Q: Would you rather be governed by a corrupt government whose policies you agree with; or by a government whose policies you disagree with, but who you know to be generally honest?

Would responses to this depend more on one’s political preferences, or on whether “your team” is in power at present?

“Shifting goalposts
It’s a pity the recent discussion about the Parliamentary Leaders fund has become so politicised because its an interesting legal scenario in its own right. [...]“

Now I know why Helen and Cullen do not want a constitution; or unification for Auckland (or NZ).

Power corrupts.

The same spending was allowed in 2002 1999 1996 etc. Thus unless there was some legislative reason for the changed assessment by officials in 2005/2006, Labour can argue (as Winston says also) that one either sutains the historical legitimacy of their spending or widens the review to all spending across 15 or so years.

The same spending was allowed in 2002 1999 1996 etc. Thus unless there was some legislative reason for the changed assessment by officials in 2005/2006, Labour can argue (as Winston says also) that one either sutains the historical legitimacy of their spending or widens the review to all spending across 15 or so years.

In which case even if there is an element of retrospectivity, we can only look as far back as 2002 – natural justice and all that. Which essentially means the 2005 election only.

Can someone tell me if I am wrong.

I think I also saw in the herald that of the roughly $1m overspend, around $750k seems to be labour. That seems quite a lot in the overall scheme of things – around 20+% more than they were allowed to spend on the election?

she had no idea prior to that

This is because Labour pushed to the margins, and went over it.

The supposition that if you go further back, more expenditure may be deemed illegal is merely an opinion put forward by MPs who have been caught out.

I am amazed at your stupidity in delcaring the AG ruling to cover all expenditure, without having read the report. Because it is obvious from the three months he did audit that much expenditure was okay.

In the last election Labour INCLUDED relevant expenditure on it’s behalf by the Unions. If National had the integrity to include the EB expenditure that it authorised on it’s behalf we would then see who was WAY over the limit by at least a million dollars…not including the GST cock-up. Well you guys are the ones foolish enough to have started the name-calling and “corruption” charges, so you really have no defence when the worm turns have you?

Labour of course argued that the proposed rule changes around the PS funding of the pledge card (as they had legitimately done two election prior) was unreasonable so close to the election and they were unwilling to accept the narrow interpretations being pushed at it in those discussions. Now well after the election we have a definitive ruling from the AG that actually NO-ONE wants to accept. It turns out Labour were right….not even National would be willing to go back over the decades and refund ALL the PS funding it ever received for ANYTHING it ever spent that could be construed as “party political promotion”.

What the AG has really done is bring to light the fact that the current rules if strictly intepreted they are simply not workable for anyone. This happens to laws regulations and rules all the time…they become dated and need fixing. All the hooey about “corruption” is just self-serving noise making.