Labour’s donor letter
August 29th, 2006 at 9:48 am by David Farrar
Helen forgot to mention that she may not be able to steal $800,000 off the taxpayer next election, which is why she really needs the money!
I find it fascinating that it is an appeal for funds from a party in Government that consists entirely of attacking the Opposition and not promoting its achievements.
Related posts:
- Letter to Helen
- Party donor returns
- The confusion over NZ First’s donor
- Oh sending a letter will do it
August 29th, 2006 at 10:02 am
It is good to see she is actually trying to raise money from supporters, rather than stealing it as has been her practice over recent years. The letter is of course off-the-top hyperbole and nonsense but fair enough for a party letter.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I think they’re worried that they might actually have to pay the $800,000 back.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:07 am
You mean political parties raise money and sometimes, gasp, attack the opposition?
Breaking news at it’s best.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Is that letter for real? It looks like a fake. If not, it is a real worry.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:11 am
consists entirely of attacking the Opposition and not promoting its achievements
And yet, what makes this strategy so effective is that the opposition is so easy to attack. I’d very much like to support an opposition party, but not if that party looks like today’s Nats.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Envy and egotism, a leftists two key motivations.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:18 am
The content of that letter says alarming things to me about their state of mind – overwhelmingly negative, to the point where many of those whom they hope to elicit support may well turn away.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Ross, that is the reason I thought it was a fake. Scary if it isn’t.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:24 am
I would love to see a debate between Clark and the EB about values. That would be funny. And BTW, we have joined the war in Iraq (oops police action I mean)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:28 am
“We always depend on the hard earned contributions of many” No you dont you bitch. Most of your supporters are on some form of welfare. WFF Dole DPB Sickness etc etc.The contributions you seek are recycled tax payments.And a poll would prove this.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Hahaha – they used the words “Spin” and “Huge” in the same sentence! …sorry, for some reason, that’s all that stood out for me.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I call fakie.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:56 am
and..the wording of the natties begging letters is…..?
(i’m sure you’ll be able to clarify this for us …david..i dare say you’d have a few old ones lying around somewhere…you’ve probably written them..)
y’know..that ‘elusive beast’..balance..eh..?
good to chase that one..eh david..?..
(esp if one aims to ‘better’ the m.s.m…eh..?..)
btw..are they along the lines of the vomit that spews forth from the likes of..oh..!..
i dunno…um.!..murray/redbaiter/kumble..?..
and the professional virgins..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw…over at sir humphs yesterday..i posed the question..”what benefits/advances would we currently be basking under had we gone the way of the combover kid..and the anorexic one…?.”
the best they could come up with was a mumble about dog-chipping…!
whoar..!..eh..?
so..i guess my advice would be..
stick to/see to your own knitting…eh..?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Andrew, I doubt it is a fake as it was reported a day or two ago in the dreaded MSM. Seems that “blogsphere” is in catch up mode these days.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Yanks funding the Labour Party!!!! Secretative American influences – you can tell, privatise is spelt with a z.
Ross – religious tolerence only applies to those that the left approve of. Islamic bombers are to be understood – supporters of the National Party (or worse, George W) are to be castigated as a dangerous sect of extremists.
I do find the ‘National relies on secret donations’ line quite amusing. A quick look at the list seems to show that Labour has quite a few anonymous donations as well.
Also amusing that apparently National outspent Labour in the months leading up to the election when Labour was the one that had to use taxpayers money to overspend by around 20% of the spending cap.
Remember moral relativism – this government believes that no matter how bad it is, it is better than National.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:04 am
“this government believes that no matter how bad it is, it is better than National.”
As does the majority of the electorate it seems!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:05 am
When was this letter first released, obviously it’s the main Clark/Labour Party campaign fund revenue gathering tool. I presume this is the same tool used prior to the last election, or did they not need this as they decided to help themselves to public funds?
The only thing she didn’t accuse National of was baby killing.
Clark is witnessing kiwi’s of all persuasions using their own money to end this fiasco we know as the Helen Clark led Labour Govt.
The only thing this Govt will be remembered for is Moral Decay.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I’ve always wondered whether Clark and Cullen actually believe the bullshit that they spin. I know most Labour Party members do, because most of them are as thick as pigshit, but I’ve always assumed those two knew better. Am I being too generous to them? Or do they want to believe all that nonsense about the Iraq war/selling state assets/slashing social spending so badly that they’ve forgotten it’s all just a Goebbelesque creation of their own minds?
As for National being funded by the rich few and Labour by the poor many… pull the other one! It’s common knowledge that parties like National and ACT have a wide base of donors, whereas most of Labour’s dosh comes from a handful of Unions and crony capitalists.
Hard-earned contributions of the many my arse.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Minor aside: interesting how what was initially claimed by Labour to be a $500,000 Exclusive Brethren campaign slowly creeps up to $1.2 million a year later.
Is that an accurate picture of inflation under a spend-and-burn Labour Government?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:11 am
That’s a REALLLY badly written letter.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
blair – of course they don’t believe it, but they know it will motivate their supporters to give money.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:18 am
David! How did you get hold of that letter!?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Look, I’m not going to stick up for the EB’s, who’s faith is their sincerly held belief. But imagine the uproar if National sent out a letter saying “Yes. I prefer National’s values to Islamic values”
Here Labour continues to belittle a religious minority.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Look, I’m not going to stick up for the EB’s, who’s faith is their sincerly held belief. But imagine the uproar if National sent out a letter saying “Yes. I prefer National’s values to Islamic values”
Here Labour continues to belittle a religious minority.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Look, I’m not going to stick up for the EB’s, who’s faith is their sincerly held belief. But imagine the uproar if National sent out a letter saying “Yes. I prefer National’s values to Islamic values”
Here Labour continues to belittle a religious minority.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:32 am
In the end the truth is that the National campaign outspent Labour during 2005, as it did in offerings to voters. They still lost.
Their complaint is that Labour spent enough on the campaign (and it was not even a very good one) and offered enough to voters to remain competitive.
Now National are left to squeal about the sources of the Labour financing and the “bribes” to voters. Hypocrits and losers both. An ugly combination.
I agree that Labour look a little defensive at present, but at elections it’s about the attractiveness of the government policy programme to voters. Here National have the real work to do. They can try the divison games of 2005 again, but these are the tactics of FPP. If they are to become
serious, they must “David Cameron” in every area of policy. A nation needs a viable opposition ready for when a government tires. They are not yet ready.
So tired or not Labour’s re-election is possible, unless National thinks it can simply outspend it’s way to buying office. If so then we will have become the second best democracy bought with the dollar.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I agree that Labour look a little defensive at present . . .
SPC
The war has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.
Hirohito
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Unfortunately I chose to destroy my credit card when I came into some money (and I do not have a cheque account), so will I have to visit an MP’s electorate office and hand over a $100 cash.
Fortunately I do not live in Auckland – because someone might have misunderestimated my koha when giving me a receipt.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:40 am
And BTW, we have joined the war in Iraq (oops police action I mean)
Come on David, terrorists are very discerning. When confronted by soldier welding a machine gun, they instantly spot the little kiwi on his sleeve & realise he’s an engineer. They then refer to their ‘Al qaeda terrorist hand book’ & see NZ wasn’t involved in the invasion of Iraq & recognise he’s there to rebuild Iraq for the good of all Iraqis. They subsequently not only leave him only, but invite him down to the local for scones & a cup of tea.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:46 am
SPC, Labour won by 2%. They stole the election and National have a right to continue to “squeal” until this corrupt government admits liability.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Yes NX those Steyas look a lot like shovels…Its a shame the indonesians dont make the same distinction. Off topic a bit but it is pleasing to see the NZ army is often correctly regarded as being impartial. It is a credit to the country that others have this view of us.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Danyl
Your assessment, of how well the 2008 campaign is going for National, needs to be shared by other voters for it to be credible.
Polls indicate National with ACT United and NZ First has less than a 1% lead over Labour Greens and MP. This lead is dependent on NZ First being returned to parliament. Goodbye Bob Clarkson?
National promises the rich man tax cuts and he offers the National party use of the income of a newly set up trust fund. An MP works to realise some aspiration of a voter and they give him a cash offering. In both cases there is no public identity to the political donor. And favours to voters are given in return for cash.
If the MP receiving cash offers no receipt, the only difference is that he is betraying his own party by not keeping proper accounts.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Phil u must get your pc seen to keeps printing dots or is it you really can’t think of anything worthwhile to say.
The Lair bore party are really freaked out by the EB’s, talk about running scared.As for “not promoting their achievements” LOL………LOL……..LOL (just for Phil u)…..LOL………. what ACHIEVEMENTS, they are a sad sick joke.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Fair enough then, lets re-run the election and see how it turns out.
Who could not thrill to the prospect of a National/Maori party government, what stability that would bring!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Andrew Bannister – according to stuff the content of the above is the same as the page they are reading from, so the answer to the question is yes it is legit.
I take heart from the content as the writer is definitely panicked, if Helen Clark is prepared to sign such a letter, then this points to her opinions being expressed.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Yes Mark National lost by 2% despite spending more in 2005 on their campaigning and offering more cash to voters.
There effort to try and win in 2008, by having more money in that campaign, says a lot about their own ethical code. To the manor born, worth proven by access to the means to buy/consume. Power from the “barrel of the captitalist gun”.
This attitude is why I and many in Enzed don’t vote National. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Don’t take this as an attach because my spelling and grammar is shocking, but for some reason my eyes refuse to read Phil U’s posts.
The dots & lack of capital letters confuse my sensors, so I scroll on past.
Does anyone else find the same?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
SPC says: “National lost by 2% despite spending more in 2005 on their campaigning and offering more cash to voters.”
In fact, Labour spent more on its 2005 campaign than National.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
well right kiwi at least you concede the generosity of National’s offering was greater.
But National DID spend more in 2005 than Labour (I said 2005 rather than in the campaign deliberately).
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
NX, judging by the way NO-ONE actually comments on his blog, the answer is probably yes. He must be sooooo lonely.(cue Elvis song)
Vote:Oh hang on , is that a reply, nope, just an echo.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I’m the same. I also tend to scroll past tim barclay and Redbaiter since they write the same thing in all of their posts.
I also tend to ignore:
People who think they’re making a profound political statement by mispelling a word (eg. Liabour, Klark). What the fuck is their point?
People who ask questions ending with ‘hmmmmm???’ (‘How come you lefties are mad at Bush for invading Iraq when Clinton got that blowjob, hmmmmmm?’)
People who bring up unrelated subjects to try and divert the debate. (like the countless references to the Exclusive Bretheren all through the Taito Phillip Field threads)
People who play the ‘why haven’t you also condemned game’ (‘How can you condemn Israels invasion of Lebanon but not condemn Attila the Huns destruction of Aquileia? Hypocrite!!’)
People who bring up Hitler ALL THE TIME, or make equally tasteless historical analogies. (‘Liabours corporate tax rates are a worse crime than Stalins liquidation of the Kulaks!’)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
“Money is the lifeblood of politics…”
That’s just too too cynical.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
SPC,
That is very disingenuous.
National legitimately spent what it was legally permitted to do prior to the campaign, and afterwards.
Labour stole from the taxpayer to fund its campaign, spending far more than National during the campaign period.
It may be a maxim of socialist propaganda that the more lies you spread deflecting attention from your theft of public money to buy an election, the more likely you will get away with it, but I have faith that voters are better able to see the truth, and judge your cynical spin for what it is.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
NX – we have found common ground. I take my hat off to you.
Danyl, I will mention the EB’s when election funding issues and calls for re-election come up, because I think it is relevent. Sorry. I don’t think they have anything to do with Field, however. No, wait …
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
blair ..blair…minie-pies..mincie-pies..
“..As for National being funded by the rich few and Labour by the poor many… pull the other one! It’s common knowledge that parties like National and ACT have a wide base of donors, whereas most of Labour’s dosh comes from a handful of Unions and crony capitalists…”
i think blair…a quick perusal of some easily available statistics will show you that..”yes..you are incorrect..”
and nx..u said..
“..for some reason my eyes refuse to read Phil U’s posts.
The dots & lack of capital letters confuse my sensors, so I scroll on past…”
come now nx..u know u read them…u aren’t fooling anyone with that canard….eh..?
aping the experiences of many others..you came to scoff at the dots..and stayed…awed by the words….eh..?
and sideshowbob..?…carry on..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I apologise to this thread for being off-topic. I feel Phil U.’s earlier comments unwarranted:
Phil, you said of Sir Humphrey’s: “the best they could come up with was a mumble about dog-chipping…!”
You spin as hard as the Labour party. You appear to have a reading comprehension problem if you think I mentioned one policy, and not more. Either that, or it is your opinion dog chipping was more important than other things I mentioned, eg: economic growth, reducing a beneficiary mindset via WFF, targeting urgent surgery and ending the farce around the 6 month hospital waiting lists.
The other interpretation you failed to consider is the other authors at SH may have provided you with the facts you think do not exist, but just chose NOT to debate you and your off-topic comments.
Anyone fascinated at the mind of Phil can decide for themselves: Phil U thinks it’s all about dog chipping
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
FACTS. Don’t obscure them IP.
1. National spent far more than Labour prior to the campaign.
2. There are only limits on party spending DURING the election campaign period.
3. It was DURING the campaign that National managed to mismanage their GST situation – which could have led to a criminal prosecution. They overspent DURING the campaign.
4. Labour’s overspending during the campaign is related to whether “government parliamentary budget spending” was campaign spending/party political spending OR NOT. It was NOT regarded so in earlier campaigns. National is claiming that what happened in 2005, is an illegal buying of an election (“of the most corrupt government in our history”), when this sort of spending has occured since MMP and from both National and Labour governments.
5. National wants to exert financial muscle to win by outspending Labour between elections and limiting the access of Labour to taxpayer funding (in the promotion of government policy and in support of political party campaigning).
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Danyl,
I’m like you and skip phil u comments. Cant be bothered deciphering his ramblings.
If the labour plead letter is real then they are in big trouble.
The bit about choosing beteen the EB’s values and labour values says to me it is a fakie.
However visiting their web site I cant see any references to labours values at all. Just policy which are not values.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
One difference SPC:
National paid it back
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/08/all_paid_up.html
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
SPC:
1. You’ve got no evidence for that assertion. Since no party is required to account to the electoral commission for spending outside the campaign period, you would be very hard-pressed to produce evidence for it. That is a baseless allegation.
2. Even given that it’s a baseless allegation, as you state, it’s not relevant to the application of electoral law. There are no limits on party spending outside the campaign period. To date, I haven’t heard any commentator, or senior party figure, suggest limits on spending outside the campaign period, or even an extension of the campaign period beyond the 90 days. You’re deliberately trying to fudge the issue.
3. Quite right. National did mismanage its GST on broadcasting allocation during the campaign period. You conveniently forget to mention that National tried to legislate to allow itself to pay it back. Labour blocked that move. That is very different from Labour’s attempt to legislate to NOT pay back its theft of taxpayer money to outspend everybody else during the campaign period.
4. Half correct. Labour was warned by the Auditor-General and the Electoral Commission to be very careful about its use of parliamentary funding on the campaign. Labour refused to meet with the Auditor-General in early 2005 to clarify the use of parliamentary funding during the later campaign. The CEO stated during the campaign that it would have to account for its parliamentary spending on the campaign. Labour agreed to this. Then Labour subsequently refused to do this after the election. Labour knew the law as it would be interpreted in 2005, and defied it anyway.
5. Labour-controlled promotional resources outstrip National Party resources outside the campaign period by more than 100-1. You are welcome to tell lies about how National spends more than Labour, but the reality is that the public does not believe you. Voters can see through your cynical spin.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
“If the labour plead letter is real then they are in big trouble.”
Why? How many political musing seem a bit “fake”? How about this “http://www.superblues.org.nz/”? LOL.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Eh? Think you may have the wrong link… just a standard looking website to me.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
“Yes, I prefer Labour’s values to Exclusive Brethren Values”
I do indeed, but that doesn’t spur me to donate money to anyone. I prefer National’s values to the EB’s too.
What an odd thing to say, hmmmmmm?
(Heh heh, sorry Danyl, I do actually agree with you totally.)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
IP, if an organisation campaigned for Labour *and* the CEO said that they appear to be supporting Labour’s party vote *and* the CEO refered the matter to the police, do you think that the value of that campaign should be addedd to Labour’s total? Do you think Labour maybe should have signed off the campaign, especially if their leader had been forwarned?
The reason I ask is because this is exactly what happened in the EBs case and yet National don’t seem to want to acknowledge that fact. Add this to their $100,000 GST error and you are building up quite a deficit over on that side of the fence.
Do you think National’s squealing about “stolen” election stands up to much scrutiny?
Some background reading for you:
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=264&ObjectID=10352042
August 29th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Exclusive Brethren this, Exclusive Brethren that. Tell me, what the fuck does the Exclusive Brethren have to do with Labours transgresson?
And who the hell are you quoting when you say National is squealing about “stolen” elections? The issue is stolen money.
National did the equivalent of walking out of a shop with incorrect change, realising straight away, turning around and trying to pay it back.
Labour has done the equivalent of refusing to pay in the first place, kicking the shop keeper in the nuts and running out of the store laughing.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Noddy
A blue rinse national web site. Is that a fake?
Where are labours values printed, displayed? Not on their web site!
So if you want to choose between EB or labour values you cant because labour dont have any values!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
“YES. I prefer Labour’s values to Exclusive Brethren values.”
Who in their right mind would affirm that question?
Sorry Helen, I’ll take christian values over values involving corruption, dishonesty and theft any day.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Noddy,
You’re either deliberately lying or stupid. What the EBs did are no different in principle (although much smaller in scale) from the unions anti-National campaign, which were not an attributable election expense either. If the EBs committed an offence during the campaign, yes, they should be charged. If there’s any evidence that National colluded with the EBs–and I’m talking actual evidence of a systematic orchestration to get around electoral law–then that evidence should be produced. That evidence really needs to be much more than mindless smear and innuendo. Go on. Put the evidence together, and bring a private prosecution against the National Party. If Labour had any integrity at all, they would do that.
There’s no deficit at all. National misjudged its GST payment for spending on broadcasting; the effect is broadcasters are out of pocket. National sought to remedy this by legislating to allow itself to pay the broadcasters. Labour blocked that move. National admitted its liability in this matter, and was prepared to face the consequences of it.
Labour deliberately misappropriated more than $800,000 of public money, refused to pay it back, refused to admit liability for it, and wants to legislate to make that theft legal.
It’s really no fun playing “Spot The Difference” with you, Noddy. You have fallen for Labour Party propaganda, and will continue to tell the electorate that your ageing, shitting, dung-covered, gangrenous, balding mammoth of corruption is no bigger than a mouse.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Just to play devil’s advocate here, I think National should accept this comic piece of dog-whistle scaremongering and born to rule arrogance as the tribute it so obviously is. It’s sends a pretty sad message about how Labour motivates it’s base: Fear, resentment, paranoia and the implicit assumption that anyone who thinks differently is evil.
It doesn’t deserve any more attention except to say this: The day National shits anything this pathetic into my letter box, Judy Kirk won’t be receiving a cheque but my membership card with detailed instructions where she can shove it.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
What Craig said. National is doing a great job and Labour are running scared. It would be interesting to compare and contrast this letter to a fundraising letter sent by Labour in 2001 or 2002.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
You have a National Party membership card?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
IP it’s well known some of the EB spending was not authorised properly (issues of accurate addresses etc).
Also that overspending is overspending, whatever “GST oversight” enabled it. Being prepared or able to pay back overspending money, does not change the fact of the occurence. Or that the occurence was to gain an advantage during the camapign (now don’t say National did not understand GST).
You provide no evidence that EB’s pro National contribution was less than that offered to Labour by other groups.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
What is the basis for saying the money was stolen Kimble?
Are you pre-judging the Darnton court case? Or are you confusing overspending with stealing money, just because Don said someone stole an election?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
SPC,
There were several cases of inappropriate authorisation of union campaign literature, as well. In all cases, those organisations should have been charged. In no cases could you pin the blame for that on either the National Party or the Labour Party.
You will find very few people in the National Party, and nobody in the leadership or the campaign, defending the Exclusive Brethren, their campaign tactics, or the quality of their advertising. If the EBs committed an offence, they should be charged.
Yes, National committed an offence under broadcasting rules. They should have been charged. They should also have been required to pay the money back.
National tried to do that. It was prepared to face the music. It admitted responsibility. You’ve got no evidence that National intended to break the law. If you have, I suggest you bring a private prosecution against the National Party and prove it in court. If you can’t, then you’re full of shit.
In time, I will be reviewing all of the registered unions’ audited accounts for the 2005-2006 year, to give an estimate on just how much they spent during the election. The reasonable estimate of EBs spending was $500,000. I note that Labour has progressively raised this figure to $1.2 million. They’ve got no evidence for this, but let’s say over the next three months, Labour raises that figure to $1.4 million.
I’m pretty sure that over the next month I will be able to come up with election-related union spending topping that, easily.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
IP, sounding a tad hysterical now aren’t you? Aas for twisting facts…
“National sought to remedy this by legislating to allow itself to pay the broadcasters. Labour blocked that move.”
No, Labour supported that legislation.
“and will continue to tell the electorate that your ageing, shitting, dung-covered, gangrenous, balding mammoth of corruption is no bigger than a mouse.”
I see. Bzzt thanks for participating, you’re out.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
IP
While no party is required to account for it’s spending between elections, it is commonly held that National spent more than Labour between 2002 and 2005. That this is only commonly held opinion, based on an observation by media and public rather than conclusive evidential proof, does not make it baseless or untrue.
You protest that
“5. Labour-controlled promotional resources outstrip National Party resources outside the campaign period by more than 100-1.”
This is a truism that applies for all parties in government office and is based on a presumption that government resources are continually used for party promotion. It also a truism that a biased media can magnify or diminish coverage to the public in ways that can support government office advantage or render it mute. The media can also see their role to hold government accountable and thus offer 100 to 1 support for the opposition against an incumbent administration.
“You are welcome to tell lies about how National spends more than Labour”
If, as you said there no evidence to support what I said about the greater amount spent between elections by National (even though it is commonly held and is the basis of the Labour fundraising letter) on what basis do you assert there was a lie?
“but the reality is that the public does not believe you.”
If you know what the public thinks, there goes the end for polls – can you also say to what extent (between 1 and 99%) the public thinks on any given issue?
“Voters can see through your cynical spin.”
Are you telling, or wishing for people to see things your way? Perhaps some wordsmiths think they can influence people with their words like hypnotists do, its a form of hubris that may afflict people of the blogworld.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Danyl, I am in complete agreement with pretty much all of your posts.
And on an unrelated note, while there’s usually trolls of both left and right persuasion in the threads here, I think that the ‘pro national’ posts have been pretty consistently good. Whereas some of the ‘pro labour’ ones have been weak.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
IP I would see the test as, election related union spending within the campaign period compared to that of EB.
Outside the campaign period, there is business campaigning supportive of National’s policy and National Party activity which outweighs union political activity/Labour party activity combined. Yes an unverified opinion, but there is no evidence to challenge it.
You said
“You’ve got no evidence that National intended to break the law. If you have, I suggest you bring a private prosecution against the National Party and prove it in court. If you can’t, then you’re full of shit.”
You assumed Labour intended to ignore the campaign rules, this based on what they did. I am assuming the same applied to the GST oversight. As a voter, I can only conclude National is either no more honest than Labour, or this party full of business savvy people and competent government management expertise was unabe to manage GST to the level of the immigrant starting a new small business. Which would say that, either way, these hypocrits are as you say …..
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
first of all it was the GREENS who blocked Nationals attempt to introduce legislation.
second it’s intresting that some of you have no problem with National introducting laws to fix illgeal acts.
Certainly you wouldn’t begrudge labour doing that same thing if you think what they did was illgeal?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Red, there does not need to be a new law for Labour to put things right. They just have to repay the money.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Yes, but was National told specifically that their GST oversight (and I use the term loosely) would be against election spending rules? I am actually interested to find this out!
Whereas Labour were given repeated warnings to not include the pledge card in their budget, but still went ahead and did it anyway?
So remind me – which party still hasn’t paid back the illegally overspent money?
And Red, pull your head out of your ass! National wanted to change legislation to pay back the money, whereas Labour would really, really love to retrospectively change legislation so it could keep OUR money.
PAY IT BACK LABOUR!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Why not two enabling legislations as a package deal (like broadband with Sky). Then we can all move on with the most corrupt government and opposition in history. But on a level playing field.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Red..
Your logic is truly… twisted.
A bit like the Monty Python skit, “If she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood and therefore a witch.. burn her!”.
Deep breath to repeat the same statement over and over, National want to introduce legislation to PAY it back, Liarbour want to introduce legislation so they don’t have to.
Vote:It’s simple… it’s really really really simple and the difference between right and wrong.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Seanmonkey – Don Brash says the rules were crystal clear so presumably he didn’t need to be told (although, it was a shame he chose not to share that clarity with his EB friends).
A question I have for anyone is if the parties “pay it back” do they not just get to spend the money all over again? That money was allocated to the Parliamentary parties so presumably “paying it back” essentially means paying it back so it can be spent, all over again by those very same parties!
I am sure I have missed something here.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
National needed to be told about GST oversight causing overspending? No other party need to be warned about this, to avoid that “mistake”.
A party awash with cash, could easily make the mistake deliberately and offer to repay the money as soon as they officially realised the mistake. This enabling them to overspend during the campaign itself and perhaps gain an election win by doing so?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
National wasnt seeking to change the law that it was deemed to have broken. National was seeking to change a law which prevented them from paying what they owed.
Labour is seeking to change the law they were deemed to have broken.
If you cant understand the difference between these two situations, then you’re a fucking retard.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Noddy said: “I am sure I have missed something here.”
Understatement. Of. The. Year.
Yes, they get to spend the money again….next election. Are Labour going to steal more taxpayers money then? Time will tell, but I’d put an easy bet on them to do it at any and all costs to stay in power so they can retrospectively legislate more illegal acts of government.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
There is no such thing as “good or bad” retrospective legislation, if one is objecting to retrospective legislation itself.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
You can aruge motives all you like, it’s still changing the law to fix a mistake.
The fact that National have money to burn doesn’t change that.
I am not saying Labour have done the right thing but aruging National have superior motives so it makes it ok doesn’t stack up.
oh and thanks for the virtoll well done on that.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
National need to be very clear that even if this government can find enough support in Parliament to pass retropective law so they don’t have to pay the money back – when National next become government they will reverse the law. Labour, ACT, United Future and NZ First should all pay the money back NOW – before the final report from the AG comes out. They can then face the country with a relatively clean slate when told they they stole from the taxpayer.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I think it’s fake – after all it’s signed by Helen Clark.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
yes noddy, you have completely missed the point.
Paying it back does not absolve either party from culpability for overspending. And no one has suggested that it would absolve National of theirs.
Another difference between National and Labour in this case, is that there is documented PROOF that Labour KNOWINGLY broke the rules. They accepted that it was part of the campaign funding but reversed their decision after the election. There is no such proof (just wishful thinking from the left wing) that National did the same.
You can speculate idiotic all you like. It wont change the facts that Labour has been shown to knowingly break the rules, and National has not.
Didnt National bring their overspending to the attention of the public? Who broke the Labour pledge card story? Michael Cullen? Steve Maharey?
oh, but Exclusive Brethren… splutter…splutter.. GST…splutter… ACT… splutter.. cough… splutter…Karl Rove!
Pathetic.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
“National wasnt seeking to change the law that it was deemed to have broken”
So it’s not illegal to fail to pay GST and rip off some broadcasters?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
The issue is part of a wider divide between the two parties.
National believes in the haves having their money and using it to donate to the National party cause, amongst other things, so they can dominate electoral politics. Whereas Labour believes in government having the resources to provide public services for all and for families in need, this with an equal electoral playing field to ensure one person one equal vote.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
sure SPC, because National will scrap social welfare and reduce government spending to zero.
So what you are saying is that Labour cares so much about evening the playing field electoraly that they were willing to steal money from the tax payer to make sure their message got across just as well as National? What saints.
Also, tally of the retarded so far:
Red
sonic
SPC
Once again. The law National was trying to change was not the one they broke. They are still cuplable for that error. The one they were trying to change was the one which legally prevented them from paying the money back.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
as richard Long notes in the paper this morning (Dom) this will be a lean campaign. They will not dare repeat the corruption (or would they???). They will be desperate for funds and are needing to start now because the kitty is obviously very dry.
I would also suspect that unions may be told by their members that they do not want their union dues leveraged so the union can spend $237,000 (food and service workers union) on trying to make sure that labour stays in power.
and because the labour support base is generally the lower paid they cannot afford to donate money – and because they are parasites on society they also do not see that they have a duty to contribute to a political party (nor the foresight) – They will just take and take from the ample tit of the hardworking taxpayer.
For my own part I will be sending in a contribution to the National Party (who i have not supported since the 1993 election) because of the integrity of the National Party and my distaste for the corruption that Labour wallow in.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
You said,
“They accepted that it was part of the campaign funding but reversed their decision after the election”
I would not mind some clarification and supporting info on this. If they overspent because of the expenditure, it was not a post election change of mind matter (but prior to the election). What was the when and form of the earlier acceptance – given campaign spending can only occur in the campaign period.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
as richard Long notes in the paper this morning (Dom) this will be a lean campaign. They will not dare repeat the corruption (or would they???). They will be desperate for funds and are needing to start now because the kitty is obviously very dry.
I would also suspect that unions may be told by their members that they do not want their union dues leveraged so the union can spend $237,000 (food and service workers union) on trying to make sure that labour stays in power.
and because the labour support base is generally the lower paid they cannot afford to donate money – and because they are parasites on society they also do not see that they have a duty to contribute to a political party (nor the foresight) – They will just take and take from the ample tit of the hardworking taxpayer.
For my own part I will be sending in a contribution to the National Party (who i have not supported since the 1993 election) because of the integrity of the National Party and my distaste for the corruption that Labour wallow in.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
as richard Long notes in the paper this morning (Dom) this will be a lean campaign. They will not dare repeat the corruption (or would they???). They will be desperate for funds and are needing to start now because the kitty is obviously very dry.
I would also suspect that unions may be told by their members that they do not want their union dues leveraged so the union can spend $237,000 (food and service workers union) on trying to make sure that labour stays in power.
and because the labour support base is generally the lower paid they cannot afford to donate money – and because they are parasites on society they also do not see that they have a duty to contribute to a political party (nor the foresight) – They will just take and take from the ample tit of the hardworking taxpayer.
For my own part I will be sending in a contribution to the National Party (who i have not supported since the 1993 election) because of the integrity of the National Party and my distaste for the corruption that Labour wallow in.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
as richard Long notes in the paper this morning (Dom) this will be a lean campaign. They will not dare repeat the corruption (or would they???). They will be desperate for funds and are needing to start now because the kitty is obviously very dry.
I would also suspect that unions may be told by their members that they do not want their union dues leveraged so the union can spend $237,000 (food and service workers union) on trying to make sure that labour stays in power.
and because the labour support base is generally the lower paid they cannot afford to donate money – and because they are parasites on society they also do not see that they have a duty to contribute to a political party (nor the foresight) – They will just take and take from the ample tit of the hardworking taxpayer.
For my own part I will be sending in a contribution to the National Party (who i have not supported since the 1993 election) because of the integrity of the National Party and my distaste for the corruption that Labour wallow in.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
DPF has a copy of a letter from the Labour party president which accepts that the pledge cards (remember them?) were campaigning and promised (ha!) to include them in campaign accounts. They however, did not include them in the campaign accounts, after which they claimed they werent actually used in campaigning.
Look back on this site and you will find it easy enough. If you didnt know that this correspondence even existed, how confident are you that your opinion was well founded?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
It would appear that Kimble is unaware of the practice of taxpayer funded parties common in democracies which do not want elections bought by the haves and the parties advocating on their behalf. Because the “saint-like” concern for the equality of all voters overseas, is greater than the cynicism often expressed here, of how National are supported by the haves and thus have the validation of money, whereas Labour supported by the have nots is more reliant on taxpayer funding.
“sure SPC, because National will scrap social welfare and reduce government spending to zero.”
Your need to exaggerate a point, out of proportion to the actuality to try and dismiss it, speaks of this being your own position.
And what about
There is no such thing as “good or bad” retrospective legislation, if one is objecting to retrospective legislation itself.
don’t you understand.
Your own defence of retrospective legislation, when it is seen by you as good, is of whatever worth that then makes it.
An example of retrospective legislation is capital gains taxation on assets purchased earlier. It can be argued that this tax is a good part of a complete tax system (common overseas), does this then legitimise retrospective application?
Your own defence of good retrospective legislation is arguement that others can use for legislation they see as good.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“Once again. The law National was trying to change was not the one they broke. They are still cuplable for that error. The one they were trying to change was the one which legally prevented them from paying the money back.”
Because if they pay the money the owe they will break the limit on spending. Like the burglar caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying, “can we not change the law to make this legal”
Whats funny is that you attack Labour for exactly the same thing!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
RE: Labour not getting the same level of funding as National from the likes of business… Just perhaps if Labour didn’t pass so many anti business laws this would not be the case.
Also it’s just a little bit possible that if Labour didn’t spend it’s entire time inventing new tax legislation and empowering unions to reduce company profits this would not be the case.
I know I could form a political party that bans private enterprise and then complain that I don’t get backing from private enterprise….
They reap what they sow, and contrary to the lefty belief, being anti business is not something to be proud of ! Labour should be ashamed that their donations from business do not match Nationals.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Without sounding too much like a lawyer, kimble, what circumstance bounded the acceptance of the pledge cards as “campaigning”. Context is all. Could it have been disinformation to deceive the political opponent and their own party camapign planning. And does it bind the party?
One of my main points was to note that their decison was not post election, but pre election (to question your wording) campaign management.
“If you didnt know that this correspondence even existed, how confident are you that your opinion was well founded?”
You may not have noted, but it’s not an issue I have debated directly on.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Typical lefty argument. National is the party of the rich, whereas Labour is the party of the poor. This is just another part of your fantasy, SPC. Labour is currently funded by its supporters, various very large personal donors, every union in the country (which is often money appropriated from people who have little choice in the matter) as well as the tax payer.
You are the twit who said that Labour believes in public spending and helping the poor, and by implication that National does not.
There is nothing wrong with retrospective legislation per se.
You are confusing a rather simple concept. The governing political party should not retrospectively change a law absolving them of infringement of that law. Just think what sort of self serving abuses of power that could lead to!
However, a political party SHOULD be able to request the change of a law which prevents them from making reparations to the offended party from the infringement of another law. You see, simply paying making reparations would not absolve the party of wrong doing. So seeking a change of the law will not be self serving.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
When parties have to offer lower and lower company tax and personal income tax, to attract more money than other political parties so they can win elections on this basis, then we will live in a society like that of the USA. Poor in capital and ownership of our assets and with low wages, but with a society of perpetual and increasing disparity in their image.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
SPC hold on, David has to review the post I just made. It has the links to the previous posts concerning this issue in it. I made a mistake in that the General Secretary (rather than the party president) agreed to include the pledge card spending in Labour election return PRIOR to the election, but Labour reneged on the promise after the election. As opposed to accepting the spending was campaigning.
Nonetheless, two weeks before the election they agreed to include it in the returns, two week afterwards they said they wouldnt. What changed?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
It is a basic good governance principle that you do not take part in a vote on a matter in which you have a self interest.This applies to all levels and types of organisation and indeed is embodied in manys rules of conduct. The Socialists supporters here will find it difficult to understand the reasons but the rest who have a brain wont.So if the Socialists introduce retro legisaltion and then vote on it they will be in breach of that principle. Why does that matter.Because principles of good governance matter. If you want an orderly society then you need to have good principles Ones that have stood the test of time and ones that good people understand and respect. If the Socialists supporters want to have any credibility in the future they will be imploring them to not pass retro legisaltion. To do so would give the rest an endless supply of ongoing ammunition to continue to fire on the grounds that those who actively support the breach of good governance principles have no rights to have their opinions considered by those who uphold good governance principles. The balls in your court.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
SPC
I think you have it the wrong way around, the largest decrease in home ownership (capital & assets) has been since the tax rates were hiked in 1999 to punish the rich bastards. You know the guys, the big fat cats earning over that massive $60k mark.
If you are going to have a stab at an argumen at least base it on facts rather than ideology.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
SPC:
What a deliciously sugar-coated dream-land you live in. When all your flimsy arguments have been shot to pieces, you resort to: “National believes in the haves having their money…”.
Save me that bullshit, SPC. Labour has been in power for seven years. If they haven’t managed socialist utopia yet, it’s because the voters don’t want it.
You have fallen hook, line and sinker for Chris Trotter’s argument that the Labour Party is entitled to any taxpayer resources it can grab to buy an election; that theft of taxpayer money is legitimate to keep Labour in power, under the guise of creating an “equal electoral playing field”.
National has never advocated changing one person one vote. National was in Government for 38 of the 50 years between 1949-1999. At no stage did they suggest rich people should have more votes than poor people. Continue spinning lies, SPC. Nobody believes you.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
kimble you say
“There is nothing wrong with retrospective legislation per se.”
Even if involves tax liability? I wonder if that’s a politically correct position amongst those of the National party?
“The governing political party should not retrospectively change a law absolving them of infringement of that law. Just think what sort of self serving abuses of power that could lead to!”
As to the place of government before the law – are you aware that government does not yet have to be in accord with the HRA? Does this outrage you?
“You are confusing a rather simple concept.”
Not at all and I wonder how you think I am. I simply raised the issue of retrospective legislation in general. This in now way confuses any particular case.
If you really beleive what you say – that it is wrong to see Labour as the party supporting government provision of public services and aid to the poor/family in need – why don’t you take that up with right wingers here who make this comment about Labour and it’s supporters? An oversight on your part, or are you not sincere in this?
It is self evident that across the board tax cuts help who they help, that National has campaigned for private provision of services and for restraint in government spending. It was not National which sought to increase the minimum wage or proposed WFF.
Most unions left act for poor workers or public service employees – so this is consistent with support for a party supportive of governement provision of public services and the poor.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
SPC:
This might be a foreign idea to you. But have you ever considered the very slim possibility that the National Party believes in lower tax, higher quality government spending, and a business environment that encourages economic growth, because it MIGHT just be better for the country, rather than just because it might attract more funding from rich donors?
Or are you so stuck in the mode of thought that people only vote for their direct personal interest (which certainly applies to union officials dipping into membership dues to fund the Labour Party, rather than their own pockets), that National is just greedy and trying to steal from the oh-so-hard-working poor?
Newsflash, SPC. Socialism doesn’t work. Capitalism does.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
While all parties should be on the same footing with regards to election spending, and any anomalies, legal or illegal, should be corrected either by refund or penalty, FWIW I think its a bit short sighted and self-defeating to suggest, as some have done in this thread, that this particular Labour over-spend was the sole reason why National lost the election.
I would have thought that there were other, more compelling reasons, why National lost.
For example, when push came to shove they had failed to engage with enough, or indeed any, of the minor parties in order to form a majority coalition.
They had a leader who chose to define mainstream New Zealanders in such narrow terms that a huge number of New Zealanders did not recognise themselves in that definition.
They had a neophyte leader who was up against an experienced, ruthless, and politically smart opposition, and whose poor campaign judgement was badly exposed at times on the trail.
They had a policy towards multi-culturalism and Maori in particular that was widely perceived as divisive, exclusive, and regressive, even from within the National party itself.
Other than that, loved the tax cuts.
While it feels good to get on the front foot over mini scandals such as this, experience should tell us that incumbent governments are rarely these days brought down by such trifling things as integrity and honesty.
After all, everyone knows politicians lie.
As we have seen in NZ, Australia, the UK, and the US, lying doesn’t preclude people from elected office, hell, its almost mandatory!
Integrity comes a long way behind such issues as financial security, personal safety, national identity, education and health.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
While all parties should be on the same footing with regards to election spending, and any anomalies, legal or illegal, should be corrected either by refund or penalty, FWIW I think its a bit short sighted and self-defeating to suggest, as some have done in this thread, that this particular Labour over-spend was the sole reason why National lost the election.
I would have thought that there were other, more compelling reasons, why National lost.
For example, when push came to shove they had failed to engage with enough, or indeed any, of the minor parties in order to form a majority coalition.
They had a leader who chose to define mainstream New Zealanders in such narrow terms that a huge number of New Zealanders did not recognise themselves in that definition.
They had a neophyte leader who was up against an experienced, ruthless, and politically smart opposition, and whose poor campaign judgement was badly exposed at times on the trail.
They had a policy towards multi-culturalism and Maori in particular that was widely perceived as divisive, exclusive, and regressive, even from within the National party itself.
Other than that, loved the tax cuts.
While it feels good to get on the front foot over mini scandals such as this, experience should tell us that incumbent governments are rarely these days brought down by such trifling things as integrity and honesty.
After all, everyone knows politicians lie.
As we have seen in NZ, Australia, the UK, and the US, lying doesn’t preclude people from elected office, hell, its almost mandatory!
Integrity comes a long way behind such issues as financial security, personal safety, national identity, education and health.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
IP that you have to build your straw man of misrepresentation, to have a post, says it all. If having money to campaign was not important to prevailing in one person one vote elections, why would parties fund raise? If having more money was not an advantage why would parties seek it?
You seem ignorant of common practice offshore to have taxpayer funding.
Why not the Oz model, Don is always on about us catching up with them. Why not their election funding rules?
Otherwise you simply offer the pronouncements of victory for your cause akin to that “of the Arab army returning home from the battlefield”.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
SPC look up the term per se. And then consider how idiotic the question “Even if involves tax liability?” is.
It is wrong to see Labour as the ONLY party supporting government provision of services and to aid the poor. It is wrong to see National as incompatible with public services and helping to the poor. The differences between the parties are basiclly HOW to do these things. Labour seems to be taking the “drop money on it approach”, National would want more accountability.
An across the board tax cut helps people across the board. I suggest you look up the term “across the board” as well. It means EVERYONE pays less tax.
You obviously havent listened to any argument National and its supporters have made, ever. The argument against WFF were that it provided support for people that dont need support. The arguments against increasing the minimum wage… well there is so much written on that subject that if you dont know the other side of the argument then you really dont care what it is. Needless to say, the opposition to both WFF and an increase in the minimum wage did not hinge on the absence of a desire to help the poor. For WFF the argument was it didnt help the poor. For the minimum wage the argument was it would hurt the poor.
National is more focussed on doing good, rather than looking good. If a private firm can help people better than a public institution, or help them the same but for less cost, National has no problem with them doing so. Labour on the other hand is bound by an ideology which seems oblivious to outcomes and would rather see a government department do something badly than see a private institution do the same thing well.
Unions in general do not work for poor people. The poor people in this country are the unemployed. Unemployed people arent memebers of unions. In fact, unions actually create barriers preventing the unemployed finding jobs. Unions may have some low payed workers, but these people are not automatically poor. And public servants are not poor by any stretch of the imagination.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
“Continue spinning lies, SPC. Nobody believes you.”
Hey IP, talking about lies are you going to clear up your claim about Labour blocking National’s attemp at retrospective legislation? Silly mistake? They do happen you should know given the little GST issue.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Gd yes principles of good governance are important. And National could not propose legislation that would allow them to overspend, if that overspending was was illegal – if they upheld to the interest to declare tradition and abstained from proposing or voting in such a matter. If they did, they could not complain if Labour did the same.
burt, I tend to think it is the rate of increase in house prices relative to wages which is the problem, not the tax rate (which will be fixed pre 2008 but which will not solve the problem – unless house prices plateau for a few years and wages increase).
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
IP if across the board tax cuts were for the good of the country, rather than to attract party donations and votes how come the OECD said an such policy was inappropriate given our economic conditions?
“Or are you so stuck in the mode of thought that people only vote for their direct personal interest”
I simply note that National increased it’s 2002 vote by offering huge tax cuts when the OECD did not think was appropriate policy. So their opinion of voters is obvious.
“Newsflash, SPC. Socialism doesn’t work. Capitalism does.”
Newsflash IP, provision of public services and help to the poor WFF etc, is not socialism.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
SPC said: “It was not National which sought to increase the minimum wage or proposed WFF.”
How could I be so blind. Yes, Labour have been it right all along! That $500K+ is theirs to spend on staying in Government.
But wait…won’t that depriving the poor families that earn more than $100K of their right to some form of WFF assistance? Silly me, of course not! Labour will just keep redistributing income until everyone is equal (but some are more equal than others), and no-one will wont for anything except a corrupt Labour government in power.
Hoorah!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
By the way SPC, National was not looking to affect retrospective legislation. They were wanting to change a current law which would allow them to pay the money (and again, not absolve them from the original infringement). Labour however, was talking about changing a law, and back dating its effects to obsolve them of any guilt. Just so you know.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
SPC:
Again you’re either very stupid, or deliberately trying to confuse the debate. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you rely on duplicity rather than ignorance.
It doesn’t matter how much money National can raise from its supporters. It is a mass membership party. Its only concern is raising enough money to fund an election campaign. It did so.
As did Labour. Labour received a vast proportion of its funding from a small number of private and anonymous donors, and unions. It raised enough money to spend its maximum amount on its campaign.
Labour then went further, and spent an additional $800,000+ in addition to its campaign limit. It did so with full knowledge, on advice from the CEO, the Electoral Commission, and the Auditor General, that it was breaking the law. This money was taxpayer-funded.
A one percent swing–just twenty four thousand votes from Labour to National would have won National the election. How much is $800,000 additional spending by Labour, or 40% more than National was legally permitted to spend during the campaign, worth in votes?
Yeah, I’d say we’re not that far off from Labour buying an election.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
The GUTS of it is this:
1/The EBs spent their own money!!
2/She spent your money illegally.
3/They operated completely within the law and
all the addresses were verified by the police investigation into their pamplets.
4/They never gave National one cent as stated by Don Brash in Parliament.
5/The EBs may be a little different but they dont go around murdering people or blowing up planes or buildings.
6/ They are Christian and have been here for 150 odd years (some 50years more than Labour) and have been contributors to the country
7/They wanted to change this crooked Labour Govt who is flushing this country down the toilet!
8/She calls them religious extrememists because they have the Guts to do something about the state of the nation and not for their own benefit.
9/Who represents integrity???????????
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I suppose people will forget about Family Benefit which National re-distributed to families from single and older taxpayers.
Or forget about how with the introduction of GST and the withdrawal of rebates to families came the Family Support programme which WFF is just a continuance.
It is National which talks of being pro family but which wants across the board tax cuts instead of support targete3d to families which lost an election because of it.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
The OECD does not stand for Office of Economics of the Christian Deity. In other words, they are not God. They are also not the last word nor even the greatest authority.
National disagreed with their opinions. How can you twist that to mean that National was consciously acting in a detrimental way to the country? And how does that compare to the Labour offer of interest free student loans, an obviously cynical political ploy. (They even had to fudge the numbers!)
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
As SPC says… It’s National that have all the ideas and the support of people who make things happen, It’s Labour who steal their policies, then blame National and steal tax payer funding to wash it down the neck of the voters who don’t actually know who did what anymore.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Kimble the difference between the two parties positions is only based on their relative access to money.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
SPC, families pay tax too. An across the board tax cut will increase the amount of disposable income they have and wouldnt have to be specifically applied for, would be cheaper to implement and run, and wouldnt need a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to tell people that they are eligible. Nor would it create a dependency on the state, but of course, thats the problem, isnt it?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I simply do not know why she is asking for money. Why bother, she just takes it from the Treasury, as she did last time.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
IP must be flattered that you too have resorted to strawman misrepresentation to have a post to make.
The market reform ideas came with Labour in 1984. National only has extremist wing tendencies. This limits their electability.
The idea of indexing tax rates was made by Cullen. I expect it will be applied for 2008.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Well Labour has access to a greater number of large donors for their funding. This means that they are accountable to fewer people, which of course is vital in a democracy.
A big difference is National recieves funding from a wider number of people, and most often it is the individuals own money which is being donated.
Labour on the other hand relies heavily on very substantial donations from organisations spending other peoples money, which they have been able to extort thanks Labour’s policies. What saints.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
WFF was the targeting of support for families, Kimble. It means they get more, at least loss of revenues to government. Making it affordable within the economic constraints the OECD noted.
IP The OECD is impartial and supposedly of some expertise in the field. Imparial expertise is of value, whether partisans like it or not.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
SPC,
I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the time, or even the most fleeting of moments, to consider reality, let alone economics.
The Government is taxing New Zealanders almost $4 billion more this year than it taxed them last year. That’s over $54 billion in tax revenue. The Government is spending sixteen BILLION more than the last National Government. As a proportion of spending, the Government is spending only slightly more on health, with no real return, no more on education. It is spending vast amounts more on non-health, non-education, and non-social security than in 1999. The Government is also accumulating vast surpluses.
Yes, we can afford tax cuts. The Government at its present rate can probably also afford to have Auntie Helen fleecing it of a million dollars to fund Labour’s campaign.
Doesn’t make it right, tho’.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
SPC I feel I should write this very slowly for you. The possibility that it doesnt reduce government revenue is irrelevant. If the government wasnt spending on WFF it wouldnt need to worry about a drop in revenue. A lowering of the tax rates would simultaneously increase disposable income AND lower government revenue. Of course the lower government revenue is unimportant because they are not having to fund WFF.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Kimble
I am quite happy to have political parties only funded by flat rate annual membership fees (the memberships publicly listed to assist in reducing influence on parties to near zero). These that of individual members. Otherwise reliant on free advertsing at campaign times and or any taxpayer funding which parties can agree on.
Somehow I think it is Darnton, ACT and National who will oppose this, as so much of their monetary advantage is “otherwise”.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
SPC,
You really must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you can foot it in an economics debate.
The OECD did not say that tax cuts were unaffordable. If you’ve read any of the OECD’s reports over the last few years, you would know this.
What the OECD has consistently said is that governments have choices. They can either spend money or not spend money, raise deficits or surpluses, increase or raise debt, and raise or reduce taxes. That is the guts of all of their reports.
The OECD has raised major concerns with the quality of government spending in several of its last reports. They have observed that as Government spending has grown in New Zealand, there has been little, if any marginal return. They have said there is room for improving the quality of spending, to get a better return for the same amount of money, or the same return for less money.
The OECD has also pointed to the massive fiscal surpluses that New Zealand has been accumulating. There is comfortably room, within a $10 billion surplus, for a tax cut of $3 billion, without negatively affecting government services or increasing long-term debt.
When I went to school, 10-3=7. Seven is still a positive integer. Not sure if they still teach that in classes now.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Well IP and Kimble, it seems you have resorted to the tactic of opening your posts with personal attacks to those you are addressing. I presume this is something of a habit you have developed with those you have undressed.
If only you had something of more impressive value to offer afterwards, then I might have some cause to be more agreebale to your point of view.
Just rehashing sound bite radio political pointscoring tactics does not do it for me.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Yeah and the United and Labour, not to mention the Progressive, will just jump at the chance. Tell you what, stand up at the next Labour conference and suggest this to Helen. Then watch her turn blue as she realises you a suggesting they cut their ties with the unions and all their lovely money.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Kimble, WFF was a cheaper form of tax relief than across the board tax cuts. Thus it reduced revenues kept by government the least. That was all I meant, whatever you were on about.
This left the government with sufficient money for tax credits to poorer families and still have larger surpluses than Nastional would have, as IP does seem to get.
IP larger surpluses are counter-inflationary and ease reliance on high interest rates which damage the export sector. This was the OECD concern that we continue with surpluses for this reason.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
spc
you really are getting desperate aren’t you. you have tried to change the subject – noone listened. You have tried strawmen and obfuscation, but that hasnt worked either, you tried just making shit up, nope that doesnt help either.
you think that only national can raise money, or that national can raise more (well legally anyway) as if that were a problem, or even relevant given that labour did in fact manage to raise and spend everything it could (ie., up to the cap)
and now finally you say why not mandate a flat fee for members.
Well sunshine the flat fee seems fine to me. How many members does labour have left? and how many the nats?
want to rethink that idea too?
why don’t you just admit it, you really really believe that only labour should be in government, and you don’t care how unethical they need be to stay there. Because frankly you have spent all day wasting your time and ours trying to defend the indefensible – I do hope that taxpayers aren’t paying for the time you spend posting.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Yes, SPC.
Go on. Do just that. Tell Auntie Helen that you don’t want Labour to receive any money from unions, because you want Labour to charge no more than $10 in membership fees a year, flat rate. Tell her that you don’t want Labour to receive $500,000 from Owen Glenn next year. Tell her that you don’t want Labour to accept anonymous or corporate donations from any of the organisations that funded large amounts of Labour’s campaign this time. If you can get all of that out over a microphone without Mike Williams pistol-whipping you, I’ll give you $50 for your courage. If you can get it when the TV cameras are rolling, I’ll give you $100. After-tax.
I didn’t realise dissecting your various spurious claims around political party funding, political party spending, campaign spending limits, the application of the rule of law, fiscal economics, and the recent history of OECD country reports on New Zealand, constituted “sound bite radio political pointscoring”.
But every time you’ve raised an argument, you’ve lost. Might just suggest you’re trying to battle from a side of losers. On the other hand, you should know that we on the right are very accommodating. You’re welcome to join us. You just have to acquire a real desire for success, and shrug off that addiction to mediocrity and loserdom, and you’ll fit right in.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Well Kinble, if you think it’s so disadvatageous to Labour, (because it’s so fair), to have party funding based on individual membership fees alone, why is this, not National Party policy?
I think the real problem is that it’s National which would have it’s funding reduced the most.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
SPC, a person saying things such as,
“Kimble the difference between the two parties positions is only based on their relative access to money” and,
“It was not National which sought to increase the minimum wage or proposed WFF” [as proof that National doesnt care about poor people, because, of course, there is only one way to help the poor] and,
“National believes in the haves having their money and using it to donate to the National party cause”,
obviously hasnt thought things past stage one in their adult life. Your view of what National stand for is cartoonish and wouldnt be out of place in a high school social studies class.
So much teenage-political-angst, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
And to be fair, SPC, the reason you arent into pointscoring, probably has something to do with the fact that you havent been scoring many points.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
“I think the real problem is that it’s National which would have it’s funding reduced the most.”
Of course it would, if by most you mean less than Labour. Because Labour would simply get the Unions to make it compulsory that their members join and then donate to a political party, wink wink.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Isn’t SPC a type of tinned fruit?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
WFF is not tax relief. WFF is a benefit payment. It is not a tax credit, it doesnt have the same impact.
Benefit payments take more funds to implement and administer (and advertise, tax cuts dont need advertisment). It is simply false that it would be cheaper than a reduction in the tax rate or a movement of the tax brackets.
And hey, do you know what isnt counter-inflationary? Government spending! And who has increased government spending? The government, stupid!
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
nigel you raise the issue of my using strawmen arguements, after I challenged others who did so, then conclude by making one yourself.
You fail to note the issue of funding, is a between the elections matter, not just a campaign period matter (when there is free advertising etc) – have you read the Labour money plea letter?
“Well sunshine the flat fee seems fine to me. How many members does labour have left? and how many the nats? want to rethink that idea too?”
Why? As I said party funding from this and assisted by free advertising and any taxpayer funded extras that parties can agree on.
“you really really believe that only labour should be in government, and you don’t care how unethical they need be to stay there.”
Now thats strawman, having to describe the other’s postion in that way to have any support for your line of arguement.
“Because frankly you have spent all day wasting your time and ours trying to defend the indefensible – I do hope that taxpayers aren’t paying for the time you spend posting.”
Truly in the spirit of, why should we hear the point of view of others and totally consistent with the idea of hoping to dominate public discussion and through greater access to private money and closing down access to public money for those who might disagree.
I suppose it’s just so tiring having to justify the right wing point of thought to others.
But in the spirit of stereotypes, I wonder how many private employers are stolen from when the right wingers post on here during working hours? I just hope none of them have government jobs.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Radio NZ have just reported “Phillip Fields sacrifice gives Helen Clark a short respite from attacks over her pledge card Rort”.
Sums it up well I think.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
isn’t murray a type of pomade?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
isnt jamie a girls name?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Many in the media have called WFF tax relief Kimble.
“WFF is not tax relief. WFF is a benefit payment. It is not a tax credit, it doesnt have the same impact.”
Higher income earners supporting families had higher net incomes (tax relief)and lower income earners supporting families
sometimes had income top ups (tax credits).
“It is simply false that it would be cheaper than a reduction in the tax rate”
Labour’s plan offered more to families and left a larger surplus than National’s across the board tax cuts. Key admitted this and said borrowing more for infrastructure would be required.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
isnt jamie a girls name?
yes.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
spc, run along now. Labour called WFF “tax relief” that was spin. It is a benefit paid through the benefit system. Its only connection to tax is that it is funded from it. That is a fact. Just because maharey tried to spin WFF does not mean it is true.
Just because “many in the media” reported the press release doesnt make it true. or is that your new standard for truth.
In which case maving many in the media reporting on the the labour “rort” and the TPF “corruption” must make it true? QED.
what IS it with you?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
IP I would have to join the Labour Party to speak at a conference. But don’t let your error of judgment reduce your level of “confidence” in it.
I appreciate your hands up, that by defintion those on the right have to be seen (if only by their own assertion) as winners. However as this being a right winger, is manifest by aspiration for personal success, I suppose it is entireley consistent with successive elections in the UK and New Zealand being won by Labour.
Which is why Labour can survive the “sound bite radio political pointscoring” which assertively successful individuals on the right think is so effective.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Well, if the media has called it tax relief then it MUST be. Because it isnt like the media to get things completely wrong, and every member of the media establishment is an expert in the field in which they write.
So anything that increases the disposable income is a tax cut or tax relief? Hey, I just got a promotion and now I earn more money. Thank Labour for the tax relief! Hey I just got a huge ACC payment! Wow that tax relief has made you rich!
Labours plan offered more to families? So? It is offering more to families that dont need it, and taking from individuals that do. What would be wrong with increasing the 19.5% and 33% tax bracket up by a few thousand and introduce an $8k no-tax threshold?
Because Nationals plan, according to you, reduced the surplus by more than WFF, wouldnt that mean that they are providing more overall? If you want to target the lower-incomed in our society the easiest way to do it would be to lower GST. A consumption tax is a regressive tax because people on lower incomes have less of a propensity to save, right?
Lowering taxes, just not what Labour is about.
And Key said borrowing for infrastructure would be a good idea. Which it is, for other than purely fiscal reasons. Again with the not listening to other people.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Shepparton Packing Company said:
“Many in the media have called WFF tax relief Kimble.”
Have you ever thought for one nano-second that “many in the media” are complete and utter twits who regurgitate press releases from Government?
No, didn’t think so.
As can also be said for their one-sidedness and woeful inaccuracies of the Transmission Gully submissions and subsequent reports. But I digress…
SPC also said:
“Higher income earners supporting families had higher net incomes (tax relief)”
First bit (not in brackets) – does that really surprise you? Its like saying fit people are fit because they run lots.
Second bit (in brackets) – zuh?? How does being a high income earner = tax relief?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
to return to the actual letter.
Did the values of labour’s founders really equate to “equality, opportunity and peace?”
and there was me thinking that labour were part of the organised labour movement. you know, actual workers. Doubt there were many teachers, university lecturers or lawyers in the first intake? Would they have got on with the miners, factory workers and shearers I wonder, maybe over a nice cup of darjeeling?
Must say it’s not immediately clear how the rainbow constituency got on back in the day either.
Funny thing how flexible values can be if you wriggle hard enough.
Did Labour stay out of Iraq, best you ask all those engineers what they were doing in Basra, or maybe while you were at it, all the SAS what they did in Afghanistan?
Why try and slag christians (even slightly weird ones)? Why try and scare the faithful rather than offer a positive reason to rejoin the party?
Regardless of your views on the funding rort, this is a very very strange letter.
Maybe they really are skint and are shit scared they might have to fight a snap election?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
{Kimble the difference between the two parties positions is only based on their relative access to money}
Context
Which was a reference to the fact that National overspent during the campaign and offered to pay up afterwards (remimburse their unwitting media dupes), because they had the money available.
{It was not National which sought to increase the minimum wage or proposed WFF)
Given the fact that National offered nothing comparable to low paid workers, or the low paid with families, says it all. Claiming that supporting business is just another way of supporting the poor is just that, a claim. There is no way of proving or disproving it. It’s the political-economic version of religious faith advocacy.
(National believes in the haves having their money and using it to donate to the National party cause)
Which is simply a response to National’s own advocacy, or Kimble are you renouncing it? They want taxpayers to have more of the surplus and they want less tax funding of political parties and more political party reliance on donors.
You don’t see a link between the party offering tax cuts and donations of support from those standing to gain from these tax cuts?
Kimble you seem to have decided that maturity is determined by numbers. That is, conformity to the party line on a right wing board. Now that is what is immature.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
seamonkey, if you cannot keep up with the discussion between others, it’s not wise to post and say so.
Kimble, tax relief or tax credit are catch all phrases which apply whenever government acts to manage income and tax level, to the taxpayers advantage. In the case of those still paying tax, tax relief and in the case of those now recipents of a benefit on top of their now effectively untaxed income, a tax credit situation.
If the media can understand this, why cannot …
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
You have a chance to help National prove that they are really for help to the poor with this idea
“What would be wrong with increasing the 19.5% and 33% tax bracket up by a few thousand and introduce an $8k no-tax threshold?
Maybe National could propose this in 2008?
It was Cullen who suggested tax rate indexing. The top rate will move up somewhat in 2008 (somewhere between 15 to 30,000?)
“Because Nationals plan, according to you, reduced the surplus by more than WFF, wouldnt that mean that they are providing more overall?”
According to Key, National would have had smaller surpluses. But across the board largesse does not mean more to families, many older workers are post family and many younger ones are without them and the largess was spread too thin to assist families into secure home ownership.
“If you want to target the lower-incomed in our society the easiest way to do it would be to lower GST.”
That’s not targeting.
“A consumption tax is a regressive tax because people on lower incomes have less of a propensity to save, right?
Yes, but it enables government to finance targeted help and in way which collects off the cash economy, discourages spending (important given our high trade and BOP deficits) and encourages saving.
“And Key said borrowing for infrastructure would be a good idea. Which it is, for other than purely fiscal reasons. Again with the not listening to other people.”
He said we did not have to fund all of it out of surpluses, so he could sell smaller surpluses under National’s more generous across the board tax cut policy. I know who was not listening.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
So the only reason Labour is trying to subvert our democracy is because they dont have the cash? What saints.
Again, you have implied that it was a deliberate act by National with ZERO proof.
So because National didnt ‘target’ families, this is somehow proof of what, that they dont care about the poor? The poor would have gotten tax cuts too, I forget the details but they would have been better off. What is really pissing you off about the National policy is that the rich also benefit (though not by as much as you imagine).
Supporting business? WTF are you on about?
You want another religious faith advocacy? How about that direct provision is the only and best way to alleviate poverty? How about National is the party of rich people? Sounds doctrinaire to me.
Get this through your head, kid. Across the board tax cuts affect everyone that pays tax. So of course the majority of people who support National would gain from their policy! In fact most of the people who supprt Labour would benefit from Nationals policy!
I support National because I think their policies are best for NZ, not because I recieve any benefit from their policies. In fact, I dont agree with everything National says, but it is a closer match than any of the others.
Just because you only support Labour because they made your student loan interest free doesnt mean everyone else has the same mercenary attitude.
There are some very mature teenagers, not many though. I am making a guess at your age because of what you have been saying. I have nothing else to go on. It is your writing, your basic misunderstanding and cartoonish vision of your opposition which makes you immature.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Yes, both election campaigns and party policy comparison, is about the raising of money and use of money.
“Again, you have implied that it was a deliberate act by National with ZERO proof.”
I don’t assume incompetence from business savvy people when there is motive otherwise. But maybe your opinion of their competence is lower than mine. Whereas my confidence in their hypocrisy is higher than yours.
“So because National didnt ‘target’ families, this is somehow proof of what, that they dont care about the poor?”
Listen more closely. Given the need, noted by the OECD, not to over-stimulate the economy – tax relief would be either insignificant, or targeted to families.
{Claiming that supporting business is just another way of supporting the poor is just that, a claim. There is no way of proving or disproving it. It’s the political-economic version of religious faith advocacy.}
“Supporting business? WTF are you on about?”
Nationals claim that the way to help the poor is to promote/support business. Now you know.
“In fact most of the people who supprt Labour would benefit from Nationals policy!”
Yes and some by more than Labour’s, but National’s involved compromising the surplus too much and the suggestion of future asset sales etc.
“Just because you only support Labour because they made your student loan interest free doesnt mean everyone else has the same mercenary attitude.”
Another straw man. I have never advocated a policy which advantaged myself and I did advocate interest free tertiary debt and have done so since 1999.
The fact, that you cannot simply debate the issues without the attempt to portray someone of the other side in a negative way, is the only sign of immaturity here. That you try and link this terminology, to the observations of the other side about your own, is the only sign of any sophistication in the approach I have noted here today (by yourself and others). It’s useful to note the rationalisations that people make to justify their world view. It’s the way we fool ourselves. And noting how people react to “outsiders” (consider Arabs and a constant xenophobia to the non Moslem infidel west) is to gain a handle on how they see themselves and react to others who bring any challenge.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
SPC, you are the one defending the indefensible.
Look its pretty simple really. Labour didnt run out of money, they didnt fall short of money. They deliberately spent $800k more than they were legally entitled to.
They took that from Parliamentary Services.
The Chief Electoral Officer warned them not to, they promised they wouldnt, then after the election they reneged.
Full stop. End of story. Bing.
Nothing here about your philosophical belief that cunning capitalists want to undermine the state. Sorry. Nothing at all.
Nor is the fact that someone else did something else constitute a defence.
Frankly it simply doesnt matter. Face the truth – a desperate Labour Government in an incredibly tight race that they largely bungled off a botched Budget stole money they weren’t entitled to and overspent their campaign cap by what, 30%.
They won on the night by 2%.
Just as well we don’t believe that election spend has any influence on the outcome of the vote on the day isnt it?
what they did was wrong. wrong wrong wrong. There is never going to be a justification that sticks, and the fact that you keep worrying away at it demonstrates that you know this too.
In politics, the worst mistake is never the crime, its always the cover-up – demonstrates character you know.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I’ve just taken the time to read the letter, and the most stand out feature in my opinion is that it reads like it was written by a retard. If Klark wrote that, she probably dumbed it down to so that it would resonate with the average leftist voter, usually thicker than three short planks… Funny isn’t it, how these walled off from reality academics who delude themselves they are the intellectual elite, have to rely on the vote and financial support of the dumbest section of society in order to keep their greedy grasp on power.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
nigel the major issue for a democracy, is that elections be fairly contested. Not just in the technicality of law, but in the actuality.
On this occasion Labour used it’s position to remain competitive as National operated a through the year campaign unrestrained by temporary spending restraints. Possibly counting on tougher post 2002 conditions to limit Labour’s response.
National itself still breached campaign limits and one is tempted to consider this was deliberate, as they noted Labour kept spending longer than they thought (given the presumed status of pledge cards). It seems once National realised what was up (Labour was spending as if they were not counting the pledge cards), they spent up further and used the GST oversight excuse.
“Labour didnt run out of money, they didnt fall short of money.”
Who told you, when and what’s your evidence?
“They deliberately spent $800k more than they were legally entitled to.”
I do not determine the legal position, but then again neither do you.
“They took that from Parliamentary Services.”
“The Chief Electoral Officer warned them not to, they promised they wouldnt, then after the election they reneged.”
Be careful not to confuse party use of that money with spending during the election period (general comment).
“Nothing here about your philosophical belief that cunning capitalists want to undermine the state. Sorry. Nothing at all.”
You may have failed to not it, but the thread is about Labour party fundraising and their advocacy for this fundraising, not National’s campaign on the election spending.
“what they did was wrong. wrong wrong wrong. There is never going to be a justification that sticks, and the fact that you keep worrying away at it demonstrates that you know this too.
It is part of politics to shine the light on both parties. National also overspent and the real issue is fair and transparent election contests.
“In politics, the worst mistake is never the crime, its always the cover-up – demonstrates character you know.”
Yes, but this is also an issue on which the party with greater access to private money can gain an advantage in future elections. In doing justice on the technicality, one could compromise fair elections, the greater democratic cause.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
It is indeed no wonder Labour’s member contributions lag behind other parties. I certainly wouldn’t donate to a letter written like that.
It almost reads like a junk email that has originated in Nigeria. However I guess her mention of the Exclusive Brethren will breath a whole new vigor into noddy’s posts.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Anyhow if peoples prime concern is guarding the government from the temptation of frittering way the surplus, note it’s still there and rather large. In fact larger than it would be under National. Maybe the parliamentary money/taxpayer money was well spent?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Spc
I am only going to bother to respond to two of your silly points:
“Labour used it’s position to remain competitive”
I beg your pardon? Are you really saying that abuse of office is OK?
“Labour didnt run out of money, they didnt fall short of money.”
Who told you, when and what’s your evidence?
They overspent the legal cap. In every body elses version of english that means they spent MORE than they were legally ALLOWED to spend
Do you actually dispute that?
every other point you make is equally fatuous. Get a grip.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
SPC
There are many people in serious financial hardship in this country, do you agree with that ?
If you do how can you possibly say that a massive Govt surplus and extra benefits for people earning up to $141K is money well spent?
Please stop clutching at straws, your strawman is broken, stop trying to make donkeys and dinosaurs.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
The prime issue is that a democracy requires a equal chance in the election contest. Not a situation where parties have advantages based on their greater fundraising ability.
To explain, if police are well paid they are less inclined to corruption. Political parties in government can be lead away from temptation too.
Some countries have tax funding of parties and more generous support for campaigning.
You wrote both these statements nigel
“Labour didnt run out of money, they didnt fall short of money.”
“They overspent the legal cap. In every body elses version of english that means they spent MORE than they were legally ALLOWED to spend”
One issue is that they resorted to non party finance to afford their campaign. A sign of party funding issues.
The other is overspending during the campaign (not all their own money). National also overspent.
I am not responsible for your comprehension issues nigel.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Applying SPC’s spin to murder.
The victim was shot through the head by the assailant.
NO
The man on the ground with a bullet through his head was a sign that a gun had been fired.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Besides, just because Helen says it’s for the election who said it’s not actually to raise funds to pay back the $800,000+ they know they should not have spent. SPC you will look like as big a dickhead as ‘you know who’ for defending not paying it back if that happens.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
burt our wages are too low. Our benefit levels are the lowest in the OECD. Of course there are people in hardship.
But I’d rather help was given to people on 60 to 100,000 with families struggling to afford homes/rates/power/etc in some cases, than tax cuts to people on this income without dependents.
When National wishes to compete on support for the poor, then focus can occur here.
burt the surplus enables some restraint on interest rates (allowing exporters some respite from the high dollar) and our trade deficit. As the OECD noted, we had little choice but to continue with it.
Otherwise the Super Fund would be impossible and we would have to have compulsory saving instead. Part of the surplus is simply collective saving to afford the super payments to those over 65.
It is also somewhat prudent to run surpluses at the top of a cycle (low unemployment), otherwise deficits would soon occur throughout the rest of the economic cycle.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
burt whether there was an assailant depends on whether someone else fired the gun. First identify whose gun it was and whose prints are on it. If it’s the dead persons consider the possibility that maybe no one else was involved.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
burt can you quote me on whether Labour should or should not pay back the overspending? It seems you simply jump to presumptions on all sorts of issues.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Is SPC an abbreviation for “Shitheads prefer Corruption”?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
I am beginning to wonder, if it’s required to be of the right-wing political aspect to resort to personal abuse of others. Or is it simply the same stupidity of confidence in strength in numbers, that incites the abuse of minorities. Thus is then, not confined to the political right alone.
Either way, it’s immature.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:11 am
SPC, you invite just that sort of comment by attempting to defend the indefensible. Oh and for being a Labour party apologist too.
Sycophantic Partisan Cock.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Comment does not have to be immature.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Being disagreeable to those who do not agree and the easy resort to the pejorative profiling of those who do not accord with the mainstream viewpoint of a group. A definition of intolerance and prejudice, or just the way the “group” goes about justifying itself to itself and vilifying others.
Given the break-up of mainstream media and the reduction of community with the era of market reform, one wonders as to the consequences for civility, bi-partisanship and multi-culturalism.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:51 am
SPC your behaviour on this thread has been incomprehensible. You have admitted that labour spent money they shouldnt have.
So far your entire justification is that if they hadnt stolen the money, they couldnt have afforded their campaign, which is a literal non-sequiter. How much more than the legal cap did they spend again?
then you seem to say that without spending more than they were legally entitled to they might not have won the election. But because they won the election that makes the spending OK, because otherwise those evil Nats might have won, and capitalists hate poor people.
Your entire thesis appears to boil down to:
“Because capitalists hate poor people, stealing an election is justified.”
Then you have the gall to say other people who rightly point out that you are either nuts or a blind sycophant are uncivil.
But feel free to carry on. The more you wriggle the better it gets.
As I said, its not the crime, its the cover-up.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:31 am
SPC – The idea of indexing tax rates was made by Cullen. Yeah, just like Al Gore invented the internet.
The reason people have resorted to calling you names is completely different the normal reason of avoiding the argument. I’m seeing the frustration of people trying to pose a coherent argument against your incoherent postulate.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 9:57 am
SPC,
You said:
“Given the break-up of mainstream media and the reduction of community with the era of market reform, one wonders as to the consequences for civility, bi-partisanship and multi-culturalism.”
I see you have just bought a thesaurus. Unfortunately, stringing random words together does not, of itself, constitute a coherent argument.
Labour stole money that it was not entitled to, to outspend everybody else to the tune of more than $800,000. You say that was justified, because National has rich members, even though National was not permitted to spend more than its cap. According to you, Labour was just balancing the playing field.
You’re really just saying that Labour should be above the law because it doesn’t have rich members (with the exception of the very wealthy unions, anonymous donors, and American billionaires who funded Labour’s campaign).
I’m quite willing to pay your $5 membership fee to the Labour Party so that you can stand up at Labour Party conference and advocate your views on membership caps.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:07 am
The Labour Party will pay back the money they illegally obtained from the tax payer. It will not happen in this parliament because the Labour Government can manipulate things, but it will happen in the next. And if the entire Labour caucus has to mortgage their houses and much else to pay that money back then that is the least they can do and count themselves very lucky indeed that is all they are facing. Donna Awatere-Huata went to prison when she took taxpayers’ money for purposes she was not entitled to. It is only 16k each.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Just a note Tim, for any of that to happen National have to win an election and gain enough allies to form a government.
As they cannot even manage to look as if they can do that at this stage of the electoral cycle (where they should be 10 points ahead minimum) the chances of that are small, and getting smaller every day.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Sonic – with Clark sacrificing integrity for longevity the same could be said for Labour.
After watching Don Brashes appearance on Eye to Eye last night it was quite clear the man has learned his lesson. Brash turned Jackson’s pathetic interview style back on him and made the interviewer look stupid.
To Jackson’s credit he realised quickly that the tables had been turned and actually came through with an informative interview for a change.
Once Field has gone the shit will hit the fan. All guns will be turned on Clark over the pledge card rort. Make no bones about it the Field case is just a distraction.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Culma, it’s a non-issue outside the beltway, you can try and hype it up as much as you want, to most people all politcians are crooks anyway and they vote for the ones that will govern competently.
Thats why Labour will, barring accidents, win again. Brash does not cut it as a credible leader.
Ask yourself a simple question, in a major crisis (Earthquake, war, epidemic) who would you really want in charge, Clark or Brash?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Sonic,
Keep repeating that spin about the “beltway”. Sadly for you, the public knows it’s a direct quote from Helen Clark, whom voters no longer believe.
When it comes to a “major crisis (Earthquake, war, epidemic)”, I’m not sure Labour’s line-up of Field, Tizard, Peters, Horomia, Barker, Mahuta, Beyer, Hawkins, Pettis, Street, and Yates are really terribly well geared to stop the ground from shuddering, take up arms against foreign powers, or act as first line against killer viruses.
Labour has set a new standard in corrupt behaviour. It’s time that they bowed out with a modicum of decency and integrity, and called fresh elections.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I note with interest IP does not even dare touch the Clark-Brash comparison.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
What I was establishing, Sonic, is that Labour’s only asset has now become its biggest liability.
Helen Clark was a superb leader when the public believed her unprecedented capacity for spin. With all the crap swirling around her, and her documented willingness to misappropriate public funds to steal an election, you’re only deluding yourself if you think she’s still the Teflon Prime Minister.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I note with interest that IP still shies away from saying he would rather have Brash in charge in a crisis.
Not surprising really.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Ask yourself a simple question, in a major crisis (Earthquake, war, epidemic) who would you really want in charge, Clark or Brash?
Without a question I’d want Dr. Brash in charge.
It’s well known that Clark loses her rag when the pressures on. Commentators & even her former colleague JT have said this to be true.
Due to Clark’s funny attitude towards the Americans she maybe reluctant to let a warship in to help if there were a major earthquake. And due to our relationship with the USA relegated from Allie to friend there probably wouldn’t be any warships close by anyway.
Epidemic..? With Pete Hodgerson as Health Minister we’re lucky that were don’t already have one.
War…? This Clark govt. makes a good case for having white sheets on your bed just in case you have to wave them out of the window.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Sonic – Clark/Brash comparison, 2 years ago I’d freely admit Clark. Now I’d say dead heat.
Clark is the best thing National could hope for, reason – she doesn’t do compassionate unless she is the one being comforted, people are sick of the sight of her, throw Cullin into the mix and its not surprising they haven’t been tossed out on their asses.
WWF is a bloody joke, those at WINZ can’t get there heads around it, and looks ready to collapse.
The real Question isn’t Clark/Brash it is National/Labour, my call on this is National.
Vote:The top end of the National list absolutly blows Labour out of the water, exceptions are Goff, King and Meharey the rest are a pack of also rands or sad ass mates of Clark. Jones isn’t stupid and won’t hitch his horse to a wagon that is broken down.
You think the Maori party did alright last election watch what happens this time round.
Those Maori candidates voted in at the last election have had a good showing to date nothing startling but a sincere believable performance, even with Hone Harawira’s Jew comments, for which he apologised.
As I said the Field fiasco is a diversion, this is why Clark is pleading for money to the party faithful now, she knows she needs cash and quickly, not to fight an election she needs it now to bail herself out of the shit. As I said once Field is buried then all guns turn on Clark, not Labour but Clark!
August 30th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
(where they should be 10 points ahead minimum)
Glad you agree sonic. But at least they’re ahead.
The fact that Labour almost lost the ‘unlosable’ election probably doesn’t mean anything to you.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
IP – I must be a stupid SOB – what the F..K is the beltway?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Culma, the Beltway is a motorway that runs around central Washington, inside it are teh organs of the US state.
“Inside the Beltway” is used to describe issues that are of interest to the political elite, but not important to everyone else.
“The fact that Labour almost lost the ‘unlosable’ election probably doesn’t mean anything to you’
I don’t recall anyone saying that election was “unloseable” after Orewa 1.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I don’t recall anyone saying that election was “unloseable” after Orewa 1.
The commentator Collin James referred to the election as ‘unloseable’ in the run up to the election.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
“The top end of the National list absolutly blows Labour out of the water”
Really, fancy naming some names then? I notice you were able to pick a few from Labour but none from National.
No doubt it is this “top end” that Don Brash was so anxiously trying to hide at the last election – remember Lockwood being shut out of the Foreign Policy radio debate, for example.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Sonic blathered:
Ask yourself a simple question, in a major crisis (Earthquake, war, epidemic) who would you really want in charge, Clark or Brash?
If I’m sitting on a pile of rubble in the wake of the Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse I don’t think I’ll really give a fuck who the Prime Minister is. But that’s just me…
And more from Sonic:
I don’t recall anyone saying that election was “unloseable” after Orewa 1.
Funny, there’s a certain Labour blogger who still owes me a slap up lunch after he confidently predicted that Labour would win the election by at least ten points. That was well after Orewa One – in fact, it was a few days after the election was called.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Sonic – I’m quite happy to be a part of the everyone else brigade, thanks for the heads up.
Clark “WAS” the best thing for Labour, as was Sir Robert Muldoon for National once upon a time. Muldoon was dropped after he lost the peoples confidence and now Clark is going through the same, she may still have the lead as the most preferred PM but this is the only hurdle to break down to gain entry into Govt for National.
Even you can’t think any of those minor parties wouldn’t look to get a slice of the action when the country throws out a tired old Govt and votes in new faces, National will have partners at the next election.
The political landscape will be different this time round, Maori party stronger, Winston gone, the greens forgot to vote as they were to stoned, Anderton retiring, Rodney proving to those doubters inside his own party that they were wrong and he was right, I can see the landscape changing and very quickly.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I agree Culma, everything is still in play of course. However looking at it I do not see good prospects for National, they should be far further ahead at this stage (around the mid-term point of any govt the opposition should be ahead)
National’s other problem is the minor parties. Who (apart from the rump of ACT and UF) can they ally with? I cannot see National ACT and UF getting 50%+1 of the seats in parliament.
They cannot play Orewa again, it failed before and anyway they may well need the Maori party, and Labour can steal their clothes on tax cuts
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
“Labour blogger who still owes me a slap up lunch after he confidently predicted that Labour would win the election by at least ten points.”
Worth picking that one up, especially cosidering that even in 2002 the total “rightish” vote held up pretty well.
The political landscape has not really altered all that much, National resumed its strong leadership position on the right (at ACTs expense) in 2005 which it had so stunningly lost in 2002. I do think given the massive tax cuts they promised National expected a landslide in their favour.
culma I really cannot imagine Clark matching Muldoon’s completely sozzled call for a snap election after a caucus meeting. If that performance didn’t put kiwi’s off binge drinking nothing else stands a chance.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I do think given the massive tax cuts they promised National expected a landslide in their favour.
And this is compared to Labours huge student loan bride & massive ‘working for families’ extension – reality check time noddy.
I remember before the election just after the massive surplus figures were announced, Clark’n Cullen went to another room & announced the ‘working for families’ extension. Think this says a lot about Labour finanical management.. ‘aww we’ve taken too much money, better spend it before the peasants get upset’.
Collin James said it was an unloseable election for Clark & the fact it was so close says everything we need to know about this sad sorry govt.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
You got beaten at your own game when it came to the Student loan plan NX.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
NX, I wasn’t comparing it to anything. I think the blogger craig refers to (and by the sounds of it Collin James) was foolish and I think National had very high hopes for their tax cut, that is why they made it so massive.
If you do insist on comparing then it is worth pointing out that the tax cut by National was far more expensive than Labour’s policies.
“Think this says a lot about Labour finanical management.. ‘aww we’ve taken too much money, better spend it before the peasants get upset’.”
You could be right, I suspect neither of us are privvy to those conversations. An alternative explaination is that they want to save their big bang policy announcement until after the election had started rather than during the normal budget. In a similar vein, National held off announcing the size of their tax cuts until they knew what Labour was offering. Nothing wrong with either party, is there?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Noddy – as they say “those in glass houses”.
Muldoon probably would never have picked the final out come of being dumped, I doubt Clark will believe it either.
Sonic you made the comment about “the rump of act”, but you have to give Hyde credit, he is the first non founding leader to get his party back into parliament, even though it was at a reduced number. Can you see this happening with NZ1st, Andertons mob, even the greens may struggle without Rod Donald, UF is in the same boat.
The whole BS around the Orewa speech about having Maori seats removed by racist white colonialists has now been put to bed.
Maori realise the Maori party is now a real force and a direct result of hard work by Maori, for the true representation of Maori, which is something they have never truly had before. I can’t quote 1 kiwi that would have a problem with that.
I doubt the Maori party will go into coalition with National but I doubt they would jump at the chance to be Clarks lap dog either.
If some of these small parties die, the Maori party continues on “growing” it comes down to who will be there at the end, I am a lot more optimistic now than I was prior to the last election.
Noticeably the Govt havn’t achieved a damn thing since the election because they are getting kicked on a daily basis and can’t get back to their feet, the biggest shit fight is still to come.
Vote:Even the tone in the media is now rolling on Clark, tough times ahead guys.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Sonic – as the all blacks have found out “its no good peaking between world cups” all this leads to is a close second on the day man!
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
If you do insist on comparing then it is worth pointing out that the tax cut by National was far more expensive than Labour’s policies.
I don’t think you can say that with certainly. But I think the key thing with National’s tax cut policy is that it’s an economic driver – ie more productivity = move tax take which off sets the cost of the initial tax cuts.
However that’s an economic ideology therefore I accept that you may have a different opinion on this. Plus I don’t have the economics background to argue the point with you properly.
It’s a fair point that Labour kept their big bang policy till the election. But what they didn’t know was that Treasury would continually revise the surplus figures upwards – meaning they had to think quick about what to do with the extra cash. Of course you could always speculated that they always knew the surplus would be revised up… but if that’s the case then all that fiscal shit that Cullen spins during the budget is actually a load of nonsense.
Basically despite all the economic growth (which may are may not be due to Labour) at the end of the day real world wages haven’t increased & services haven’t increased (see latest treasury report). In short what is the point of economic growth if the people don’t see or feel it? The solution is simple – change the govt.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
“the Govt havn’t achieved a damn thing since the election”
I would have to disagree, as James Carville told Bill Clinton “It’s the economy stupid” and that is still as true today as it ever was.
Clark and Cullen have done an excellent job at slowing the economy without bringing on a recession. The housing bubble might still burst which would cause a lot of pain, but so far as people are still working, wages are going up and house prices are rising.
That is why National is reduced to minor issues like the whole pledge card nonsense, as they can not hit Labour where it might hurt.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
culma, I wasn’t doubting Clark’s demise will be a surprise to her, someone else made the first Muldoon comparison.
“Noticeably the Govt havn’t achieved a damn thing since the election”
Except the policies they got elected on, WFF, Interest Free Student Loans, Kiwi Saver, Telecommunications and so on. Different from the last 3 years where there was no opposition to speak of but not too dissimilar from the first three.
As for the Maori party, I think they have surprised a lot of people in a positive way. I did hear Turiana on Saturday suggest that Helen Clark was the best prime minister NZ has ever had, so I wouldn’t write off a coalition of some sort in the future.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Sonic – why do you persist in quoting US politics?
Clark/Cullin have done an excellent job in slowing the economy please.
Accountant friend tells me “figures, I can make em jump through hoops if you want me to”. It’s called creative accounting.
The minor pledge card issue is also the straw that broke the camels back.
PS – whats this about the antics of Clark’s Hubby in the US, heard a rumour there is a bit of shit coming out, look forward to this being opened up. Being a leftie you’d have the goss wouldn’t you? She needs another scandal like a shot in the ass doesn’t she?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I heard that Clark’s husband was involved in a George Michael type incident. Something about being caught in a compromised position with another bloke. If that’s what rocks his boat then good on him I say, but it will pose a few interesting questions about the state of their (ahh hummm) marriage.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
She flung some dirt in Parliament today Don Brash secret funding, John Hayes something about retirement villages and something obscure about John Key. I think National is just itching to fling it back with nobs on.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Sonic wrote:
I would have to disagree, as James Carville told Bill Clinton “It’s the economy stupid” and that is still as true today as it ever was.
Which leads to what I’ve said all along: Labour made a fundamental strategic error when they decided to turn the campaign into a very American-style smear and sneer hit on Brash that wasn’t the TKO they expected, and ended up on the backfoot when tax got traction as an economic issue. And dare I say it, Cullen didn’t do Labour any good when he lapsed into the ‘charm offensive without the charm’ as he’s wont to do under pressure. He was, however, very lucky that his Enroning of the student loan bribe costings wasn’t exposed a couple of weeks earlier.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Funny how giving students a break from interest payments if they stay in NZ is a “bribe” yet big tax cuts for the rich are not.
Anyway it may well be interesting if Labour decide to hit back, after running the security services for so long they must have some interesting material on the opposition.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
My wife used to enjoy George Micheal.
As I said to her – sometimes things aren’t always as they seem. You’d have to say so in this instance also then.
In Mr Michaels case this was true, now if it had been a Hugh Grant type incident then I’d say Weeeheyyy go hard son. But not a George Micheal.
Hasn’t he learned anything from his wife about discretion.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
If Clark’s hubby wants sex with a man then why doesnt he just sleep with his wife.
.. I know what was below the belt, but I couldn’t resist.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
craig, funny to juxtaposition your post with burt, NX and culma…was the timing deliberate?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Funny how giving students a break from interest payments if they stay in NZ is a “bribe” yet big tax cuts for the rich are not
Because tax cuts are & have always been a National party policy plank – lower taxes for all New Zealanders.
Interest free students loans are just something Labour just pulled out of the air to bride a select group of people.
Hell, don’t know why I’m complaining – I stand to save thousands. But that still doesn’t make it right.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Noddy – what timing?
I am deadly serious are we talking a George or a Hugh?
Boy wouldn’t like to be him when he gets home, “she gone chew him a new ass hole”.
Vote:Maybe he’s into that sort of shit from the sound of it.
Noddy I don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Sonic said:
“Anyway it may well be interesting if Labour decide to hit back, after running the security services for so long they must have some interesting material on the opposition.”
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Helen resorted to using the security services to dig dirt on opposition MPs.
Three words, Sonic. Bring. It. On.
To do so would only further expose just how morally corrupt she is, and how willing she is to use taxpayer resources to hold public office.
It also shows that you no longer actually care about socialism–you just want your pinko friends to retain power at any cost, even at the expense of the rule of law and democracy.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
IP – Have to agree, it wouldn’t surprise me if she did use our money to try and did dirt on the opposition, hell she’s already bought an election with our money, why not go the whole hog!
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I think most people with half a brain would agree with IP’s suggest that Helen would use the the security services to dig up dirt.
Lets face it every dictator has done so in the past and continues to do so so why would Helen be any different?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I think most people with half a brain would agree with IP’s suggest that Helen would use the the security services to dig up dirt.
Lets face it every dictator has done so in the past and continues to do, so why would Helen be any different?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
nigel you say that “I have admitted that labour spent money they shouldnt have.”
Most parties overspent during the campaign. Do you admit that?
“So far your entire justification is that if they hadnt stolen the money, they couldnt have afforded their campaign, which is a literal non-sequiter. How much more than the legal cap did they spend again?”
You use the word “stole”, yet you still confuse the amount spent in the campaign (which is capped) with the source of that money (the Labour party being short of party funds used other money). National’s own overspending was financed by media who paid the GST. But they assert, they have plenty of money on hand to reimburse them – unlike Labour obviously. You seem to fail to note the issue of the thread – Labour’s struggle to compete with National in financing these camppaigns.
“then you seem to say that without spending more than they were legally entitled to they might not have won the election.”
Then quote me (you would if you had the quote to use). It’s all in your mind. The fact is National outspent Labour in 2005 and still they did not win.
I have simply raised the issue that democracy should not be a contest where those with the greater ability to fund raise have any advantage. Democratic mandate is not a commodity.
“Your entire thesis appears to boil down to:
(Because capitalists hate poor people, stealing an election is justified.}
I raised an analogy, we pay police an adequate amount so that there is limited corruption. If we had the party funding rules that apply in other democracies such things might not happen.
You seem to feel that this is a threat to National having a natural advantage in fund raising (and spin this into capitalists hating/exploiting poor working class people).
Why do National party supporters fear a devolopment from this fiasco to establishing an even playing field?
Why does not Don Brash not propose the Oz rules – he is always on about us catching up with them?
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
iiq374
You may have missed the 2005 budget and the reference to indexing tax rates by 2008. It went by the by with WFF, But will probably be in the 2008 budget.
While this was a good line
“Yeah, just like Al Gore invented the internet.”
in response to your taking my comment
Vote:(The idea of indexing tax rates was made by Cullen) out of context it, did little to validate your subsequent (strawmanesque) comments in support of others who used similar techniques.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Given the break-up of mainstream media and the reduction of community with the era of market reform, one wonders as to the consequences for civility, bi-partisanship and multi-culturalism.
“I see you have just bought a thesaurus. Unfortunately, stringing random words together does not, of itself, constitute a coherent argument.”
If you don’t understand this, without using having a dictionary available to look up the meaning of the word fragmentation, then say so. But I will assume you are, on this occasion, just choosing not to get it.
“Labour stole money that it was not entitled to, to outspend everybody else to the tune of more than $800,000. You say that was justified, because National has rich members, even though National was not permitted to spend more than its cap. According to you, Labour was just balancing the playing field.
You’re really just saying that Labour should be above the law because it doesn’t have rich members”
I am saying that if there had been an even playing field, this would not have happened. And it should not happen again.
“I’m quite willing to pay your $5 membership fee to the Labour Party so that you can stand up at Labour Party conference and advocate your views on membership caps.”
If you do the same at a National conference first, I’ll pay up myself and join the Labour Party for the first time and do it as well.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I note a few comments about student loans.
First the post election costings of interest free tertiary debt seem to bear a closer relationship to that cited by Labour than by either Nstional and certain bank economists.
“Interest free students loans are just something Labour just pulled out of the air to bride a select group of people.”
The real issue is whether there should be universal allowances (dole rate, with anything income top up borrowed at interest from day one), tertiary fees (if so interest free while studying)or not. If yes to the later whether and when interest rates should apply.
Given the surplus of late and an objective to provide an incentive to graduates to stay and work here (we have skilled labour shortages), it was a reasonable budget discretionary (spending/forgoing revenue) choice. In much the same way that we offer incentives for new capital investment and R and D with changing tax rules.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
SPC – Why do National party supporters fear a development from this fiasco to establishing an even playing field? Your Comment.
Before we worry about an even playing field lets get the money that has been misused re payed, then sit down and sort it out.
Vote:Labour were warned the rules didn’t extend to their pledge card campaign, but they went ahead anyway. FACT, so once this money is re-payed then we can sort out how Labour people get confused, also sorting out how many times a team needs to be told they have broken the rules before they get sin binned, OK.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
oh dear, someone let SPC out again.
To respond to just one of your rather sad little points:
“You use the word “stole”, yet you still confuse the amount spent in the campaign (which is capped) with the source of that money (the Labour party being short of party funds used other money).”
1. labour spent more than the cap. Their expenditure was capped at I believe $2.38 million they spent 17.8% or over $418 k more than they were legally allowed to. (source wikipedia)
2. National spent more on advertising than permitted (because of a GST error and they are trying to pay it back), but stayed under the overall cap (i understand – feel free to correct me someone).
3. “the labour party being short of party funds used other money”
WTF. that is a very elegant way of saying that labour, in order to breach its overall election spending cap, was forced to use (ie., steal) money that was not appropriated for that purpose.
poor dears. I wonder if I was forced to “use” my employers money when my mortgage payment was due would get your sympathy in quite the same way?
Well I have a life, so I can’t be bothered fisking the rest of your crap.
But of course as I said, I don’t need to, its not the crime its the cover up. Your spinning and amusing attempts to “explain” to us poor ignoramuses keeps this whole topic expanding and staying top of mind for everyone reading – over 200 comments now, excellent!
She who must be obeyed will be pleased with your efforts to hose this issue down.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
noddy wrote:
craig, funny to juxtaposition your post with burt, NX and culma…was the timing deliberate?
Um, sorry, I zoned out when Professor Chewbacca’s anus entered the conversation.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Now , who’s paying for this letter?
Vote:Is it Liar-bour or the taxpayer?
I was looking for a parliamentary crest somewhere, but maybe Helen ‘forgot’ to put it on.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
nigel I am sure Don appreciates you staying on message rather than debating the wider issue of party funding and fund raising (the Labour Party letter is more the thread topic than the 2005 events).
Yes Labour spent more than their cap (if one includes the cards). This overspending (cards financing) was not sourced from the party’s own funds.
“labour, in order to breach its overall election spending cap, was forced to use (ie., steal) money that was not appropriated for that purpose.”
Whether the “other funds” were stolen, is not something you or I decide on.
If not it’s just an overpsending issue. Most parties have them.
“its not the crime its the cover up.”
Neither you or I decide what is crime or not. We can approve or disapprove.
And what cover up? What is not known about it? The occurence of due process which some like yourself are pre-judging?
We can discuss also issues of party funding and campaign finance though. They are quite on thread topic.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Ah SPC. You forget yourself’
Firstly, this thread is about labour making unauthorised use of parliamentary funds to overspend their election cap. It is not a debate about party funding, no matter how much you would prefer it to be.
On the illegality question. I am afraid I must defer to the Chief Electoral Officer, who advised Mike Williams that to use this money for the purpose of Pledge cards was wrong. Mr Williams said the party would pay for them, and then when the election was over, wrote again and reneged.
All of that is on the record incidentally, so it is not about my opinion, or yours for that matter (fond as you are of the sound of your own voice).
But please continue, I do enjoy your dancing around the “stolen” issue – funny how misappropriation used to be illegal and now its just ” üsed”. maybe you should check out the public finance act one day?
oh, and I don’t vote national, and have never been a member of any political party (unless the cub scouts count) so sorry to disabuse you of that little notion too.
Vote:August 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pm
nigel
Doh. The thread is about the Labour Party letter – a fund-raising letter.
It’s called Labour’s donor letter.
DPF said as a footnote –
“Helen forgot to mention that she may not be able to steal $800,000 off the taxpayer next election, which is why she really needs the money! I find it fascinating that it is an appeal for funds from a party in Government that consists entirely of attacking the Opposition and not promoting its achievements.”
So the focus is on the next election and how Labour is going to cope without the taxpayer sources it utilised in 2005.
It was a new thread about the future direction, in part based on 2005 developments and the suggestion Labour was on the defensive.
“On the illegality question. I am afraid I must defer to the Chief Electoral Officer, who advised Mike Williams that to use this money for the purpose of Pledge cards was wrong. Mr Williams said the party would pay for them, and then when the election was over, wrote again and reneged.”
Opinions can be contested. It’s very rare for any one “official” to determine on the “illegality” of an action.
“I do enjoy your dancing around the “stolen” issue – funny how misappropriation used to be illegal and now its just ” üsed” maybe you should check out the public finance act one day?”
Maybe you should not presume Darnton will win his case. But your comment indicates how far to the right you are.
Vote:September 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am
I have just received confirmation from the Labour Party Andrew It’s not a fake.
Oh dear!
Vote: