If you were elected as the President of the ACT party, and if you had the power and ability to make some big changes within ACT what would that be and how would you impliment it? I am not looking for what ACT shouldn't be doing, but what you think ACT SHOULD be doing to get 15% of the party vote and at least 5 MP's voted in. It is possible for this to happen, so don't bother telling me that it is impossible. People from all parties are welcome to comment. No holes barred. What would you do?
13 comments:
The best ACT has ever done in an opinion poll is 11% or thereabouts after the TKC by-election in 1998. It has never polled above 7% with any regularity, and as we well know, the second anniversary of ACT's collapse in polling will be next month, where is has never really polled above 2%. So, I'm sorry, I disagree that 15% and 5 seats is possible. I think that ACT's poor polling and collapse in infrastructure has got to the point of no recovery, and the public perception of the party is now of a "Jim Anderton Party" on the right.
I am not interested in handing out specific free advice for ACT, other than to note that ACT has always searched for one single silver bullet to fix all its problems and gain that clear breakthrough in the minds of voters. What ACT needed to do years ago were the things that all successful parties do which is:
1) open and transparent internal organisational structures, allowing ambitious and effective members the opportunity to thrive
2) a continual process of signing up new members and renewing the existing membership
3) regular grassroots activity like fundraising, social clubs, cottage meetings, newsletters
4) advocating policies and solutions relevant to your voting base, instead of getting caught up in the hurly burly of daily politics irrelevant to most people
5) an inclusive approach towards your voting base
6) a careful eye on your core consituencies to ensure that they do not become disaffected.
7) a tolerant attitude to factionalism, which is a natural part of internal competitive politicking and not something that should cause a party to shake itself to pieces over.
None of this is rocket science or a big secret. But I suppose its a lot easier to announce a "rock star" individual as a candidate or bring in a PR expert to relaunch your brand instead of doing a lot of little things that need continual attention.
I'm also quite confident that ACT will continue to seek the magic silver bullet to fix all its problems instead of behaving like a real political party. They've had 13 years and over $10 million of dollars in funding - perhaps as much as $14 million. I fail to see how more time or money could make a colossal difference now that they are back at "square one" in terms of polling and support, and probably in a worse position in terms of organisation and membership numbers.
And could I ask that before any of the young ACT pups leap in and criticise my assessment of the above, please actually point out the errors in my comment rather than simply accuse me of being on some kind of jihad to crush the ACT Party by making comments on blogs. After all, why would I need to single-handedly crush ACT with blog comments when it appears that the party has done a bang up job of doing it to itself though neglect and incompetence over a decade?
ZING~!
Actually there are some darn good ideas in there, you sure you don't wanna come back Aaron? :)
With specific reference to your first two points:
What we need is a structure that allows the cream to rise to the top. I know every party is ruled by some extent by who's friends with who, who owes what to whom, and who has revealing pics of who with what etc.
But if we could truly have a party devoid of all that, it'd be amazing what we could achieve.
I must point out that ACT had, in my opinion, the most talented caucus since the Fourth Labour Government's first term lineup. However of course people come and go (either by their choice or voters' choice). So if we don't have the courage to give the up-and-comers the ball and let them run with it, all we'll have is a talent vaccuum at the top, and we will fail.
Good observations Aaron.
And what would you do Andrew?
I hear Muriel Newman and Graeme Scott suggested as names for the ACT presidency as well.
Daniel - great to have you in the blogosphere! I look forward to seeing more comments from you.
Regarding the subject, I will need to reply in a different slant,
given that:
a) I’m no expert on NZ political history
b) I do however have opinions of how I want a country run, as a simple, law-abiding, reasonably idealistic taxpayer
I can’t say what ACT could do or has done wrong, but I can FEEL when something is right or wrong, though I can’t put my finger on it.
What did I like about the ACT party? My consciousness of ACT came about during one of those elections in the mid-late '90s. Coming from abroad, I had no interest at all in politics, and government policies here I found were pretty questionable in absolute morality and direction. ACT was the only party which stood for what I wanted, a refreshing alternative to everyone I felt have gone too liberal and laissez-faire for my liking.
What, as an everyday working-class NZ'er, do I think National did right during the last election that ACT could pick up on? Well, for starters, it was Brash himself. Until Brash came along, everyone else was just a politically-correct loudmouth who does nothing but nit-pick and agitate, or find insignificant faults, as if they had nothing better to do in office.
Brash appeals to a lot of sensible, ordinary people because:
1. His intonation, diction, and choice of words comes across as being genuine. (Peter Dunn has a similar effect) Other politicians talk like grandstanders -- those who ordinary people cannot identify with. Brash comes across as being real and therefore credible.
2. Despite his soft tone of voice, he had the guts to give that Orewa speech which was heard loud and clear by everyone who had very strong views on the subject, but were never vocally expressed in the interest of political correctness. The words he used didn’t come across as necessarily militant either, but of a definitive substance where fairness towards ALL parties involved was the whole point.
3. While politics can get dirty, and accusations fly wholesale, Brash during interviews actually acknowledged anything which previous governments, regardless of party, have done right or wrong, the way normal people approach a problem at work.
I will not even claim to be absolutely correct in every single issue I may have touched on, but I only know what I feel as a citizen who works everyday and has no real interest in hearing political speeches. I know what I want for my country -- common-sense law enforcement which dishes out real consequences to malicious offenders, an educational system that actually teaches kids the basics PROPERLY like reading or spelling and history, makes everyone accountable for their actions, cuts/limits/restricts dole-outs to those who have nothing better to do than tag fences, get pregnant for the DPB, or turn into criminals, reduce influence of militant radicals like the Greens in favour of realistic solutions, petrol taxes that go towards roads, plug loopholes that allow misuse of any sort of publicly-sourced funding (including student loans used for binge drinking), barring non-residents from owning real estate in the country (pushing prices up for those who actually LIVE here), and while I'm at it, death penalty(!) to anyone resonsible for running a P lab or supplying it.
Sum-up:
1. Loud grandstanding politician-style does NOT endear anyone to real people.
2. If the voters feel they can actually trust the person (NOT the party) and identify with him, he gets those votes
3. If there is no credible opponent, voters will stick with status quo, leaving well enough alone
4. Real people have issues that those in power do not tackle head-on, because of what is "perceived" to be right or politically correct; this does the voters no favour
5. Citizens listen to real people who don't merely RAISE an issue, but appear to fully understand it from all angles.
6. Mud-slinging and shit-stirring for the hell of it does NOT appeal to real people. They want ANSWERS to important issues. Regardless of which party speaks up.
7. As partisan as politics is, real people want their politicians, whether incumbent or opposition, to work TOGETHER on as many issues as possible and get this country moving forward.
Well lads, nice to see you all have it covered! The country is in good hands. just need to win Big Wednesday lotto now! :-)
Some great comments here thanks. Any more?
Given that there have been plenty of constructive comments, here's a less constructive one.
If I were the ACT Party President, to quote Bill Ralston, I'd be shooting myself. I'd be pouring petrol over myself and throwing myself off Auckland's tallest building.
Maybe you have been sniffing too much petrol Ed?
One of the main things I'd do is to keep in constant touch with the grassroots. It's vital that all members are part of the loop, via a periodic newsletter, surveys, not just letters asking for donations.
We'd need to revitalise the membership in all electorates. To that end we have to pick people to lead them who know how to grow organisations.
Also we need to get our MPs and ex-MPs out and about as much as is possible, get them talking to the electorate committees and even better, public meetings.
In particular let's reinvent Rodney from scandal-buster to statesman like he was supposed to. A series of public meetings on where ACT sees society heading and where we want it to be. Could attract a good crowd with the economy doing downwards. We could have an event well worth seeing, much like Muldoon did back in 1974.
Let's target more electorates, there's no reason why not. We've nearly won Taranaki-King Country and we've held Wellington Central, so the potential is there. Let's pick some targets and go nuts.
The Liberal tag. Help or hindrance? I'm leaning toward the latter, mainly as the liberal label has been hijacked so much by the left that noone seems to truly know what 'liberal' truly means anymore.
It's more important we explain what 'ACT' stands for rather than having to waste time defining the word 'liberal' as well.
When I travelled around Central Otago with Gerry Eckhoff in 1999 I saw real potential for winning votes from the farming sector. We should be seen as the farmers' champion, by defending property rights and acknowledging their massive contribution to the economy.
None of this would conflict with our other major target groups - students and business (big and small).
We can't rely on National moving back toward the centre. Therefore we must differentiate ourselves as much as possible from National while not going to war on them. Remember, the real enemy is over to the left!
The Greens have done it with regard to Labour, we can and must do it too.
Main points -reinvention and reinvigoration. 15% is not an unrealistic target, even if we don't make it, it's safer to aim high and fall just short than to aim low and achieve that.
That's enough brain splattering for now!
Great ideas Dobegoo.
What I liked about ACT so many years ago is that it had an inspirational quality about it. It was the party that the successful and dynamic supported. I liked that and wanted to identify with that by voting for it.
Now the inspiration is gone. The entrepreneurial spirit is not a part of it anymore. I think Act should concentrate on being a small and powerful party rather than a grass-roots let's-please-everyone party.
For this they need more successful business personalities and fewer politicians.
Post a Comment