. . . it would be:
1. Don Brash.
2. Cathy Odgers.
3. John Bowscawen
It gets difficult after that. I don’t know enough about any of the other candidates to know if Don Nicolson should come next and I’m not sure his abrasive style would help foster the much-needed unity in Act’s caucus.
If John Banks can’t win Epsom he’ll have failed his party and its supporters and therefore should be well down the list or better still not on it at all.
The list will be announced at 3pm.
Update:
The list has 27 places the top 10 are:
1. Dr Don Brash
2. Hon John Boscawen
3. TBC
4. Don Nicolson
5. Hon John Banks
6. David Seymour
7. Chris Simmons
8. Stephen Whittington
9. Kath McCabe
10. Robyn Stent
Kiwiblog has the percentage of party vote needed for each to get in. On current polling, if Banks wins Epsom they’d just get a couple.
The party usually does better in the election than polls and the yet to be confirmed #3 might be someone who can broaden the party’s appeal.
Roarprawn reckons the list shows Act of old.
Whaleoil has more from his tipline.
Homepaddock 
If I were doing it I wouldn’t release it with slot number three = ” “.
Are these people a joke – well yes they are – I have the Email from them to prove it.
LikeLike
Last time they left #5 blank when the list was announced and
John BoscawenDavid Garrett got that place later.LikeLike
Nope. Last time they left #5 blank when the list was announced and David Garrett got that place later.
LikeLike
Thanks for the correction, Graeme. That’s not an example the party will want to repeat.
LikeLike
Why not. He managed to get Three Strikes through despite the National Socialist Party being in charge,
LikeLike
All very interesting. The natotable ommision is, of course, sitting ACT MP Hilary Calvert. As for the media release below, it looks to me that ACT is aiming to make a niche for itself as the Australian Nationals (formerly the Country Party) have done in Australia for many years. The irony surely is that they almost certainly have to rely on winning an urban seat (Epsom) to get a foothold in The Parliament! Oh well, some years ago there was often reference in political circles to “Queen Street Farmers”. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1108/S00938/act-list-confirms-act-as-pro-farming-party.htm
LikeLike
A very disappointing list.
I have said before that Don Nicolson is a blast from the past in the rural sector. Yes, he will go down with the rural anti’s but as one person has said, it looks like Nicolson’s triumpant entry to Parliament will depend on that leady rural domain of Epsom in Auckland !!
LikeLike
Incredible to think the Don ‘Hollow Man’ Brash was not so very long ago, the hero of National, their leader and Great White Hope for winning power. Now he’s in another party altogether. The loyalty of National Party leaders will always be questioned now. Turncoat is the phrase that springs to mind. Getting caught out over the Brethren affair revealed Brash as dishonest and did the same for Key. Having just watched the two of them on the film The Hollow Men is a timely reminder of how keen the both are to say whatever has to be said in order to win. Brash’s behavior in trading parties in order to get closer to influence is just more of the same greed for power. How it is that many commentators here admire that ‘quality’ in Brash and Key, I struggle to come to terms with.
LikeLike
Robert – You haven’t watched real people, you’ve watched actors in a film which presents a fictional and biased account based on stolen emails.
In hindsight Brash handled the affair badly but he didn’t lie. When a Green MP waved a pamphlet in his face and asked if he knew anything about it he failed to join the dots between it and an earlier meeting with the Brethren. That isn’t lying and when he joined the dots later he admitted it.
I am diappointed by Brash’s ship-jumping and they way he did it but one past-leader who does that is no justification for not trusting the rest.
And whatever your opinion of the Brethren they were acting within the law which is more than Labour was doing at the same time by spending public money on its pledge card.
LikeLike
“You haven’t watched real people”
Classic Ele. You didn’t watch it did you.
Your loyal defence of the indefensible saddens me but hei aha!
LikeLike
RG – what is it about people spending their own money to promote something they sincerely believe in that you find so distasteful?
Oh of course The Greens only want to spend other peoples money.7
LikeLike
That summary is what I call a lay down misiere pdm.
One of two things will happen, Robert will pretend you didn’t comment and stay away.
Or he will come back and spray spittle while avoiding your slapdown.
Predictable as the sunrise.
LikeLike
pdm – I have no objection to’ people spending their own money to promote something they sincerely believe in’.
My objection is to the sneaky way Key and Brash went about assisting the Brethren, advising them on what to say and how to say it, linking their own campaign to the Brethrens then-barefacedly lying about their involvement.
Geddit?
Gravedodger – your prediction, like so many you have made, is completely wrong. You doubtless delight yourself with your ‘wise pronouncements’, but given that they so often fail to hit the mark, other readers here probably wish you’d keep them to yourself. Me, I thrill to their cranky wrongness!
LikeLike
Option two it was.
LikeLike
I answered pdm’s question directly – “I have no objection …etc.”
You would benefit from reading the responses of others before firing off your ‘pearls of wisdom’ Gravy.
LikeLike
Robert – relying on Nicky Hagar for a view on the right would be like relying on Ian Wishart for a view on the left.
Key and Brash didn’t help the Brethren. The campaigns weren’t linked. That’s why Brash didn’t realise where the pamphlet that was waved in front of him came from.
He didn’t lie because at that stage he didn’t know who was behind it. When he later joined the dots he admitted he’d had a meeting with the Brethren and was open about what was said.
LikeLike
Ele, you’re a loyal Natty and could never accept that Key and Brash cleverly used the Brethren to further their own aims and that they were dishonest about their involvement and knowledge of what was being done. I’ll not expect you to shift in your view.
Your comparing Hagar and Wishart is wildly astray also, but again, you’re dyed-in-the-wool, so there’s nothing to be gained from correcting your misunderstanding.
LikeLike