Talk:ACT New Zealand

Party metadata

This article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colors and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates, and provides links for easy access to this metadata.

ACT New Zealand — political party metadata
Color		Shading	Shortname
	#FFCB05	#FFFF80	ACT

term "liberal"

"Because the term "liberal" can have such a great variety of meanings, however, some New Zealanders would not consider ACT's use of it to be accurate."

- Isn't this statement contradictory? If a word has a variety of meanings, either each is in a way accurate, or none is. I'm sure that any use of the word "liberal" can be disputed.

I see what you mean. What I was trying to say with that sentence, however, was that not everyone accepts every definition of "liberal" as valid - there are people who consider ACT's use of "liberal" to be incorrect, rather than merely a different way of looking at the word. My goal in including that sentence was basically to convey that some people do not consider ACT a liberal party under any valid definition, despite its self-description as such. -- Vardion 23:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do find this amusing, just do a search for act party and you see the first result is: "ACT - The Liberal Party" for their website. And look at their drug policy they've had in the past for instance, very liberal. You'd find it nigh on impossible to not argue that is liberal! I'd even say it more liberal than any other party on Parliament. Mathmo ^Talk 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Selected ACT Slogans

I don't think we need this section either - Drstuey 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really seem relevant. I've removed it. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 01:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Association of Consumers and Taxpayers

I noticed that an article exists on the Association. It is not notable enough to justify its own article guys. Considering that Catherine Judd sought to establish a new "Douglas Institute" to promote neo-liberal thought, it is fair to say that the Association does not really exist except in the minds of a few. Thus it isn't significant enough to really exist. I was bold and did this move. If you disagree, lets discuss it before re-establishing it. Unfortunately Varidon is out of the country for about a year, as s/he created the article. --Midnighttonight 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

anyone here not from the act party?

in the NZ context "centre right?"??? how about far right

noticable important opposition party?????? yeah with rodney on dancing with the stars and that other person with 0 NZ name recogntion doing some army thing

honestly one of the worst parts of wikipedia is these small groups with complete control over articles describing themselves. How about half of you go over and vandalise the labour party article and ask on the talk page for some of them to come over and help you out with your propaganda piece.

your article should reflect the NZ public as as whole's perception of the act party. Most NZers would think of ACT as 'far right business round table stooges'-(labour supporters) or a tolerated, small appendage of the national party- (National supporters)

oooooh how about Stephen Franks criticisms of the 2002 law and order debate in the context of his parties market theology, yeah if you sell TVNZ it would totally adopt the public service ethos it doesnt realise as a privatised crown owned company

In my opinion ACT standing for 'individual freedom' and 'personal responsibility' is a bit POV, the language accepts the ACT party policy unchallenged.

Please respond on the talk page

From the Neoliberalism article

The term "neoliberalism" is used to describe a variety of movements away from state control or protection of the economy, particularly beginning in the 1970s. The term neoliberalism is not the only one for this movement, many supporters argue that it is simply "liberalism," while critics (along with some supporters) often label it Thatcherism (United Kingdom), Reaganomics (United States of America), Economic Rationalism (Australia), Rogernomics (New Zealand) or Manmohanomics (India). Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the ambiguous term "liberal," some advocate the term "neoclassical philosophy."

Rogernomics (New Zealand)

how about ACT party classified as neoliberal and connect to that article rather than the other liberalism article

I think

Supporters claim that ACT is one of the more noticeable opposition parties, known for its frequent and vociferous criticism of the government. Critics of the party sometimes claim that ACT is more interested in scoring political points and gaining media exposure than in participating in constructive dialogue. Many of its rank-and-file members are also perceived to have more in common with neo-conservatism than classical liberalism. Peron, "The New Anti-PC Problem" Supporters, however, say that ACT "keeps the government honest", and ensures accountability.

Is pretty damn POV

so supporters claim but critics sometimes claim

wow mayby you could improve it with critics are sometimes thought of as considering the possibility of claiming......

I agree that the article lacks balance, but please cite whereever possible. If you look at the changes I've just made, you'll see that I've used a very easy method of making footnotes, by surrounding the footnote text with <ref name="blah">footnote text</ref>.-gadfium 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"in the NZ context "centre right?"??? how about far right"

and "standing for 'individual freedom' and 'personal responsibility' is a bit POV, the language accepts the ACT party policy unchallenged.'

Can you tell me a party in NZ that SAYS it is against individual freedom? It is not really relevant perhaps maybe something more aloing the lines "ACT stands for less interference from government". Also centre-right? National is center-right in NZ politics, Rodney himself said on election night he wishes to bring national further to the right. National describes itself and is a centre-right party! So then if ACT describes itself as more to the right doesn't that just make them a right party? Oh btw its not only labour supporters that call ACt right wing I personally know many national supporters who say the same thing about ACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.82 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this, especially with saying that it's not a centre-right party. Their politics are extremely right wing. I won't change it myself, but count this as a vote for either 'far right' or 'right wing'. Certainly not centre right. Jeez. --MotleyPhule (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a "Neutrality of article disputed" box on this untill we get ACTs policies eg. Personal freedom and 'centre-right' sorted out to an appropriate edit as there seems to be some disagreement from several people on this page regarding this.-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.53.114 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

Hello, came here at random, no idea about NZ politics, simple question: how do you pronounce the party's name: "a-see-tee" or "act"? jnestorius^(talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As one word, "act", not spelled out.-gadfium 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelled out, it has unpleasant Australian connotations. Kind of like an Irish political party calling itself the Red Underwear Cooperative and having the acronym spelled out. (note for the non-antipodeans: tongue firmly in cheek) Orpheus (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Avtually no said as the word ACT, Rodney Hide the ACT party leader himself uses the word act when stating the name of his party. Thanks for noticing our proud little country(and unfortuanetly some of its political parties)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.82 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Centre Right

There are issues with ACT being labeled a "Centre Right" party as it is in the introduction. There are a number of ACT members contributing to this article and I accept that changing it to "Right" will probably not fly so I would suggest "Centre Right" be dropped altogether. Any objetions? Bactoid (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what those issues are? I find the term "centre right" a little wishy-washy, as virtually all modern parties try to claim that they are centrist to some degree, but ACT is not entirely a traditional right-wing party. To categorise it as "centre right" is better than no categorisation at all, unless you believe this term is entirely inaccurate.-gadfium 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium. My main issue with labeling ACT as centre-right is with their recent policy namely three-strikes, something that would be too unpalatable for a centre-right party such as National to take up as party policy. While National did help it past its first reading (to fulfill their agreement with ACT) they're now being accused of sabotaging it so it won't pass into law. For that reason and others I do not think that "centre-right" accurately describes the ACT party of today. I would also have issues with the Green Party being described as centre-left for similar reasons around their own policy. What do you think? Bactoid (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You make good points. The question then is whether we change the description to "a right-wing party", or drop it entirely. I see the earlier discussion on this page is also arguing against the term "centre-right", and if we drop that term or change it to "right-wing" then I believe we can remove the neutrality tag that resulted from that discussion.

Who here thinks that changing the introduction to read "The New Zealand right-wing political party ACT New Zealand..." would not be accurate?-gadfium 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really a quite strange objection, and, no, that would most certainly not be accurate! A traditional right-wing party would not (for example) advocate liberalising and opening immigration, as ACT do. John Key doesn't hold a monopoly on what's centre-right, even in New Zealand, and three-strikes laws for repeat violent offenders are a relatively commonly-discussed centre-right policy in a lot of countries. It is one of very few issues that separate the party from the usual classical liberal tract, and may mark them as conservative liberals: certainly NOT straight 'right-wing'. Thus, I would advocate maintaining 'centre-right' with either the clarification currently given (classical liberal) or 'conservative liberal'. Bastin 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything including the term "centre-right" is appropriate, unless we attribute this to someone such as a mainstream political commentator or an ACT MP. The "conservative liberals" tag seems to come close, but I see our article on this includes anti-immigration sentiments as part of the package. And we should really be citing someone else's description of the party, not coming up with our own. -- Avenue (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the straight out removal of centre-right would be prudent for now. Bactoid (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the term, as that appears to be the consensus in this discussion, but there is no consensus for a replacement term. As Avenue says, we need to attribute any such term used to a mainstream commentator or ACT MP. I've also removed the POV tag placed as a result of the earlier discussion, since that discussion also focussed largely on the same issue.-gadfium 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call, thanks gadfium. Bactoid (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of an aside, but I just noticed that Category:ACT New Zealand is currently a subcategory of Category:Libertarianism in New Zealand. Does anyone object to that being removed? -- Avenue (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead.-gadfium 05:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. It has often been considered libertarian, although decreasingly so. Bastin 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there also needs to be more added to the origins section, prehaps more information about rogernmoics and the Labour split. Also there should be more about the Awatere Huata sacndal in the 2005 electoral campaign as it had a major impact on ACT's reputation against 'wasteful spending' and was probably a big reason behind it's electoral defeat in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful reference

[1] – may help with the party's origins/principles et cetera? Adabow (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

leadership

What's the point in changing the party leader name to "Don Brash" right now?

The correct procedural thing to do is leave it until ACT caucus votes on the issue. Right now I believe Don Brash isn't even a member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.132.98 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Don Brash has now put his membership in as of this morning. Mathmo ^Talk 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)