Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Friends not foes

There has been much written since the election about the future of right wing parties.
Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives.
It seems that our only common link is we have is an overriding belief in personal responsibility.
We should focus on what we have in common, not that which divides us.
We are friends not foes.
By dividing ourselves we are only making the left stronger.

20 comments:

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I disagree Lou. By defining ourselves better (each group) we will appeal more to people who are currently politically centrist or disengaged.

pdm said...

Lindsay - we have National taking up the centrist ground - albeit somewhat left leaning these days.

What I think Lou is saying is that both the Conservatives and ACT are trying to take up the space to the right of National and if they work together there is room for both.

Redbaiter said...

No thanks- none of NZ's self described "iberals".

History shows the truth.

They destroy every party they become involved with.

Tinman said...

pdm, apart from when the great and good Ruth Richardson was leading the way National have always been left leaning.

Lou, I would agree, if only I agreed. I find the Conservatives ideas on religion and strictly limited freedom on thought, action and speech as repugnant as anything the Reds or any other of the communist-based clowns have come out with.

ACT was set up to represent those who genuinely believe in personal responsibility, the Conservatives to represent those who expect all to toe their very narrow, totally loathsome line.

Never the twain shall meet!

libertyscott said...

There IS room for a liberal party to the right of National AND a conservative party, although I expect both will be similar in many ways, there will be key differences.

The Conservative Party is already populist/leftwing on asset sales, and of course individual freedom on a range of issues is at best unimportant to it. The differentiating factor is clear, the question is whether those on the liberal half can get their act together - and it isn't ACT.

gravedodger said...

Craigs vehicle and Brash's Bomb crater are OIL and Water.
Sure put them in one container and no matter how long you shake it they will separate out.
Had the parsons son not seen a tent for his ego with an electable John Banks in the savvy seat of Epsom, then Craig may well have been able to employ Banks as his recognition face and who knows but Banks as the lifeboat for ACT no way. Would have done better with the 'RENA'
Conservative with fundamental christian support thats Banks.
Where was O'Brash's formidable intellect, tangled up in some skirt somewhere.
To succeed in the MMP environment we are now forced to work with, forget Peters, Dunne and any one man band that now includes a very confused picture of ACT with Banks as the public face.
What is needed is a party that can build, as ACT did in its early years, a broad based movement where policy and aims are the focus, not a destructive ego driven idiot.
As said elsewhere ACT was finished when Rodders "Lell in Fove', went around the world employing the "perks" he had built his reputation on, and then went to the freekin GYM.

Anonymous said...

"the question is whether those on the liberal half can get their act together"

No they won't. Because they will always end up waffling over such talisman irrelevancies as drug liberalization, poofs getting married, abortion and euthanasia.

"ACT was set up to represent those who genuinely believe in personal responsibility"

ACT - The Association of Consumers & Taxpayers was all about tight fiscal management, ending the treaty gravy train and law & order. All of the other libertine bullshit was part of Judd's "the liberal party" experiment - which was a complete clusterfuck and support generally ebbed from about 2003 onwards.

There is already a political party which caters to avaricious, selfish, nihilistic progressives:

www.libertarianz.org.nz

The Veteran said...

The closest thing Colin Craig came to being Conservative is when he highjacked the name. They are Muldoonist in economic policy and reactionary on social policy which is hardly a mix made in heaven.

Their position in the political spectrum is to the left of National alongside Winston First and United Future and one is fine and three's a crowd.

There is definitely a space for a Party to the right of National even though throughout its long history history National has tried to be a broad church Party encompassing both liberal and conservative viewpoints. When I look at the ACT list I see evidence of potential rejuvination. It may not be ACT as it was but I hope they will refocus and grow in some way, shape and form to once again be a credible political force.

MMP (which I personally think is a loathsome system with the potential for the tail to wag the dog) is all about the need to build coalitions and while you may, on occasions, have to hold your nose, unless the political Right can do that, then we are leaving the door open to a Labour/Greens/Mana Government.

Just a pity that some 'Clowns' on the Right are too dumb to figure that out.

Jeremy Harris said...

I view conservatism as being economically liberal and socially conservative.

Having a "conservative" party that is both economically leftist and socially conservative is mis-named entity.

However reading between the lines I think many of the existing members are economically liberal but Colin Craig either isn't - or has chosen not to be be, a scaring the horses type situation - and since he has the gold (at the moment) he makes the rules.

There is no reason as the party develops and moves into the territory of a genuine movement that those voices won't take precidence.

Lou Taylor said...

I didn't say it would be easy just necessary

Anonymous said...

Liberty Scott

What simplistic crap. Selling assets is not right wing and keeping them is not left wing.

You sell entities when they become a liabilty (i.e. unproductive) and you keep them when they are productive and cover their cost of debt and equity capital. If, as in the case of our power generation assets they produce a strong constistent enough return as ours certainly do why sell them? If its to retire debt then get rid of the myriad of poor policies and govt departments that dont earn a return. Does that make sense?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

LS

Your comment is simplistic idiotic crap, worthy of a Murupara forth former.

One sells assets not when they become a liability but beforehand, otherwise one does not realise a good price. One also sells assets in order to redeploy the capital for a better and more productive or profitable use.

If you stop to think for more than a minute you might realise that the sale of some assets might well avert further sovereign credit downgrades. Try calculating the value of that and adding it to the notional return on capital.

Mort said...

Adolph: but thats the point, National aren't spending the money on other worthwhile assets. They are using it to replace core infrastructure like schools or hospital buildings. CHC has shown them that various govts have had their heads in the sand and that they have blown the EQC fund on Welfare when it should have put aside for a rainy day, or at the very least the money should have been used for EQ protection in core infrastructure, and not pissed away on schemes that are now a millstone around the collective country's neck.
The expenditure will not help the credit rating in the slightest, apart from the fact that it won't have to be borrowed.
It should be spent on Mines, Dams and irrigation, Drilling rigs, Gas and Coal power plants, or repaying debt outright.
The rampant deficit needs to be addressed. We simply cannot afford the luxury of 50000 Civil servants obstructing the Wealth generators from creating jobs.
Redirecting those civil servants into useful industries producing tangible goods or services of worth to foreigners is where the direction needs to be. There are some areas where a larger civil service are required, the patents office being the best example. Perhaps if they grew that department, they may even be able to subcontract to Bigger nations to speed up their patents processing.... it will innovations that are currently locked up in intellectual rights queues which will provide entire industries for the betterment of Mankind.

libertyscott said...

Anonymous - Ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange is fundamentally Marxist, so the state owning businesses IS a leftwing position. None of the SOEs the Nats are seeking to part sell are even conceivably natural monopolies. If you think state ownership of business is compatible with a free market/small government view of economics you need your head read.

There are multiple reasons for the state to sell SOEs, these include:
- Avoiding taxpayers injecting capital into businesses that compete with the private sector and which bear inherent risks (e.g. Air NZ and Solid Energy are hardly secure investments);
- Introducing innovation and experience from the private sector, especially major foreign operators to spur competition and efficiency for users (e.g. the state owning 3 power retailers/generators is seriously suboptimal)
- Injecting a strategic investor who can leverage marketing/ purchasing and network benefits for the business (Air NZ needs this).
- Getting a board and management appointed that isn't decided by Ministers and bureaucrats, but by the people actually risking their money in the business.
- Getting rid of the Cabinet level conflict of interest between ownership and regulation (e.g. remember when the last government sought Qantas to buy part of Air NZ, even though it was grossly anti-competitive - as it was driven by money and realising a return).

As someone who argues more than most in favour of cutting back the state, it's a bit of a strawman to say that shouldn't be a priority.

Adolf - You too, your comment is really that level of a Murupara fifth former given the typo and the inability to see that state ownership is more than just about making money from the business, but about how this distorts the market, stymies development of the business and can result in sub-optimal performance for users (e.g. are the 3 state power SOES really that interested in being competitive with each other?).

Oh and earlier anonymous? ACT was actually meant to be the vehicle to implement the proposals in Roger Douglas's book "Unfinished Business" about replacing income tax with compulsory superannuation, health insurance and education accounts, nothing to do with the Treaty or law and order - learn your history you rude cunt, you're the one fussed about "poofs" etc, nobody else.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I see the OECD doesn't seem to agree with you learned chaps on this subject.

Redbaiter said...

Oh yeah, the OECD, they'd know.

Anonymous said...

Adolf.

So one sells profit making assets so as to allow one to borrow more?

You wouldn't make it in the murapara forth form, you might pass basket weaving in the loony bin.

Kurt said...

Interesting to see Keynesian proponents here trying to defend Govt owning assets.

Anonymous said...

I think the left - right debate has got a bit blurred and its now a nonsense to waffle on about them. Looking at Labour and National reminds me of the working animals in Animal Farm looking in at the pigs and men. It had become hard to tell them apart. Sensible policy is good and stupid policy bad irrespective of who trots it out.

@ liberterianz 4.13 I like much of the Libeterian view but believe that ignoring morals costs. Stuff goes on but govt's shouldn't legalize things like homosexuality and prostitution. Doing so makes things people do behind closed doors, because they rightly have respect for the mainstream view, perceived as acceptable in public. Morals, or lack of them, have sunk empires.

Heine said...

Honestly, why does Redhater think he has a coherent grasp on any matter?