Aside from the Pirate Party, which is not yet registered, ACT is a party which i also have a measure of support for. Despite the fact both parties allow dual membership, I never got as far as joining ACT because of a few areas where i disagree with them. (some policies i don't like, and some that i do like that ACT ignores, such as drug liberalization)
From what i've seen, giving Brash the leadership would be a very popular move amongst ACT supporters, though i get a feeling that this is only because it would alleviate "Hide's" popularity problem, that he would take ACT back to being principled, as opposed to "Hide's" populist shenanigans.
Would Brash be a good fit for the ACT leadership? well I think so. His personal political opinions and values closely match what you would expect "pricipled ACT" to be, and he has experience leading parliamentary parties. The thing is, i can say the exact same thing about Rodney Hide. I think Rodney is a good fit for the ACT leadership, his personal political opinions and values closely match what you would expect "pricipled ACT" to be, and Rodney has experience leading parliamentary parties.
Ok... next question. All else being equal, would i support Don Brash taking over from Rodney Hide? well, probably not. It's not gonna make any difference, ACT will still be the same. The problem was never with the leader to begin with.
So I don't think that ACT "needs" a new brand, a new personality, some fresh thought and a "principle" transfusion? well actually i do. I just think replacing the leader is like having a heart transplant when you only needed a new lung. A very healthy heart it may be, but it still won't make you better. The leader is just the leader, he is not the party.
What would it take for me to think that Don Brash taking over would be a good thing? well, it would take new blood to be infused throughout the whole current party structure. New Brash leaning former Nats on the board, mixed into the party list (at least #1, #4 and #8), possibly one or two current National MPs, new former Nat members brought in as parliamentary staffers for ACT, and new "trusted advisors". If you get new former National financiers along with that, that's just a bonus. In other words, enough new stuff to challenge the clout of the existing party machinery and get their own way sometimes (as much as this would disappoint those involved in said party machinery). It wouldn't just look like a new party doing things differently, it would be a new party doing things differently within similar principles. (as would a merger between ACT and a new post-failed-coup-Brash led party)
If it sounds like a National Party takeover, well i guess it kinda would be, but it would also kinda be a split within National, and if ACT becomes a useful, usable vehicle for the National splinter taking it over, then they won't let that go to waste. That is what I think would be a good thing for ACT supporters. Co-incidentally, it reminds me of the Libs/Nats coalition across the ditch, though unlike in Australia, you could vote for either rather than both. I would call that a win for democracy too.
UPDATE: I note Cactus Kate's opinion, which seems in a sense similar to mine (though more specific):
Don Brash's first job is to clean out the Party of anyone who comes with coup baggage. Slit the throats of every MP, staffer and Party worker who has undermined his predecessor and build a new team of people around him. I would hazard a guess all of these will come from outside ACT because ACT is far too factioned. And I doubt any of Hide's team will want to stay on to assist what is effectively a National take-over of ACT. That's right, the Party was taken over by Brash, a Nat and his mostly National supporters because ACT people couldn't collectively keep their shit together and stop infighting. I thought it would be a cold day in hell before Douglas passed the parcel to a true Nat. But there you go.
0 comments:
Post a Comment