One of those delicious weeks

I've been watching the headless chook action on the right this week with great interest.  After the speed wobbles of recent weeks, three interesting things happened in the past two days:

• Former ACT MP Stephen Franks was selected by National as their candidate in the prime seat of Wellington Central.
• Roger Douglas gave a press conference at Parliament, outlining his policy agenda which would be the negotiating point between ACT and National in a post election scenario. It's the Blue Agenda, back to 1988 all over again.
• Bill English and John Key ruled out the idea of Douglas in a senior position in a National-led government, betraying the startling assumption that they will be able to govern by themselves!

Anyone who knows National Party members knows that the majority of them have regarded Key's centrist positioning of the party over recent months as an encumbrance, a happy deceit to be held before voters until the day after the election.

You can tell this by the fact that moderates are not getting selections in this year's round: extremists are. And you can also tell it by the fact that the senior Nat moderates are either leaving (e.g. Katherine Rich), or not winning selections (e.g. Jackie Blue in Auckland Central).

Now if you assume as I do that "Slippery" John's biggest driver is to form a government come what may, then you realise that the small detail of Roger Douglas being the price paid will be just another one of those dead rats he swallows. It's not that he has an extremist agenda himself: it is that he would be the enabler of such an agenda. That just became more visible with the disinterment of Douglas.

This all fits in well with an agenda that swept around Wellington a couple weeks ago: that National's planning a "Shock and Awe" agenda of following on the 80s/90s agenda if it wins the election, and then spending two years trying to get everyone forgive and forget.

The events of the week suddenly make that rumour, which seemed frankly a bit nuts, a big step more credible.

Anyhow I'll enjoy the conversations this sparks at this weekend's centenary of the 1908 Blackball strike. Back on deck next week.

Comments

[Insolent Prick]

"You can tell this by the fact that moderates are not getting selections in this year's round: extremists are. And you can also tell it by the fact that the senior Nat moderates are either leaving (e.g. Katherine Rich), or not winning selections (e.g. Jackie Blue in Auckland Central)."

Sorry, Jordon, but you seem to have confused National Party selection processes with Labour Party selection processes. It's a bit rich for you to point out the National MPs who are leaving: National is in the luxurious position to guarantee places for existing MPs. Only a couple of National MPs are leaving Parliament. Compare that with the stampede of tired, ageing, out-of-touch Labour MPs who would rather choose retirement than face the humiliation of getting beaten out of office.

Just because you got the nod of the party hierarchy to stand in Hunua--the strongest National seat in the country, and one with which an extreme liberal socialist who has publicly said that he never intends to work in the private sector seems to have zero connection--does not mean that the National Party uses the same selection methods.

In the Labour Party, the views of all the local party members count for just one of the seven votes to select the candidate. Labour Head Office always gets its own way in selections. David Benson-Pope wasn't wanted in Dunedin, because Head Office determined he was too much of a liability.

In the National Party, sixty locally-elected delegates make a democratic decision on who the National candidate should be.

I note that you highlight that Jackie Blue--a "Nat moderate", did not get selected in Auckland Central, and that this is a sign that National is imposing extremists on the electorate. It's a pity, Jordon, that you're resorting to your usual line of puffery and ignorance, because I know when you try to come up with a decent argument, you can almost achieve it.

For your information, four people were in the running for Auckland Central. Two men, and two women. The previous candidate, Pansy Wong, was not in the running, having picked up the nomination for the new, safe seat of Botany a month earlier. Three of the nominees were social liberals, and one a social conservative. The winning nominee, Nikki Kaye, is a young, social liberal professional who typifies the demographics of the seat more than any other nominee in the running.

I saw some fascinating numbers around Auckland Central, Jordon. It's the most winnable seat for National in the whole Auckland region. 65% of the population is under 40. They are working, young professionals who don't like government interfering in their lives. They are sick of paying excess tax to bloated Wellington bureaucrats. On current polling, it is a National seat. Nikki Kaye has this going for her.

On the other side, Judith Tizard is generally regarded as the laziest MP in the country. Like you, she has never worked in the private sector. While her electorate is young, hard-working, aspirational, educated and professional, Judith is tired, lazy, negative, ignorant, and unprofessional.

Seems to me, Jordon, that your slight against National candidates is really just your resentment that you've been selected for a seat you don't represent, while National is choosing candidates that can communicate with their voters.

Nice try, Jordon, but try a little harder next time.

[Monty]

I'll agree with for once Jordan - but not for the reasons you give.
the IRD buggered up and admitted to a massive mistake
Bay-gate is major news showing up the cronyism that has become the hallmark of Labour
and the Roy Morgan Poll has Natonal extending it's lead over labour (and Act up as well)

[rjs131]

Jordan, i live in auckland central. It is the first time i am voting in this electorate.

Why should i vote for her? What special qualities does she have? Why is IP wrong?

[polaris]

Such a "delicious" week you're still 17 points behind. Must be fun.

[Clint Heine]

Burned Jordan. IP said it all.

Polaris is right, the most delicious part is seeing Labour slip down again. Ouch.

[tim barclay]

The only shock and awe you will be facing is certain defeat in a seat where you would be the most unelectable candidate possible. Indeed your performance will be so bad I doubt you will get another selection anywhere ever. As for you trying to connect the two dots of Jackie Blue and Katherine Rick and sprinkle in a bit of Roger Douglas fresh from the dead, dream on mate

[GNZ]

I doubt national would go back on it's promises in a shock and awe manner. But nice strategy to talk about your disbelief in the rumor in order to help spread it.

On the other hand, as to if national is going left or right what matters is not what National's strategy is but more what the result is. So National could be actively promoting more liberal candidates but if the party is putting forward conservatives that becomes a bit irrelevant. I don't know what the net result for national is.

[anon]

"This all fits in well with an agenda that swept around Wellington a couple weeks ago: blah blah blah ... "

No "agenda" "swept around Wellington" that I noticed in the last few months, and I tend to know these things.

You just made it up.

[Policy Parrot]

"In the Labour Party, the views of all the local party members count for just one of the seven votes to select the candidate. Labour Head Office always gets its own way in selections. David Benson-Pope wasn't wanted in Dunedin, because Head Office determined he was too much of a liability."

If you don't actually know a party selection works, you shouldn't comment IP. That statement quoted is a load of bollocks. The LEC (which is democratically elected) has three votes, Head Office has three votes, and there is a floor vote to put a delegate on the 7-strong selection panel. Therefore, if a candidate has sufficient local support, a local selectee can override the wishes of Head Office. And the viability of this route should have been highlighted by the victory of Russell Fairbrother over Stuart Nash for the Napier seat. Yet you rely on inaccuracies and mistruths much like your preferred political party.

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan, I'm just waiting to see how you are going to tell all them Waikato cockies how those shining new power pylons will be good for them.

[Clint Heine]

Parrot... for somebody who is unashamedly Labour I would have thought you'd show a little bit of honesty about it. One example (Fairbrother) isn't enough to fool us one little bit. Head Office, especially since Clark has been in charge has all the say. That is why we don't see anybody with sympathies to Goff getting anywhere near a selection victory.

How many regional committes have fought and won against Head Office Parrot? Didn't think so.

[Clint Heine]

Delicious = media talking about ACT every day
More delicious = Waiting for your blog post explaining your list "position" for the Labour Northern List.

Fairs fair Jordan.