Derek Cheng reports that a new right-wing party has been formed.
The name "Reform Party" is a tired retread. The National Party was formed in 1936, when the United and Reform Parties merged. The Reform/United coalition showed ineptitude in managing the economy during the Great Depression, so perhaps the name is apt.
They have a website up, but it’s hardly inspiring stuff. It’s pretty clear Reform’s just an ACT spinoff, pedalling more of the same failed far-right policies, and rehashing much of the hatred against beneficiaries and the poor we have heard so often of late. Perhaps they figure that when we bomb out in the Rugby World Cup this year we’ll need a new national sport, and we’re already world-class at beneficiary-bashing.
I don’t know if anyone notable is behind the new party, but if they don’t get any big names they’ll just fade into obscurity or irrelevance. Names like Don Brash are often floated when a new party of the right is suggested. The neoliberal policies being proposed by the new party would fit nicely with Brash's own small-minded small-government philosophy.
The only name I can find associated with the party is an Andrew McLennan, although former ACT candidate Peter Tashkoff designed their website. Derek Cheng’s article describes McLennan as a lawyer, though there is no Andrew McLennan listed on the Law Society’s register of practising lawyers. So I don’t know anything about him. [update: I searched again today and found an Andrew Macalister McLennan who is Christchurch-based. I assume he's the guy. I'm not sure why when I searched the register on Friday I didn't come across his name. Odd. But I probably just screwed up in my search, although it's tempting to put it down to a vast right-wing conspiracy. Anyway, apologies to Mr McLennan]
There have been murmurings for months about the formation of a new right-wing party. I expect Reform will be talking with a few past and present Actoids (Muriel Newman, John Ansell, and the like), if indeed those folk aren’t already involved. And there are enough unhappy people within ACT to add further support, thanks to the inept leadership of Rodney Hide.
If all the people who believed in far-right economic policies voted for the same party then that party would most likely exceed the 5% threshold needed to win seats in parliament. The trouble of course is that some of these people vote National, and some of them vote ACT. There just doesn’t seem enough space at the moment for both ACT and a new far-right party to survive. If Reform does get a leader or candidates with some prominence it could be a disaster for ACT. A spilt right-wing vote might further reduce the already-marginal chances of ACT winning any seats this year.
Without ACT providing any seats, and with his other allies engaged in civil war, John Key may have to rely on gaining an outright majority or near-majority to rule. So the formation of a new right-wing party is potentially good news for the left, and bad news for Key.
It’s been a terrible week for Key. Dogged by revelations about wasteful government spending (i.e. those BMWs, Community Max), and having to deal with an opinion poll that reveals that the public really don’t like his asset sales plan, he now has to deal with the possibility that a crucial support partner will be further undermined.
Friday, February 18, 2011
6 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"And there are enough unhappy people within ACT to add further support, thanks to the inept leadership of Rodney Hide."
ReplyDeleteOh dear what possible insight can you offer as a bona fide leftie on this - you have no actual knowledge about ACT internally. And your antenna for politics isn't that great.
Consider, how many parties entered parliament under MMP without an existing MP?
Consider how many parties entered parliament without an existing MP since the 1930's?
What are the financial and otherwise benefits of having MPs that essentially makes for a substantial barrier to entry?
I suspect you support all the regulatory measures to lessen political competition in New Zealand. The broadcasting rules alone make it almost impossible for any new political force to enter our parliament.
The new party offers nothing for the left - they will be fighting for irrelevance with the Libs (in case you forgot a party that stands candidates and is arguably on some spectural analysis to the right of ACT)
Oh dear what possible insight can you offer as a bona fide leftie on this - you have no actual knowledge about ACT internally. And your antenna for politics isn't that great.
ReplyDeleteSo all is love and happiness in ACT? Pull the other one. So the caucus ructions last year, the public departure of high profile members, the bleating in the blogosphere by many members saying how disillusioned with ACT they are, and the appallingly low polling of ACT are just imaginary? And you say my political antenna isn't great?
Someone whose party is sitting at around 1-2% in the polls shouldn't be too quick to attack the political antennae of others. Glasshouses, stones etc.
What are the financial and otherwise benefits of having MPs that essentially makes for a substantial barrier to entry?
Why does everything have to have a direct financial benefit for it to be justifiable? Politics is not simply a money game, and parliamentary representation is not simply a commodity to be purchased.
Having some barriers to small parties (e.g. the 5% threshold) is essential for the maintenance of a stable democracy, and reduces the chance of extremist parties holding the balance of power. If that means we don't have a "perfect" democracy, then so be it. I'd rather live under a democracy that allows for the vast majority to have representation and for stable government to exist than live under a "perfect" democracy where the number of parties in parliament makes it difficult to govern.
I made it clear in my post that the new party's only chance is if it gets a prominent candidate. If it does it could well do damage to ACT. If not it will be an irrelevance. Hence the reference in the title to "hope".
Methinks Diak protests a little too much.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that it is very very hard for parties without parliamentary representation to win seats, Scott's post doesn't say that the danger for ACT is that Reform would win seats. The danger is that they would draw votes away from ACT.
ACT itself only has Parliamentary representation because of its slightly sordid little affirmative action deal in Epsom, if ACT can only offer an extra MP or two beyond that gimme in Epsom, then the deal becomes a lot less attractive to National. One needs no insight into internal ACT knife fighting to recognise the truth in that.
On that knife fighting, the wounds are still evident. Healthy, united parties simply don't have the sort of ructions we have seen. At the very least they can usually muster a standing ovation or unanimous applause from their caucus to the leader's opening speech in a parliamentary session.
The simple fact is that ACT survives not on its touted rigour of thought, but by a combination of the aforemention affirmative action in Epsom and an ad hoc pandering to various narrow populist slices of the electorate.
We've seen them run lines to the sensible sentencing people, (and didn't that work out so well in the form of identity thief Garret), Franks flirted with the religious right blathering in leaflets about protecting marriage, there have been NRA styled rhetoric around Guns at different points, and the Gibbs inspired (funded?) shift further crazy on AGW.
Of most interest to me though, as an outsider, is that clause in the coalition agreement (pge 3) saying that ACTgets resources to do research into policy matters. I assume that this is unrelated to ministerial or other 'normal' resourcing. Very strange. If its public money, I'd like to know what exactly is being done with it, and what budget it comes from. If the money isn't public money, then I assume that it's National party resources that were traded for confidence and supply. Which would be a whole 'nother level of sordid.
Perhaps you could help an outsider out, Dick?
What departures? There was one MP that had the good sense to resign, do so honourably and was replaced.
ReplyDeleteAs for listening to bleating - do you want to be treated like a sheep?
ACT polling is broadly consistent with where it normally is this time in the cycle. It comes off a much lower base since the leadership of Brash and Key. Historically its higher, the higher the dissatisfaction with National - that dissatisfaction is low at the moment and ACT is supporting a National led Govt.
As for direct financial benefit you clearly do not understand what I meant – I don’t know whether I can be bothered explaining the advantages of incumbency and plethora of other institutional and other barriers to entry into the New Zealand Parliament (the threshold is but one). In short it’s now near impossible for any new political force to enter it (more likely the existing number of parties will thin). There would have to be a change so politically disruptive that did not result in a competitive response by the existing actors. Given the “seawalls” erected around Parliament by both National and Labour it would have to be huge. And yes that is bad for democracy. The lack of any real risk of external competition breeds an unresponsive Parliament; it drains vitality.
The two old parties spend millions of your taxes (ACT way less so) on polling – they have a very good understanding of the various currents in voterland. There is no evidence whatsoever that a huge number of voters are floating on or about ACT’s position on the spectrum but dislike ACT so intently that they looking to another vehicle. If that were so, National in particular (Labour on some issues but overall much less so) would be positioning to take that ground. Is that happening?
As to new entrants as spoilers, centre right voters interested in ACT have a better than average understanding of the electoral system. You also discount existing electoral competition to the right of ACT that has never got anywhere.
All of that said ACT will have to make out its case but that has been the case since 96 so no change there.
Look, if your electoral strategy is to hope for electoral loopiness on the centre right you are missing the point. The issue is that Labour is unattractive in terms of a likely Govt to those voters that swing between both National and Labour. They still like Key as compared to Goff. And Labour’s policy positioning seems to be about its core voters – not those who decide which among the two is to govern.
Labour is doing the traditional playbook. First term out of Govt, reconnect and secure the base with a transitional leadership offer up economic loopy ideas that the base go for. Second term, new leadership, drop some economic dopey policy, gauge and rely on a growing dissatisfaction with incumbent Govt by the swing voters.
Government is about loosing voters in a sustainable way; Key is quite good on that score; as good as Clark but more attractive personally. It’s a credit to him that he does so in tough economic times when Clark had the best of global economic conditions.
Poor old Pascal - no deal Epsom voters decided for themselves - as they will do so again. They are not party pawns. The vast majority want a John Key led Govt they decide how best to vote to secure that. And actually they have got what a majority of Epsom voters wanted.
ReplyDeleteAs for the confidence and supply agreement it can only cover Ministerial Services money – you are so interested but too lazy to write to the Minster I bet. Strangely the agreement with the Maori party covers an issue of Parliamentary funding which is a bit improper.
The rest of what you say isn't worthy of a response.
I'm not quite sure why you think anything in your first para contradicts what I said Chris. I'll admit to being a bit cheeky with the affirmative action comment, but in truth, that joke is actually a generous reading of the situation for ACT.
ReplyDeleteYour protestation that there is no deal, is a farce. You know it, I know it, little fishies in the sea know it. National hasn't campaigned hard against Rodney, and hasn't countered Rodney's own campaigning which is broadly along the lines you cite. ie that a vote for Rodney is a great way to help National secure the treasury benches.
By any measure, that's a fucking embarrassment for a party that prides itself on standing on the merits and market based philosophy. As you so rightly state, the votes Rodney gets are not for ACT, they are for a national led government. The less likely Rodney is to bring bums in on his coat tails, the less that strategy is worth while. Which would be central the point.
Your second para doesn't really help I'm afraid. Ministers are entitled to funding from min. services clearly enough. But that doesn't really explain why ACT apparently gets funding separate from that, which is what the agreement implies.
I'm also hardly shocked that ACT would happily sit in coalition with a government that has deals that it thinks improper. All during the crusade against Peters I had the strongest impression that Hide's main objection was simple jealousy based on projection. The two are in fact very similar.
And I am likewise completely unsurprised that you think the rest is not worth responding to. I agree, of course, in that self evident truths are not good fodder for conversation.