Hmmm…and they criticise the blogs

MSM FoolsWhy is it that professional journalists take it upon themselves to think they have exclusive rights on commenting on issues?

They also decry the rise of the blog yet holus bolus jump in and create their own rather hopeless blogs that hardly anyone reads despite having the backing of multi-national publishers or political parties.

A case in point that shows that their understanding of issues is about as deep as a car-park puddle is this little effort in puffery by Vernon Small who was trying to make a point….I think…maybe it’s in there somewhere?

[quote]”In general, though, small parties – be it Values in the 1970s or ACT in 1990 – have tended to flourish when their big party allies are on the way out.”[/quote]

What ACT Party in 1990? They were formed as a ginger group in 1993 and only became a registered party in 1994! Perhaps Vern Small meant the 1996 or 1999 elections, when their big party ally (that’s National, BTW) came close to losing in 1996 and lost in 1999.

I’d like to address Vern’s point that it’s in the Greens interest to soak up disaffected Labour vote now that Labour have no chance of winning (every man for himself), which arguably ACT didn’t do in 1999 at all. Believe me when I say there was a healthy relationship between National and ACT in the 1999 campaign, including National vacating the Wellington Central seat to give Prebble the best chance possible against his massive boundary changes and Marian Hobbs. There was as much co-operation as competition, with a clear understanding that National and ACT BOTH had to do well.

If there was an election when ACT turned the guns on National, it was in 2002, when National had no chance of winning.

So, uhh, exactly what point was Vern Small trying to make?