After the election I penned a column the subbie titled "ACT's Future".
It was requested that I complete a follow-up this past week on the announcement that John Banks is the new ACT Leader. By Friday afternoon I did contemplate submitting one word starting with "f", ending with a "d" [“Fricked”? – Editor]. Shortest. Column. Ever.
There's another word starting with "f" and ending in a "d" that's slightly more positive - forward. Which is what ACT has to do. Move forward.
My piece in December discussed moving forward from the untidy, unhelpful and divisive libertarian, conservative and classical liberal labels. I suggested moving forward from pointing at members and candidates and taunting them with such if you didn't agree with their philosophy.
Didn't want the job
Bottom line is John Banks was the last man standing. Even if he didn't want the job as leader which I believe to be the truth. He had to take it.
How silly would it have been to have an MP in parliament and a party leader outside? The best Beltway Drinking game would have been for journalists to catch the two out having conflicting opinions and direction. And then Banks with himself. Quite apart from the constitutional matters, a co-leadership would have been similarly weak.
Never an ounce of pragmatism embracing difference … until Banks
As history tells us, ACT has never been a party of consensus. It has been a party of aggressive, individualistic thinkers, small businesspeople and agitators including students, bored housewives and grumpy old retired people. All proud to state they don't take orders in life from anyone. Those differences have never been embraced as ACT has never had a single ounce of pragmatism until Banks' appearance on the scene.
No-one else
Amazingly, the decision to appoint Banks as leader was unanimous by the board. I don't think we need to break out the trees for hugs and smoke peace pipes. There wasn't anyone else.
As worthy as some contenders for the job might have been, I expect someone would rather bathe in ice for half an hour listening to the latest soundtrack from Glee while eating chopped liver than accept the leadership of ACT. Why on earth would you want the job?
Catherine Isaac is the obvious choice but her new job in charge of Charter School implementation is too important. In addition I wouldn't wish the job of leading John Banks on anyone, least of all Isaac who is one of the few bridge builders in the party and a very lovely woman.
Three sides to Banks
I believe there are at least three sides to John Banks. The social conservative. The entrepreneur. Then there is the deep political pragmatist. He's lost elections and he's won them. He remains as emotionally void and cold in victory as he does in defeat.
Of the three sides to Banks I can identify I respect the hard-working street fighting entrepreneur. I can laugh off his moments of deep social conservatism. I can also see the advantage now in ACT having a deep political pragmatist.
Peter Dunne and Winston Peters are of similar vintage and ilk. Both are still in Parliament long after most with any real principle left or right have come and gone.
In 1995 Dunne formed the United Party with a group of rag-tag pragmatists. In 1996 with the exception of Dunne they were booted out. Dunne found new friends and re-formed as United Future in 2000 and by the 2002 election won 8 seats. Peter Dunne's best result took his Party from one seat to eight. A remarkable result lauded at the time by pundits as the worm thrust his PR based charm campaign to one of New Zealand political legend.
Three years ago, a haggered and grumpy Winston Peters oversaw the complete wipe out of NZ First. They went from 7 seats to zero. In 2011 they seemed to effortlessly come back and win eight seats. Most of the new MP's haven't any great history with the Party, one couldn't even get elected on to the Supercity and was exposed for urinating on a tree. Yet this bizarre behaviour didn't hamper his suitability for NZ First. Last year Peters' comeback was seen as big as Lazarus by the adoring media desperate for a side-show as he remains a true enigma. Peters now casts a long shadow effectively as Leader of the Opposition.
Pragmatism over principles
Neither United or NZ First have any political principles at all other than centrist populist pragmatism.
Which is why ACT has had so much trouble in the past. It has had so many principles that there is not a chance in hell of any MP elected in their name actually living up to them.
John Banks in his opening speech to members as leader outlined his duty to "give speed to National's direction" and to focus on economic issues. He indicated a return to ACT's roots as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers.
What direction?
The immediate problem I have with this claim of course is National doesn't have any direction. It is a centrist Party stumbling through partial asset sales and partial reform. But "partial" is the best we can do at the moment.
Banks outlines the new simpler ACT principles of "lower taxes and more careful government spending". Every member and MP ACT has ever had at one time has signed up for these two very simple principles. I am unsure of Banks' true application to reducing taxation and spending. His time as Auckland Mayor confused me entirely in that regard.
Quite how Banks rebuilds the party with this mantra will be anyone's guess, including my own. ACT's infrastructure is better than either NZ First's or United's was when faced with similar annihilation at the polls. Therefore it is possible.
While I agree with Banks that every New Zealander is a consumer, the problem for the centre-right is that while the working poor, beneficiaries and even now more middle class folk pay GST they aren't all, as Banks claims technically "taxpayers".
Many receive more welfare from the taxpayer than they are paying in GST and PAYE for those who do earn, making them net beneficiaries. People who currently do not make the "boat go faster".
This is why the centre-right with or without ACT faces a battle in 2014 to be re-elected and why ACT moving forward is not as important as the National Party doing what it now faces a tougher task than ever doing.
Winning.
Cathy Odgers is a Hong Kong-based tax lawyer. She blogs as Cactus Kate.
Comments and questions
Who is he? He is not a very nice man that is. I saw him the other day getting of a plane from Wellington, he looked straight through me. That's right, straight through me!
ACT has always been about lower taxes and more careful government spending. That is what they should stick to as there are a lot of people, generally small business owners, who agree with that theory. Remeber - we have a lot more 'self employeed people now. What used to be unionised workforce are now 'self employed' contractors like couriers and truck drivers. They know to earn a profit, they have to keep costs low and see tax as one big expense that does not provide them with a benefit.
Hide started of great, being the 'perk buster' but then got busted himself. It was this sort of Arrogance, and Brash's (hell - he wasn't even a member when he claimed the party as his own), that ultimately destroyed the part.
TV3 sung Nationals demise over the weekend stating their ratings were down to 47% (incidentally about the same they got on election night). Nationals issue is not that they don't poll well, it is that they don't have any natural coalition partners (in the absence of ACT) that they have to poll over 50% to form the government. That is almost impossible which is why we need a strong ACT (or its replacement) and not just cup of tea John.
To be fair, you are anonymous commenter to expects us to believe your hearsay. Of course he would look though you.
you know, sometimes politicians just can't win. They mind their own business or are dealing with their own issues, they get accused of being aloof.
They talk to people and busy themselves with other peoples problems - they get accused of being stickybeaks.
As for Cactus Kate's wider point, the test for Banks and ACT is picking something relevant to talk about over the next year to the 10% of centre right voters who aren't solid National Party voters.
If they choose angry tones of race relations or beneficiary bashing, they will probably fade away.
If they pick useful issues that benefit New Zealanders, (education innovation looks like a winner for them), then maybe they'll open a few ears over the next year.
CK is a bit disingenious in saying that National doesn't have a direction. She has probably been seduced by the gentle soothing tones of Key, not looking at the wider National agenda of reducing state service spending, mixed ownership models for state assets and some reasonably significant changes in social policy like education. An undercurrent of this is breaking the grip of unions on industrial/workplace relations in NZ.
Giving speed to National's direction is actually a message ACT can effectively market to that 10% of strong centre-right voters that demand more than Key's cautious policy rollout.
Who is John Banks? Shine a torch in one of his ears and watch his eyes light up!
John has always called it as he see's it.
Who is John Banks?
John is in fact most of us.
Labour Party MP Phil Tyford has agreed to present the following petition to the House when it reconvenes Tuesday 28 February 2012:
"That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009".
How come ACT's 'ONE LAW FOR ALL' didn't apply to ACT's former Leader Don Brash or current ACT MP (and new Leader) John Banks?
Hopefully - this petition will help force the resignation of arguably yet-to-be charged 'white collar' criminal John Banks?
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR 'WHITE COLLAR' CRIME AND 'WHITE COLLAR' CRIMINALS!
Penny Bright
'Anti-Corruption Campaigner'
www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz
He calls it as he sees it because he has no intellect.
John Banks is a fine representative for those of us who want to correct the damage done to New Zealand by nine years of Socialist mismanagement by the Klarc/Kullen government.
Peter Martin
Talking to some whites at an election meeting, John Banks moseyed along with his Colgate grin ensuring he shook all hands, making a point of excluding mine!
Maybe he thought he'd be tainted by my Chinese one, or,perhaps it was that my former "very inclusive" philosphy teacher, John Hinchcliff (another candidate), had welcomed me with a warm hug.
That kind of petty small-mindedness, mean-spiritiedness and lack of grace demeans him as a representative of (spposedly) the people.
But I'm big-hearted enough to acknowledge his strength and ability in overcoming the shame and humiliation oters tried to heap on him when a kid and hope he grows up enough to desist from trying to pass it on to others.
Maybe you are a shallow and transparent person as well.
who cares if he looked straight through you.
Go and get real job. Stop your self promotion as somebody you are not.
keep crying wolf penny.
we all know what happens in the end
The history of small 'one man nand' style Political Parties is well summed up in this article.
Unwittingly 'KActus' has written an article justifying the need for the electorate to have dumped MMP at the Referendum
Isn't ACT meant to be about limited government? How on earth then can a social conservative be it's head when they're the complete opposite of that, wanting government involvement in personal issues such as sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and the like? ACT now just seems to be about policy that reflects it's membership; making sure that the rich pay the least amount in taxes in an unregulated market. They should really change their name to the Dickens Party.
I voted for change. Yes.
I second that Lindsay however wouldn't wish that on any employer.
A job in the Mana Party surely awaits Penny.
Oh shit - you must be the invisible man.
John Banks is National.. Act is done. The only difference I see is Banks gets a higher salary and waste taxpayers money.
You fool, let's all crucify the ONLY fund manager in NZ to actually put his hand into his own pocket to reimburse investors. All the while the real crooks get away with stealing pensioners life savings.
John Banks is the man ACT has elected as the person who switches the lights out after the next Election
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below