuality."

Please note I did not infer that either the fundies or the raging libs were screwors or screwees in the case of NZ, simply that the church was ripping itself apart. Anybody who is half awake knows the church is seriously divided world wide over the issue of homosexuality, In some countries the fundies have carried the day and in other countries it is the ultra liberals.

BTW, that reminds me of the Wake Bros in Katanning in Western Australia. They had an engineering business in the 70s and the locals called them 'half' and 'wide.'

Anonymous said...

What a complete fucken tosser repeater you are trying to finger douglas and Roy for this. Even the dipshit media know it was Rodney Hides snots who leaked the Garrett saga. Ask Paul Holmes.

It was done last year. Get up to date.

Heine said...

Guys, why the obsession with "factions". Most ACT people I know both respect Sir Roger and Rodney equally. It seems only the media and the Nats who think there is a huge spilt within the party. Now we know that Heathers mate SEJ leaked the Garrett issue, made at the same time Rodney was overseas. (the anon before this post is fibbing or confused)

Anon 1.24pm - why stay anonymous, I think from the tone of your post I have figured out who you are.

Veteran, if you are saying that Peters and Douglas are equally as bad as each other then you are mad. I guess you missed all the excellent work he did repairing NZ when you lot stuffed it with Muldoon. He should have got given something in this government as it would have signalled that Key respects the hard work that he undertook.

All this religious stuff is doing my head in too.

The Realist said...

When Heather Roy was interviewed on TV with Rodney Hide recently, her mad staring eyes reminded me of someone else - Antonie Dixon.