I was just the victim of an ACT party political survey. I may have said "Yes" up front, so I have no legal defence. It started off reasonably well. I had a polite gentleman declare the survey was sponsored by ACT, and would I answer a few questions?
Sure, I said, somewhat curious as to why my opinion was needed this close to the actual election. Not thinking of adjusting the tax policy down by a radical 1%? Not about to declare pro-life and defend the rights of the defenseless? Not about to sell me a time-share unit in Epsom?
Nothing so melodramatic. It consisted of 4 or 5 questions that were so loaded, I expected to hear a Magnum 44 blast my eardrums. I was evidently meant to agree that both National and Labour were incompetent, but National might just be the lesser of the two evils and would benefit by a strong coalition partner, so the correct answer to all questions was "Party Vote ACT".
I voted ACT last election, and I have no idea who I am voting for this election. National is tempting, but it would be a first. Surely, the first time should mean something special? Mind you, the amount of Labour pains I've had recently, I'm thinking I must have got drunk and lost control of my senses at some point in the past.
Besides, I thought I would save my really serious thinking and analysis for the stroll to the polling booth. It might wipe away the mediocrity I witnessed in last night's final leader's debate. Competent mediocrity in the case of Key, and desperate mediocrity in the case of Clark, but nothing inspiring really from either of them.
This call though was very off putting in terms of luring me back to ACT. Firstly, the young gentleman was nearly incomprehensible. I suspect English was his third language, and unfortunately, I think that would turn off many potential converts.
I was reasonably patient, and figured out the questions on the third or fourth attempt, and then my answers were never the YES that the script required. That only complicated issues, so he ignored my response and studiously pressed on to the next question. Culminating in "Party Vote ACT" at the end.
I imagine that at this stage punters would realise it never was a survey, just an attempt to influence a vote. I think though, the influence could be negative with most people they phone.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more it sounds like another Labour ploy. The cunning sods.
Sure, I said, somewhat curious as to why my opinion was needed this close to the actual election. Not thinking of adjusting the tax policy down by a radical 1%? Not about to declare pro-life and defend the rights of the defenseless? Not about to sell me a time-share unit in Epsom?
Nothing so melodramatic. It consisted of 4 or 5 questions that were so loaded, I expected to hear a Magnum 44 blast my eardrums. I was evidently meant to agree that both National and Labour were incompetent, but National might just be the lesser of the two evils and would benefit by a strong coalition partner, so the correct answer to all questions was "Party Vote ACT".
I voted ACT last election, and I have no idea who I am voting for this election. National is tempting, but it would be a first. Surely, the first time should mean something special? Mind you, the amount of Labour pains I've had recently, I'm thinking I must have got drunk and lost control of my senses at some point in the past.
Besides, I thought I would save my really serious thinking and analysis for the stroll to the polling booth. It might wipe away the mediocrity I witnessed in last night's final leader's debate. Competent mediocrity in the case of Key, and desperate mediocrity in the case of Clark, but nothing inspiring really from either of them.
This call though was very off putting in terms of luring me back to ACT. Firstly, the young gentleman was nearly incomprehensible. I suspect English was his third language, and unfortunately, I think that would turn off many potential converts.
I was reasonably patient, and figured out the questions on the third or fourth attempt, and then my answers were never the YES that the script required. That only complicated issues, so he ignored my response and studiously pressed on to the next question. Culminating in "Party Vote ACT" at the end.
I imagine that at this stage punters would realise it never was a survey, just an attempt to influence a vote. I think though, the influence could be negative with most people they phone.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more it sounds like another Labour ploy. The cunning sods.
Just curious Zen (and stunned I didn't think of this earlier) - why would a pro-life social conservative vote for Act?
ReplyDeleteNot looking to start a 'vote for Party X' debate, but I would have thought the liberal values of the Act party would hardly have fit in with a pro-life position.
I note the recent Family First "Value your Vote '08" leaflet showed Act as voting for euthanisia, legalised prostitution, civil unions, abortion without parental notification for under-16s, etc.
Surely a pro-lifer would be voting for the Family Party or Kiwi Party? Or do the 'morally grave' reasons of Act's tax cuts appeal more? ;)
That said, I don't think the Nats are any better, with several euthanasia supporters, and a tendency to do nothing on life issues. It was National that put our current abortion laws in place after all...
Oh, and the 'survey' does sound off-putting, and boring - can't they at least ask about the party's policies to test if those policies have public support?
A great question. One that deserves a good answer, which I will need to do much later (huge deadline).
ReplyDeleteSuffice to say at this stage that ACT had a conservative element that was purged after last election; "tax cuts" are never a justification in themselves - indeed, that's the wrong language - it's not tax cuts, it's the economic theory behind the right wing thinking on taxation (but that's still not the most important issue); I really, really dislike what Labour/Greens are doing to the country with regard to social and economic policy; the Christian/Conservative parties were in disarray last election; small government is another value espoused by ACT with concrete measures to limit government growth and enforce fiscal prudence of MPs and overall spending against GDP; National needs a right wing balancing force in parliament; small 'el' liberal values are something a conservative can appreciate and do not belong as sole property of the Libz (and are often abused by the left leaning liberals); abortion seemed to be a topic nearly all parties avoided last election, but in the last three years has resurfaced as something we need to fight harder about; and a whole bunch of other stuff, which I'll save for later.
I'm unlikely to vote ACT this election and some of the young ACT are decidedly intolerant of Christianity and need to grow up a little, but I wish them the best in that overall, I think they can contribute positively to the NZ political scene.
Gotta run!
Party vote National! Voting for obscure third parties just maintains the status quo.
ReplyDeleteNational are more socially conservative than ACT anyway.
Not really related, but I haven't the time to post this on an appropriate thread - you can't compare Obama/Dems to Labour/Clark either - in some ways they are to the right to National. In the US there is Right and Righter!
Oh well, half an hour left to campaign so may as well go nuts!
ReplyDeleteIf you voted for Act last you're obviously keen on their basic ideas around lower taxes and greater personal responsibility. As such you'd probably find the Family Party the closest conservative replacement, as we also favour tax cuts, and have similar policies on issues like education funding, the emissions trading scheme etc. But we are conservative morally and strongly pro-life, unlike Act.
It all rides on whether we can take an electorate (Mangere, East Coast Bays, Manukau East), and that is up to the voters to decide - ie you if you live there! National has MPs who are pro-life, but their party policy is not this, and on most issues MPs are whipped to vote along party lines, limiting how much influence these MPs can have. A pro-life minor party has much greater freedom than a pro-life MP in a pro-choice party.
Happy voting!