Labour and Field
August 31st, 2006 at 7:07 am by David FarrarAs people will have heard, Field is not just refusing to go, but he is even attacking the Ingram Report claiming it wasn’t fair to him. Surely perfect grounds for a proper Commission of Inquiry to be held.
Anyway why has Clark changed her tune so suddenly? On Monday she was strongly hinting he should go and yesterday she was back defending him. The reason according to my sources is he confirmed that he will withdraw his vote on confidence and supply if Helen keeps pushing, so she blinked first.
Hence one now sees the Unions enter the fray. It is amazing in fact they have stayed quiet for so long (imagine the howls of outrage if this was a non Labour MP accussed of having immigrants work for free for them) and one can only assume that they have entered the battle with the agreement or indeed encouragement of the Prime Minister.
Related posts:
- Field on Labour
- Unions gain vote on Labour leader
- Does Labour think Field broke the law?
- Field to be expelled from Labour
August 31st, 2006 at 8:13 am
Good to see Clark has taken us back to the good old days of rolling strikes lock outs, corrupt politicians and filth having more rights than law abiding citizens. It’s a shit hole darling, and its all yours. Well done.
She will be remembered, not fondly.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:22 am
And I guess the Greens cannot be relied on as John Carter (bless him) seesm to be able to stitch deals with the Greens. So she is stuffed and with the polls so bad she does not want an election now so she waits and hopes for better weather. And if there looks to be better weather then maybe. But Field is a deadweight and so is the election spending rort. They robbed the Treasury to “stay compeditive” and breach election spending rules.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:31 am
On the up side culma she’ll never ever be getting tapped on the shoulder by HMTQ.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:03 am
DPF wrote:
The reason according to my sources is he confirmed that he will withdraw his vote on confidence and supply if Helen keeps pushing, so she blinked first.
And if that’s true, I don’t see why Clark – who I may loathe, but have always respected as remarkably politically astute – didn’t call his bluff. Does anyone really think Field is so deep in psychosis he’d bring down the Government out of pique? And perhaps my math is defective, but by my count even without Field the Government would still have a workable majority on C&S unless the Greens decided to rip up their agreement with Labour to abstain on C&S votes they cannot actively support.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:08 am
People seem to be forgetting that Field has been inside the tent for a while. He knows where the bodies are hidden and he is not as afraid of Clark as some others.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:11 am
With you on that Craig. The question in my mind is, would National accept the vote of TPF on confidence and supply issues, or would they do the “honourable thing” and match TPFs vote with one of their own in the opposite direction?
I think the latter course would be a sure fire vote winner and am almost emabarrased to suggest it here.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:42 am
The best part is Andrew Little speaking out against TPF. There can be no doubt now that the unions are a driving force behind Labour, who even have the ability to determine who stands as a candidate.
Sorry Noddy, Sonic etc. National have never let the EB’s or Business Roundtable state who they want as a candidate and support this. Nationals candidate selection is very democratic.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:43 am
David, I’m sorry to spoil your conspiracy theories, but I can personally assure that neither Helen Clark nor anyone else in the Labour Party asked the EPMU to come out against Field.
In fact, if you actually did some research you’d see that more than two weeks ago the EPMU put out a press release which stated “Field’s treatment of his workers was disgraceful”. You can find it here – http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00164.htm
You can’t blame the union if the media didn’t find their opinion on the matter newsworthy until yesterday. That’s just the way these things work.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:58 am
So Susan it took from Oct last year to two weeks ago for the Union to work out TPF was exploiting workers?
Glad I’m not in a Union and expecting them to look out for my welfare.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:29 am
I think it’s great that TPF is staying on, talk about natural justice. These Lair bore retards have made it so hard for any employers to sack a worker that is not suitable. Now prehaps they will get some idea what it is like to have someone who will not go. Prehaps the Dear Leader will have to pay TPF to pack his bags, just like some employers do. What goes around comes around, I hope the bitch is spewing.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:30 am
Noddy:
Well, I hope the Nats would. Cut me and I bleed Tory blue, and nothing would make me happier than to see a no confidence motion bring the whole house of cards tumbling down, but if it all hinged on the vote of a squalid douche bag like Field… Than the butcher’s bill is too high. For once, I agree with you – it doesn’t happen often, but sometimes principle and good politics are the same thing. Just to put the icing on the cake, wouldn’t it fuck Clark off to the Nth degree.
Still, as I said, unless the Greens decide to wipe their collective arse on their C&S agreement with Labour it’s a theoretical question AFAIK. While I’m not a Green supporter, the levels of toxicity required for that scenario to play are so extreme I just can’t see it happening. Not least because it would totally FUBAR the Greens careful – and dare I say it, pretty effective – positioning as honest brokers on the left who are able to exert a moderating influence on Labour neo-cons.
Having said that, I’ve heard Labourites go off on the Greens and the Maori Party with a level of vitriol that raises a blush even in rancid old bitch like me. As Tony Blair, the ALP and GOP have discovered, it’s easy to be disciplined when the polls are running your way. When they turn… well, politicians are like sharks. It doesn’t take much blood in the water to get the appetite going.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:31 am
So Susan, I take it that the EPMU have officially complained to the police and other relevant authorities so they will perhaps investigate ? Or is it just a bit of “hot air” spin ?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:38 am
Noddy said – “The question in my mind is, would National accept the vote of TPF on confidence and supply issues, or would they do the “honourable thing”
I could answer that for you without a doubt, “No”, this prick will not be in parliament when we go back to the polls, if Field is still there then Clark won’t be.
Have to agree with recent comment she looked shaky Monday,by Thursday she looks bloody pathetic, what was the term she used at the last election “Flip Flop” well she is flipping around like a fish on the deck of a boat.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Thanks Susan I had missed that. However I note it was only one line in a multipage release attacking National and hence not easy to spot. If EPMU had done a dedicated release then it would have been picked up more.
For all that I welcome their contribution, however late. And I am sure their sentiments are genuine/
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:09 am
“Sorry Noddy, Sonic etc. National have never let the EB’s or Business Roundtable state who they want as a candidate and support this.”
Don’t be silly. Brash was the choice of he BRT and the money followed straight from Act to National as a result of his election. That is probably also why he is still leader.
“There can be no doubt now that the unions are a driving force behind Labour, who even have the ability to determine who stands as a candidate.”
Here’s a surtprise for you, Southern Raider, the unions have always been a driving force behind Labour, they set up the party and help finance it. That is not news. There are other “driving forces” behind Labour, like will the voters vote for their policies.
If anything their influence is less these days than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:19 am
Noddy,
if “they setup the party and help to finance it” shouldn’t this be disclosed in the party funding?
You lefties have been rightous about where Nationals funding comes from, yet always remain quite about the huge amount of money and other support that comes from the unions.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:30 am
“always remain quite about the huge amount of money and other support that comes from the unions.”
Um, did you read my post? How was that “quiet”? I am floored by that comment.
As for the party returns they do show union financial contributions as far as I can tell.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
Plenty union contributions out in the open their for the public to see and scrutinise. Or is that still a little hush hush for you.
I have not the time or inclination to go through the published accounts of the political parties or unions but I gather others, such as Insolent Prick do. Others who know about the set up and constitutions of the various parties are also better placed than me to comment on that? Perhaps you can point us to some documentation about the candidate selection process, for example.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:35 am
POLICE INVESTIGATION ON!
Anyway…
When was Clark defending him? All I heard didn’t constitute defending, just (absent a commission of inquiry) not offering to do anything – not least I presume because, what can she actually do?
Oh, apart from get him put on leave in the face of a police investigation, but that’s today.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 11:41 am
TAITO PLACED ON LEAVE BY LABOUR PARTY
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Lyndon – Clark/Labour formed a coalition GOVRERNMENT , if she doesn’t have control over her own MP’s with a slim majority then she can’t GOVERN.
Can’t say Winston has anything to do with this coalition shitting itself, listening to him attack the labour health minister yesterday over the Zimbabwean refugee debacle, pretty obvious he is trying to distance himself from the Phillip Field – Pledge card bull shit.
Although it is Winston, chances are he’d just had a 100 proof top up and came out swinging at the bell without checking who he was fighting!
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Yesterday TPF forever destroyed HC’s reputation as ‘smart’ operator. He took her on and she blinked and now she looks impotent.
She had it within her power to order a proper investigation … she declined. I have speculated on a previous thread the reason for that and agree with Mr Tips that the problem for her is that he knows where then bodies are with particular reference to Labour’s fundraising activities in South Auckland.
And now the Police, with prodding from National, have decided to investigate and yes, TPF and others can do a ‘Kahue’ and decline to co-operate and all the while Labour continues to be tainted with the stench of corruption because of their refusal to do the blinding obivious.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
The only reason the police are allowed to investigate TPF is that Helen has withdrawn her protection. In such matters the police would not dare move without Helen’s approval. Bad luck TPF, that was the risk of getting on the wrong side of auntie !
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
It’s entirely possible that there are no allegations proven against Field – there being no case/charge to make, or he is found not guilty in any trial.
“He said he had never taken bribes, had official documents altered, or asked for cheap labour in return for services. Allegations have centred on claims he benfitted from helping people with immigration applications to New Zealand.”
This may all be true.
All we know is that
1. Polynesians use cash more than Pakeha (cheques/credit cards) and there is a tradition of gift giving (Field says the cash money went to the electorate or the nationwide party, so this was not the personal receiving of cash in return for services)
2. there was a discussion about wrong information on a birth certificate (beyond this is a matter for investigation). His real problem in this area may be conflicting testimony to the Samoan government (the Thai employee) and the testimony to the inquiry (that the Thai was not employed), but this could be a matter of semantics. Is koha labour in return for koha board, employment in Samoa, but not in New Zealand?
3. people provided labour to him (voluntary work is not illegal), though it can raise issues of koha which is not transferable to the electorate and is untaxed.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Culma immigration is a traditional NZF policy, no one was under any illusions on what policies NZF would remain independent on.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
“National have never let the EB’s or Business Roundtable state who they want as a candidate and support this. Nationals candidate selection is very democratic.”
Why is it then that in National the primeminister selects the cabinet whereas in the labor system the caucus select the cabinet?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Noddy:
Well, I hope the Nats would. Cut me and I bleed Tory blue, and nothing would make me happier than to see a no confidence motion bring the whole house of cards tumbling down, but if it all hinged on the vote of a squalid douche bag like Field… Than the butcher’s bill is too high. For once, I agree with you – it doesn’t happen often, but sometimes principle and good politics are the same thing. Just to put the icing on the cake, wouldn’t it fuck Clark off to the Nth degree.
Still, as I said, unless the Greens decide to wipe their collective arse on their C
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:18 pm
culma – Clark/Labour formed a coalition GOVRERNMENT , if she doesn’t have control over her own MP’s with a slim majority then she can’t GOVERN.
…and if you start shouting, you can’t type properly. What did I say? I’m not entirely sure what you’re taking issue with – I was just wondering where DPF got his ‘defending’ thing. But here goes…
PM leads the executive. She is also effectively in charge of Labour MPs parliamentary behaviour and organising votes from others. The governing stuff.
She does not appoint MPs. Constitutionally, they are all individuals (“Yes! We are all individuals!”). She could institute a full comission into an MP’s behaviour outside the executive but that probably would mean she could do it to the opposition as well.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
SPC – Fields first response to the question was “I don’t remember any donations” now it is “there were no donations” this guy is making it up as he goes along.
The correct response should have been “I don’t handle donations they are the responsibility of Mr X or Mrs Y in my electorate headquarters.
So as not to get caught up in this sort of thing you issue receipts for donations, there will be a support staffer that would handle these affairs.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“These Lair bore retards have made it so hard for any employers to sack a worker that is not suitable.”
Good one Moron! Are you not aware that New Zealand has recently been listed by the World Bank as the fourth easiest country in the world tto hire and fire workers in
http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
“You lefties have been rightous about where Nationals funding comes from, yet always remain quite about the huge amount of money and other support that comes from the unions.”
If Labour is so driven by unions then why is union density lower than 1999?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
SPC
Interesting points you make and should not be too difficult to demonstrate. First receipts for cash paid into Local/National party coffers.Second – Paper work and affidavits from those involved. Third – was the contract made in NZ or Samoa – determines which law applies. Last – perhaps the IRD should rule on if this was a fringe benefit or Koha.
Vote:I make no judgement before evidence is provided and if not provided will draw the obvious conclusions.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
SPC:
It doesn’t matter whether Field kept the money himself or gave it to the Labour Party. Either way, receiving money from constitutents after providing them services is a disgusting practice. Field is paid by the taxpayer for his work as an MP. Taking advantage of that position to receive money for himself, or the Labour Party, is corrupt.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
You are all going to love this, but I can’t help myself…didn’t the EBs provide “koha” in terms of voluntary labour to National during the last election
?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
IP – no no, its the left wing way, bit like Robbing Hood or was that Johnathan Hunt, these guys don’t let an opportunity go by. If they can syphon a little more cash out of any system for their own good they’ll do it!
Vote:When I heard about Hunts antics in Britain it didn’t surprise me, for the country was bloody embarrassing but obviously not for Clark, the prick should have been recalled.
August 31st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
IP the wrong doing is in MP’s/officials asking for money in return for services.
People make donations to parties all the time (for whatever reasons). If it’s cultural to offer koha, these can either be refused or accepted as party donations (and accounted for).
In the end, it may be about an acceptable level of paper work (in his relationship with the party) and declaration of any “koha work income”
to IRD in terms of his public obligations.
Rumpole, he got the Thai into Samoa by claiming he was an employee. But is voluntary labour in return for board (in another country and involving a person not legally in New Zealand) an empoyment contract in our law?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Rumpole, he got the Thai into Samoa by claiming he was (there as ) an employee. But is voluntary labour in return for board (in another country and involving a person not legally in New Zealand) an employment contract in our law?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Phillipjohn:
I don’t know if you deliberately try to drag things off-topic, or if it’s a sign that you’ve got ADHD.
Nobody sensibly argues that the Labour Party is not intimately connected to the union movement.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:26 pm
PhillipJohn your delusional if you think anyone gets into a Labour cabinet unless they are personally endorsed by Helen.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
As to the koha labour done in New Zealand on housing (increasing his personal asset wealth here), I don’t think this will be an IRD issue as applies to the general public (we can offer each other free labour koha without IRD responsibilites), it’s more a case of MP standards.
He has been “found” to have “appeared” to breach ministerial standards.
An MP should have valued koha labour in Enzed at “wage rates” and paid a cash donation equivalent to the party. Otherwise he has benefited personally from his services as an MP. This area is a murky one of appropriate accounting and auditing (he probably has made personal donations to the party, more so less so or equivalent to his free labour koha) and this is where he has shown misjudgment (allowed the matters to arise).
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
southern raider – the Labour caucus chooses Cabinet (she awards portfolio’s). National’s leader would have more say over Cabinet membership (one recalls Shipley would have just about anyone in Cabinet but Winston P and Peter D)
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“Nobody sensibly argues that the Labour Party is not intimately connected to the union movement.”
I believe that the labour party is connected to the union movement. It’s just that it hasn’t done the union movement any good for the last 20 years – Herd of anything called labour market deregulation, and how about Rogernomics? These things lead me to believe that the influence of of the union movement doesn’t hold much sway in the labour government.
It’s a bit like me saying that National is in the back pocket of the Business Round Table, after increasing the corporate tax rate and re-nationalising essential industries, it just wouldn’t make sense.
P.S I’m not changing topic, just responding to points above in the thread with pertinent observations.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Phillipjohn:
You might have a point if you said that Labour has done little to help workers. But they have entrenched the union movement, particularly in the public sector. The vast majority of their MPs come through the union movement. Most of Labour’s organisational and campaign funding (that is, the part that is not stolen from the taxpayer directly) comes from unions.
Labour bleeds low-income union members dry. It is in Labour’s interest to maintain a culture of envy and disdain for achievement, and resentment towards high-income employees. In return, Labour introduces virtual compulsory unionism in the public sector, guaranteeing union officers an income stream.
Field is an example of somebody who has been creaming low-income, disadvantaged people–first the union movement, then the Labour Party–for so long that he could no longer distinguish between right and wrong. It’s still a rort.
To suggest that kind of corruption is somehow “cultural” is downright racist. Field doesn’t accept iafo because he’s Samoan. He does so because union organisations thrive on graft and personal favour. Field is a product of his union culture.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Some figures that might help you IP. During the term of the 4th Lab govt 1984-1989 union density slipped from 55% to 50%. During the 5th Lab govt union density has slipped from 22% to 19%. Yeah, Labour are so controlled by the unions. What a joke.
BTW IP do you have any facts or figures to back up your claim or are we just going to get mote bloated chest rhetoric from you?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Hell IP, you should print that on tee shirts.Very succinctly put.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Okay, phillipjohn. Here goes. Due to the calibre of your academic qualifications, it’s reasonable that you ask for evidence.
The three largest unions, the EPMU, the PPTA, and the PSA, have combined assets of over $45 million. If you want evidence of that, go and check the register of incorporated societies, and read through their financial returns. The total assets of registered unions is over $100 million.
Average growth of union income and assets between 2000 and 2006 is more than 30%, and 50% respectively. Go look for yourself. I’m not going to document every union’s growth in income and assets here, but I can assure you that I have done that, and the information is publicly available.
That is not evidence of a decline.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
The Labour Party is not an incorporated society. Its assets and income are a closely-guarded secret.
National’s assets are around $1 million, the majority of which is held in its premises in Willis Street. It’s fair to say that National’s $1 million is nowhere near the asset base of the union movement.
Next, we get to the point of the unions’ relationship with the Labour Party. Well, three quarters of Labour’s large campaign donors were trade unions. Trade unionists hold seventeen of the nineteen spots on Labour’s governing council. Unionists are almost exclusively the source of all new candidates for election.
Now, phillipjohn. Piss off and don’t come back until you can come up with a reasonable argument.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
IP if you are judging the level of favour to unions by Labour, based on the current value of their historic property assets, then no government has been so generous to ordinary homeonwers in our history.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Also if unions are so dominant in Labour, then they have used their influence with some restraint. Labour is as much pressured by OTHER PARTIES to adopt the 12 dollar minimum wage, as they are by these unions.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:24 pm
IP
About 90% of National’s donations in 2005 came from trusts (approx $1.7 million). These are a very closely guarded secret. Unions contributions are not.
In the last few days you have lied about Labour opposing National’s “pay back legislation” and lied about the legality of EBs contributions to the last election.
Piss off and don’t come back until you can come up with a reasonable argument.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
“Average growth of union income and assets between 2000 and 2006 is more than 30%, and 50% respectively.”
Not adjusted for inflation I suppose. BTW how can the union movement be increasing its income when union membership has shrunk in the time you quoted? For instance “Figures released by the Victoria University Industrial Relations Centre show that union membership has dropped by almost 100,000 since 2000.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0608/S00342.htm
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide any links for your your now would you?
BTW if the labour movement really wanted the union movement to grow it would facilitate centralised collective bargaining, instead it persists with the deregulated labour market instituted by National in the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. We have 19% union density. That’s the third lowest in the OECD. Jeez IP your thesis that unions run the country looks more and more convincing all the time doesn’t it?
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
No, Noddy.
Between 2002-2004, Labour received more in both declared and anonymous donations than National. Excluding one large donation to National, the source of which isn’t actually *that* much of a secret, National’s donations were on a par with Labour’s in 2005.
I did say Labour blocked National’s pay back legislation, as Labour could have introduced the Bill without leave of the House. Instead, Labour required National to seek leave of the House to introduce the Bill, which it then got the Greens to decline. If Labour had wanted National to pay back the GST error, it could have arranged for that. It didn’t.
I did not lie about the legality of the EBs contributions to the last election. I said that National is clean with respect to any technical breaches that the EBs may have made in their campaign literature.
Now, piss off, you little shit-head.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 6:00 pm
“Between 2002-2004, Labour received more in both declared and anonymous donations than National. Excluding one large donation to National, the source of which isn’t actually *that* much of a secret, National’s donations were on a par with Labour’s in 2005.”
Now IP this is truly astounding. The National party received twice as much in donation funding in 2005 as labour. This is publicly available information.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
You know, you really should stop lying or we might start to dismiss anything you have to say off hand. well, actually, I think that’s already started to happen….. oh dear.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Evidently, phillipjohn, you have trouble reading.
I said that with the exception of one major donation, which isn’t *that* much of a secret, National’s funding was on a par with Labour’s in 2005.
Read your own frigging link, you retard.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Insolent Prick “I said that with the exception of one major donation, which isn’t *that* much of a secret”
really? cool. Does that mean you know where the money comes from?
“Read your own frigging link, you retard.”
is that the link that shows Labour donations in 2005 at $930,977.04 and National’s at $1,881,793.00?
By all means explain why this is incorrect but phillipjohns comprehension seems to be far more accurate than your own.
Are you the person claiming to be analysing union accounts? Shudder at the thought of just how embarrassing your analysis will be.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
noddy. $1,881,793 less “the exception of one major donation” $1,254,845 = $626,948 for national versus $930,977 for Labour.
Vote:Maybe if you took your socks off the adding would go better (and the reading)
September 1st, 2006 at 4:06 pm
david, nice of you to try and help IP out but he was responding to someone else who said:
“The National party received twice as much in donation funding in 2005 as labour. This is publicly available information.”
No exclusions, exceptions or special cases in that particualr post. He has put up an exception (God knows why) and told the poster to read the link provided.
Fuckwit is the word that comes to mind this late in the week.
I am still waiting for you or he to tell us whether you know who that exceptional money is from?
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Well I could understand what he was meaning.Waitemata Trust? I dont know but guessing would say it was a Brewery.Which gives me an idea…
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 2:19 am
http:/www.bloggen.be/adobe/ free ringtones free ringtones
Vote: