Cash for Policies
I think Helen and co have managed to insert the phrase “cash for policies” into question time around 35 times so far.
The fact that this is a charge without even a sherrick of evidence, seems to have escaped the Labour Brains Trust. Just repeating it 35 times will not make it true. I mean the media are not that stupid. And lets face it if there was any evidence of a party selling policies for cash, the media would be leading the charge with investigating it.
Labour has a history of just fabricating allegations and expecting them to be reported as fact. The allegations against Field came not from National but from dozens of different people in the community. The issue of the pledge cards is based on written letters and reports from the electoral authorities, the Police and the Auditor-General.
This nonsense about “cash for policies” is quite literally a fabrication. It goes back to Labour’s culture of entitlement. If you interfere with their “entitlements” they have a hissy fit and invent things to throw back at you.
Not that I’m really complaining. It just makes them look pathethic.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Labour have upped the ante trying to obfuscate on this issue. The hope is that if there is enough muck flying around the public will figuratively shrug their shoulders and sigh; “bloody politicians” and move on.
This is just the logical next step after the corruption issue made it outside the beltway.
Time for fresh elections.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Fact-National is overwhelmingly funded by big business.
Fact-National policies are very friendly to business interests.
Now you may try and argue that this is a mere coincidence, or that policies that benefit business benefit everyone. However I doubt many people will be buying.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Very similar to Mallard’s claim during the election that Washington was writing National’s policies.
These fuckers really are the filthiest scum in recent history. They corruptly misappropriate public money to outspend everybody else during an election campaign and steal an election, refuse to pay it back, and expect people to treat them as a legitimate Government.
Bring on new elections.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“Fact-National is overwhelmingly funded by big business.
Fact-National policies are very friendly to business interests.”
Fact- Labour is largely funded by Unions.
Fact- Labour policies are very friendly to Union interests.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Sonic
Fact: Labour is funded in a Major way by the Unions.
You seem to be suggesting that business funds National for selfish reasons, whilst the funding from Unions is completely altruistic, and simply for the public good with no hope of personal gain.
Bring on the Tui add.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Cash for policies is that what Union donations for the Labour Party are for. Accusing the National Party of this is garbage, but if Brash cannot deal with this slur he does not deserve to be Leader of the National Party.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
My problem with Labour and the unions is that Labour does sod all for them despite the money they give.
I’m sure the same will not be true of Mr B, big business will be at his door the day after the election with all their promisory notes.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Forgery Fraud and yet more Fabrication.
How about one more F
Falling on the sword.
Fresh elections now.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Sonics problem with Labour and the unions is that Labour isnt corrupt enough! Loon.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Can somebody please tell Sonic about the ERA?
September 5th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Kimble, my problem is that if the big business party wins the next election (I know it’s far fetched but just for the sake of argument) you can be sure the tax cuts and other goodies will be flowing into the hands of the wealthy as soon as possible.
However Labour might get rid of the worst aspects of the Right’s policies it never really delivers for it’s supporters and relies more on scaremongering (we might not be good but look at National!!!)
September 5th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
“you can be sure the tax cuts and other goodies will be flowing into the hands of the wealthy as soon as possible”
Sonic, when will you learn that tax cuts give money back to THE VERY PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT.
Labour on the other hand, takes it away from those who produce, and give to those who only consume (welfare beneficiaries etc).
September 5th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Sonic,
How can being “friendly to busines interests” be bad? Sure, BIG business, maybe. But National also cater for the small-medium sized ones who have and still are absolutely shafted by Clark’s Labour.
Grow up mate.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
“Sonic, when will you learn that tax cuts give money back to THE VERY PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT”
Well not quite, however it is to the very people who least need it.
Sandmonkey, you have your view I have mine, policies merely designed to help big business do not usually help the rest of us.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“Cash for policies is that what Union donations for the Labour Party are for. Accusing the National Party of this is garbage, but if Brash cannot deal with this slur he does not deserve to be Leader of the National Party.”
This may be true, but I really can’t think why the Council of trade unions give noney to labour when they had a larger membership under the last natoinal government. Maybe they are just scared that if national got back in they would make things harder for them than labour has. In fact this is why I think the unions give money to labour.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Jesus! I am sick of these threads being taken over by unthinkingt teenagers who insist that National is the party of big business and that National doesnt care at all about ordinairy people, and that they especially hate poor people.
National is only a Right party as much as it is differs from Labour in that general direction. It is a centrist party. It is not in the back pocket of the rich elite (the influence and even the existence of which has yet to be proven), it is not a front for ultra-conservative christian organisations, it is not going to allow people to starve just so its supporters can get rich!
The members of the National party care about the welfare of NZ. They are not in politics for the money or for personal gain!
For fucks sake, grow up! The absurd accusations I have seen here recently confirm only one thing. That the accusers dont want to admit that their opponents have the same goals as they probably do but simply have a different idea about how they can be achieved. They refuse to accept this because that would mean that there could possibly be a better way than their way. They dont want to accept the possibility that they are wrong!
There is no point arguing with them because (as I think Thomas Sowell said once, or maybe simply quoted) YOU CAN’T REASON A PERSON OUT OF A POSITION THEY DIDN’T REASON THEMSELVES INTO.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Phillip,
Go back to school and learn that really useful thing in forming a coherent argument: application of fact.
Unions are far larger now than they were under the last National Government. The registered unions now have assets worth over $100 million. They are the largest direct funding base of the Labour Party.
Unions dominate the Labour Party. Look at Labour’s Party list in 2005. With one exception, they are almost entirely composed of union officials. It’s fair to say that unless you are from an ethnic minority, or part of the Rainbow group, it is virtually impossible to get anywhere in the Labour Party without union backing.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
“Labour on the other hand, takes it away from those who produce, and give to those who only consume (welfare beneficiaries etc).”
Working for families delivered a benit cut for unemployed people. plus unemployment is at 4%. The lowest National was able to get unemployment to in the whole of the 1990s was 5.5%. I bet the National government spent more on unemployment benifits than labour is now.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Phillip,
Go back to school and learn that really useful thing in forming a coherent argument: application of fact.
Unions are far larger now than they were under the last National Government. The registered unions now have assets worth over $100 million. They are the largest direct funding base of the Labour Party.
Unions dominate the Labour Party. Look at Labour’s Party list in 2005. With one exception, they are almost entirely composed of union officials. It’s fair to say that unless you are from an ethnic minority, or part of the Rainbow group, it is virtually impossible to get anywhere in the Labour Party without union backing.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
“the rich elite (the influence and even the existence of which has yet to be proven)”
You need proof that their are rich and influential people in NZ?
“unthinkingt teenagers”
Yes quite.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Again, phillipjohn, you’re showing your ignorance.
When National won the election in 1990, unemployment had reached double-digit figures. Most economists had taken it as a given that high unemployment was a structural reality in a modern economy.
National’s industrial relations turned that on its head, and unemployment was consistently declining from 1994 onwards.
Working for families is not a tax cut. By definition, a tax cut is delivered to those who earn, irrespective of their social situation. It is a welfare entitlement, targetted towards middle-class families. Single people and couples are not entitled to WFF.
Stop raising red herrings.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
L eftwing
A bsurd
B umptious
O bnoxious
U naccountable
R etards
September 5th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I take it back, philipjohn. I prefered it when you banged on about peak oil. At least its randomness was mildly amusing.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I’m just in the process of completing a masters thesis focussing on employment relations in New Zealand’s secondary Labour market. Basicly it’s about the politics and economics that create the context for working a shit job in New Zealand. Now you rabid right wingers can assert all you like that unions run the labour party. Assuming that they do, how have they benifited.
ignorant prick asserts that “Unions are far larger now than they were under the last National Government. The registered unions now have assets worth over $100 million.” BTW can you provide a reference for this claim?
This maybe so, but the overwhelming point is that the combined membership of unions in New Zealand has shrunken since National was last in power. This tells me that either unions have little influence in the labour party (the mass privatisation and deregulation of industry of the 80′s would tend to confirm this), or the union movement isn’t interested in bringing in legislation that helps their membership grow. I know which one makes sense.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
PJ,
“how have they [unions] benifited”
THE FUCKING E.R.A, now piss off
September 5th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
This is not a discussion about unions, phillipjohn. If it were, you would lose the argument on every count.
Keep an eye on my blog for a discussion of the unions’ $100 million in financial assets. Keep an eye out also for a disclosure of Labour’s MPs and list candidates, and their direct links to the unions.
In the meantime, if you’re going to be wasting taxpayer resources writing that stupid pile of crap, at least be honest and admit that Labour are a thieving bunch of corrupt bastards who are holding power illegitimately.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I am sure there are rich, influential people, sonic. But I am also sure that they arent an organised cabal and I am sure that they dont support National exclusively, or that they are conspiring to rewrite National policy to their personal advantage, or that National would try and buy their support with promises of that kind.
Your idea that National creates its policies to enrich themselves or their freinds is simply a way to avoid addressing their arguments. This is all you are doing.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Investigate has an article in which the poorest workers in the country gave $250,000 to the Labour Party so that 50 people can keep their 100K incomes. The poor looking after the rich.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
“Working for families is not a tax cut. By definition, a tax cut is delivered to those who earn, irrespective of their social situation. It is a welfare entitlement, targetted towards middle-class families. Single people and couples are not entitled to WFF.”
Such policies were redundant when unions had 55% coverage in New Zealand (before National’s Employment Contracts Act), we have 19% now.
“When National won the election in 1990, unemployment had reached double-digit figures. Most economists had taken it as a given that high unemployment was a structural reality in a modern economy.”
High unemployment was due to the cumultive effects of the “87″ stock market crash, the mass-redundancies from the deregulation of the state sector. The fact that unemployment went fro 12% in 1990 to 7% in 1996 was just what we could expect from the normal recovery from a recession. In fact renowned economist Brian Easton has said that because growth in labour productivity was so slow from 1990-1995, it is likely the ECA had no effect on decreasing unemployment.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
“And lets face it if there was any evidence of a party selling policies for cash, the media would be leading the charge with investigating it.”
Well, let me paraphrase Tariana Turia on Kerre Woodham’s Newstalk ZB show on Saturday morning:
Kerre: “Did you receive Koha before the last election?”
Tariana: “We had an organisation willing to give us a huge amount of cash in return for us agreeing to go with Labour after the election. Money we really needed”
Kerre: “You mean they tried to bribe you”?
Tariana: “Yes”.
Kerre: “Oh my god. What did you do”?
Tariana; “They wanted us to sign an agreement that we would go with Labour. Believe me the money was big. I told them we weren’t interested in doing these types of deals and to get lost. They did”.
Kerre: “Wow. Who was it?”
Tariana: “I won’t be divulging that, sorry”.
Kerre: “I’ll have to wait for your book then I guess!”
Want to reassess that comment David in light of this?
September 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
“how have they [unions] benefited”
THE FUCKING E.R.A, now piss off”
Now I know the Employment Relations Act back to front, in fact it takes up a good portion of my thesis. The thing is, all it delivered to unions was the right to access work places for the purposes of union business. The fact is that striking is still illegal under most circumstances. There is no centralised system of collective bargaining like there is in virtually every other civilised country. We still live in a new right paradise. That’s why National have to resort to finger pointing as their only means of self promotion, Labour has stolen their ground. This has lead to an identity crisis in National, and a subsequent shift to the far right. That’s why we won’t see another National government for a while.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Golly sideshowbob, that was clever!
O and
Jesus! I am sick of these threads being taken over by unthinkingt teenagers who insist that Labour is the party of big Unions and that Labour doesnt care at all about ordinairy people, and that they especially hate rich people.
Labour is only a Left party as much as it is differs from National in that general direction. It is a centrist party. It is not in the back pocket of the Union elite (the influence and even the existence of which has yet to be proven), it is not a front for ultra-socialist communist organisations, it is not going to allow people to starve just so its supporters can grab power!
The members of the Labour party care about the welfare of NZ. They are not in politics for the money or for personal gain!
For fucks sake, grow up! The absurd accusations I have seen here recently confirm only one thing. That the accusers dont want to admit that their opponents have the same goals as they probably do but simply have a different idea about how they can be achieved. They refuse to accept this because that would mean that there could possibly be a better way than their way. They dont want to accept the possibility that they are wrong!
There is no point arguing with them because (as I think Thomas Sowell said once, or maybe simply quoted) YOU CAN’T REASON A PERSON OUT OF A POSITION THEY DIDN’T REASON THEMSELVES INTO.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Phillipjohn:
Please advise who your thesis supervisor is. If you manage to graduate with your masters with that quality of analysis, then I will petition your university council to have your supervisor sacked.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
“Please advise who your thesis supervisor is. If you manage to graduate with your masters with that quality of analysis, then I will petition your university council to have your supervisor sacked.”
Insults and name calling wins the argument every time aye? A sure sign that you know you’re wrong, but wont admit it.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
dpf – “If you interfere with their “entitlements” they have a hissy fit and invent things to throw back at you.”
sounds like modern muckraker politics in a nutshell to me.
The corruption, the mudslinging and the fabricated allegations are applicable to ALL political parties. The question is why do we take up their ideological bunfights for them?
There has been dodgy goings on on both sides of the left/right divide. The labour party has some very big, dodgy issues on its plate and likes to tell us what to do, yet the national party also had some dodgy happenings during the election and is lead by a man who once wanted to abolish the minium wage and (still?) believes in a moral imperative to lie to the electorate.
i’ll choose neither of those options
September 5th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Sorry PJ, but where in that post did IP call you a name?
Perhaps your mother will deal it it for you?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
“Sorry PJ, but where in that post did IP call you a name?”
Yes because we’ve never known IP to resort to name calling now have we. IP has a particularly rash and truculent style of debating, especially when he is obviously out gunned. This is all I was wishing to point out.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
philipjohn summaries Labour very well, even if he was talking about IP.
“Insults and name calling wins the argument every time aye? A sure sign that you know you’re wrong, but wont admit it.”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
“philipjohn summaries Labour very well, even if he was talking about IP.”
Agreed, Labour has been backed into a corner, and is striking out like an insolent prick rat.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Phillipjohn:
Stop hijacking threads with your stupid fucking thesis about industrial relations and/or peak oil. I realise it’s not deliberate for you; you might just have ADHD and trouble focussing.
Back to the point. Labour is a corrupt bunch of thieving liars, who will do and say anything to spin their way out of trouble. This government has no moral legitimacy left.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Ok i will try and join the thred with the most sophisticted argument yet.
LABOUR IS FEIVES! BRASH’S ASS TASTES LIKE HONEY DEW! LABOUR IS FEIVS!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
“Yes because we’ve never known IP to resort to name calling now have we”
I don’t know, i’m new here. But you’re acting like a child.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Well Andrew, I dont have a problem with that, though my lawyers will be in touch regarding the blatant theft of intellectual property.
But to be fair, Labour has a very long history of Union support and involvement, in fact they are proud of it. The same cannot be said about National and Big Business, and this accusation is often simply used as an unfounded slur that the Labour supporters want to believe.
This desire is understandable. From its early stages the union movement (or the labour movement if you prefer. Wait did you see that? “Labour” & “labour”??) embraced the class theory of society, ie the rich exploit the poor. So their accusations always take this form. They associate themselves with the poor (the victims) and therefore project onto their opponents the role of the rich (the oppressor). It has very little to do with the reality of who actually supports National and what Nationals policies really are.
You can find the “We support the victim, so National must support the oppressor” argument everywhere in Labours rhetoric. We support the poor, so National must support the rich. We support the Tangata Whenua, so National must be racist. We support the young, so National must be old. We are anti-war, so National must be war mongerers. We are atheists, so National must be fundamentalist christians. We are kind, contemplative, altruistic and thoughtful, so National must be a bunch of mean, selfish, reactionary, bigoted puppets.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
“How have the Unions benefited”
“The F*****g ERA”
Yes quite, along with the larger population as a whole.
cheers
james cairney
September 5th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
“But to be fair, Labour has a very long history of Union support and involvement, in fact they are proud of it.”
True, labour was founded by the radical Federation of Labour in the 1920s. It just happens to be the case that Labour hasn’t passed one significant piece of legislation to support the labour movement since the1970s. BTW the ERA doesn’t count – as I have said on numerous occasions union membership levels have dropped since the inception of the ERA.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
The Unions in giving the Labour Party cash for policies have bought a dead duck then.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Kimble, it’s called parody – lawyers can’t touch me :p
As for the rest of your post, sure. However, I’m not talking about the details, but the general point you made. I hope you can see the point of my post. If not, I’d have to explain, which I can’t be bothered doing, because I am going to drink beer.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
I was going to read the comments but there were so many I decidied to wait for the film.
Rag Rats III is the working title judging by the quality of the leftist diversion machine monkeys in operation.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
So long as the badly educated and the badly bred vote Liarbour, this country is going nowhere.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The unions give money to Labour because they support Labour’s policies. Business gives money to National (and Labour) because they support their policies. This is all good. The idea that there is CASH FOR POLICY going on is a disgusting lie by an evil Prime Minister.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Enjoy the beer Andrew, and fear not the lawyers, as I do not mix with their ‘kind’.
I can see the point of your post clear enough, in fact I agreed with most of it (I DID write most of it afterall). The point of my subsequent post was to differentiate the historic and very real Labour/Union relationship and the imaginary National/Big Business relationship.
And phillipjohn, have you ever wondered WHY union membership would drop in a more union-freindly environment?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
think Helen and co have managed to insert the phrase “cash for policies” into question time around 35 times so far.
35 times in one debate!! That’s ridiculous.
You can just tell that this new accusation is just a product of a Lairbour weekend workshop to try and counter National.
The fact that they’ve just pulled it out of their arses so far along into the debate over election spending says all we need to know.
Quite simply the most eloquent way to point it is; Helen Clark makes up shit.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
PJ; It is a startlingly moderate piece of legislation, you’re quite right.
Hardly the handiwork of some extreme left faction.
Interestingly, I understand the initial draft of the ECA came from EMA (correct me if I’m wrong).
September 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Yes the Unions explicitly support Labour. That is a well known, public domain fact of the NZ political scene for generations.
Now the $1.8m odd given to National for the 2005 election. Who was that from? And what strings came attached?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
If the Government just stayed OUT of the economy altogether there would be no conflict. All these spats are caused by government interferring where it has no business….in business! Left to the market unions and bosses would have to work out arrangments agreeable to all without being able to involve state force against the other parties.Workers would be far better off and not wasting productive time in manufactured disputes designed to benefit parasites like MaCarten, Harre and Little et el.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Finally Logix, you see the light! You now understand the worth of anonymous political donations!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Now the $1.8m odd given to National for the 2005 election. Who was that from? And what strings came attached?
Exactly the same question Labour doesn’t want asked about it’s own network of anonymous donors, corporate cash cows and trust accounts.
And just as a side bar, my partner (who happens to be a member of the RMTU) can’t really being asked whether he wanted his union dues going to any political party, thank you very much. So much for democracy at work…
September 5th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
What the union does with its dues is at the complete discretion of the elected union officials.
And democracy IS at work. Your partner has the option to vote against the party he is funding, he has that option, craig. Nobody is forcing him to VOTE for Labour… or National or ACT, or whoever the union donates to, it could be anybody.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
You want proof of Nationals CASH FOR POLICY, look at Dons denial on TV tonight.
“I” have never recieved money for policy.
Hows that Don , nobody gave you a paper bag. Are sure ?. But of course the Nationals funding cave from large trust accounts run by National favourite law firms. And why do this . So the voters cant see who is funding national . Labours union supporters were upfront about spending cash for Labour . So much so they included it in Labours campaign spend.
Of course back in the bad old days of 90s with National inpower, Brierleys were even able to get Ruth Richardson dumped as Finance minister since she believed in a level playing field.
Interestingly Income Tax Amendment Act No 5 1992 has a section ‘ Exemption of Certain dividends from Tax !!!!
September 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
yeah..on this one brash/national are standing there nearly naked…
with the last shreds/shards of their arguments/stand disappearing in the howling gale..
as in..where did that $1.74 million ‘given’ anonymously..(yeah right..!) to national come from..?
and what were the..(spoken or unspoken)..returns for them on that money..?
what was the ‘deal’..?
corruption can come in a myriad of forms..eh..?
it isn’t all cash in brown envelopes..(or slid over desks…oh..!..hang on..!..in this case it is..?..eh..?)
and here in new zealand we have a long history of corruption by influence/favour..
(c.f…the import ‘licences’ of the bad old days..and…and….)
so david..as someone close to this national party..its’ campaigns..and past governments…you’d be privey to that information..wouldn’t you..?
as in who gave national $1,744,00 (anonymously)..?
and what would they (anonymously) receive/expect in return..?
if not legislation favourable to them..
feck all this eh..?…
just make it all donations have to be name-tagged..
and then any problems/undue influences would be able to be seen/monitored..
it’ll be hardest on national…and their business cronies..
(crocodile tears all around for them..eh..?..)
oops..!..are we able to say ‘crocodile tears’ yet without causing offence to the grieving ‘irwinites’..?
i think/know they are a bit ‘touchy’ just at the moment..eh..?..
and taking offence easily..
but hey..!..this too will pass…this ‘mini-diana’ cult being whipped up around a tv celeb(?)..go figure..the most recent piece of craziness around this i heard was a po-faced evaluation of wether he’ll receive a state funeral..(!)..whoar..!
but anyway..i’m sure they’ll survive some tough love..eh..?..that national party..
and hopefully this will all be sorted before the next election…
and this if only for one reason..eh..?
y’know how clark thinks ahead..?
well..anything that will make it harder for national next time out has to be a win win for clark…eh..?
it’s just a no-brainer..on so many levels..
so..it’s sayonara to anonymous donations…
and it’s bye-bye to $1.7 mill for national..
whoar..!..eh..?
poof..!..just like a puff of smoke ..eh..?
it’s gone…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
“You want proof of Nationals CASH FOR POLICY, look at Dons denial..”
And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen, the most moronic thing ever said on the internet!
Wait, we have a late entry….oh its phule, dont worry, he won the Lifetime Achievement award last year (ironic, I know) and is now ineligible.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
sshh,,! kimble..!..the adults are talking..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Finally Logix, you see the light! You now understand the worth of anonymous political donations!
Exactly. I have no idea, you have no idea. But are you telling me that the National party inner circle as ill-informed on this point as us voters?
September 5th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
While we don’t know how much money National made at it’s fundraisers (laundering money from anonymous sources and even the amount raised is not declared) we do know
They received donations from Sky City Toll and Westpac, as did Labour.
National received 1.7 million from anonymous donors. Labour received $160,000 from unions and $300,000 from anonymous donors.
National received some $100,000 from media paid GST on their behalf and Labour used the Leaders Fund for perhaps $800,000 (also used by Bill English in 2002 when National had less generous donor funding as everyone knew they would lose).
Some would question the (albeit legal
at the moment), access to anonymous funding, so when people want to raise the issue of corruptly winning elections via financial resources, this inevitably results in a wider review than some would like.
I personally favour restricting parties to finance from named membership dues
(one level for party MP’s and officials and one level for the general public)
and taxpayer top-ups. Also limiting outside groups to advertising in their area of interest only during election campaigns (including unions/business/professional groups – which would limit EB to comment on religion).
September 5th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Kimble wrote:
What the union does with its dues is at the complete discretion of the elected union officials.
Um, really? My bowls club doesn’t give it’s elected executive total carte blanche with the chequebook, and I can’t really believe a major trade union would be incompetent enough to make itself easy prey for misappropriation of union funds. Even I don’t have that low an opinion of the trade union movement. Perhaps you misspoke, as the kids say.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Hear hear, Kimble (esp the 4:21 comment… I’ll be using that “reasoning” quote)
September 5th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
SPC wrote;
“I personally favour restricting parties to finance from named membership dues
(one level for party MP’s and officials and one level for the general public)
and taxpayer top-ups. Also limiting outside groups to advertising in their area of interest only during election campaigns (including unions/business/professional groups – which would limit EB to comment on religion).”
Yes agree to a point. Can you define tax payer top up. Afterall that is what Labour took for possibly all elections since 1999 (and/or before). How would you define area of interest for a union ? How would you plan to separate the area of interest that would be considered Labour party and that which would be considered union given the clear blending of the two from a political party perspective?
September 5th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
“Fact-National is overwhelmingly funded by big business.
Fact-National policies are very friendly to business interests.
Now you may try and argue that this is a mere coincidence, or that policies that benefit business benefit everyone. However I doubt many people will be buying
”
FACT-Labour is overwhelmingly funded by Unions
FACT-Labour policies are very friendly to union interests
Who gives a monkeys
September 5th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
It would be wrong to say the Unions get policy from Labour in return for funding. Actually previously most Labour campaign funds came from sources other than Unions – that has been the case for decades. And some Labour campaign funds come from corporates who fund both of the big parties more or less equally.
It is true that National attracted substantial funding from high net worth individuals and corporates last time. It is as much the confidence they have in Brash as it is National’s programme. To say they donate in return for policies completely misunderstands these funders. Actually their wealth is unlikely to be dramatically affected by anything Labour or National does. Generally they think New Zealand is stagnating again in policy terms and think the state sector is underperforming when considering the huge increases in resources it is now consuming.
What is most interesting is how modern Labour is saying that it is ok for it to access public resources (wrongly according to the Auditor General) because National got more campaign funds and the Exclusive Brethren were agents on behalf of National (unsubstantiated). Labour’s access to public resources is to match Nationals access to private resources freely given.
I think we face a constitutional issue but it’s not the obvious one. Labour is probably worth $2 million and is probably $1.5 – 2 million in debt – check out Labour Party Properties Inc which holds Labour’s property and has changed its rules so as to use property in holds (including that in trust) as in guarantee for the debts of the Party which might be up to $500,000.00 in debt.
The governing Party is technically broke and is only sustained by Cabinet minister/MP levies and by shifting and recasting all campaigning activity to confirm to the rules onto the taxpayer by using the Parliamentary service allocation. It is in short damn near a creature of the State with around 5000 members or less, which is why it is so off bean in dealing with the pledge card issue. It cannot see the problem like the druggie cannot see the problem. Even if they must concede the problem due to poll pressure it cannot repay from its own funds. Ministers and MPs are already taxed in the thousands and so will be reluctant to pay and angry that they were told the pledge card was within the rules. And so Labour goes tribal and attacks National for being more successful in fundraising. Its unfair National gets more money so Labour is justified in what it did.
Labour is proposing to spend short its parliamentary allocation by about 400k each year which is less than 10% of its total allocation. Watch also changes to Electoral law to make it tougher for citizens to voluntarily contribute financially in politics or participate in policy and political discourse like the Brethren during the three months prior to the Election. This may be coupled with a plan to directly fund Political parties perhaps on previous votes received basis and administered by the Electoral Commission.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
“Now I know the Employment Relations Act back to front, in fact it takes up a good portion of my thesis. The thing is, all it delivered to unions was the right to access work places for the purposes of union business. The fact is that striking is still illegal under most circumstances. There is no centralised system of collective bargaining like there is in virtually every other civilised country. We still live in a new right paradise.”
UTTER CRAP
We don’t live in a soclaist workers paradise thTs for sure.
Look at the crap that some of the unions have been up to that the govt and courts have turned a blind eye too. Progressives strike for example. Current strike against Pilkingtons where like progressive the Union has said “this strike will carry on indefinitely”. Southward engineering strike whre the maritime union members took part in illegal sympathy action refusing to load containers from the companys premises. The junior doctors and other medical professionals etc etc.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Lord the lefties are in a spin! I just feel sorry for the poor bastards in Labour who have to communicate with their idiot followers. How does one communicate with retards possessing the comprehension and reason demonstrated by sonic and philip john?
They are the poster children for all that is wrong with our education system.
Lets set it out really simply for our retarded visitors.
The EB spent their money urging others not to vote for the Greens. There is nothing illegal about that. Oh and by the way, they did not say vote National. Indeed what the EB did is not too dissimilar to the unions urging voters not to vote National, with their own money (how their members might feel about that is a private matter between the unions and their members).
On the other hand, Labour quite illegally stole $800+k of our money to say vote Labour.
What do the retards on the left not understand about that?
September 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Innocent:
My estimates of Labour Party’s assets are closer to $6 million. Labour Party Properties Inc has about $4.8 million in property investments, spread over eleven separate properties. Those properties are held in trust on behalf of former Labour Party branches.
The Labour Party also controls sizeable other assets not owned by Labour Party Properties Inc; the Dunedin South branch owns further property, the income from which is used to fund Labour Party activities in Otago, as do at least five other Labour Party branches.
Labour is not poor. They have a very large asset base; in realistic terms, it outstrips National’s asset base by a factor of ten.
The unions control over $100 million in assets. Their income-raising potential on behalf of the Labour Party is enormous.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
“I’m just in the process of completing a masters thesis focussing on employment relations in New Zealand’s secondary Labour market. Basicly it’s about the politics and economics that create the context for working a shit job in New Zealand. ”
Yeah its socialists like you Crooks that are full of political crap that create those contexts
Anyone can write a silly thesis full of nonsense specially in our sociialst dominated tertary insttitutions.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
“This maybe so, but the overwhelming point is that the combined membership of unions in New Zealand has shrunken since National was last in power.”
What utter rubbish
Some unions now claim 100% coverage of there worksites
There has been huge growth in union membership a fact widelyt acknowleged by the unions
“This tells me that either unions have little influence in the labour party (the mass privatisation and deregulation of industry of the 80′s would tend to confirm this), or the union movement isn’t interested in bringing in legislation that helps their membership grow. I know which one makes sense.”
Neither
The unions have big time influence
Look now they are busy getting rid of Phillip field One of their own
September 5th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Hi Philip John Crooks
“Such policies were redundant when unions had 55% coverage in New Zealand (before National’s Employment Contracts Act), we have 19% now.
Concelaing the fact that union membership has grown since the Employment Relations act came into being under Labour
You said that since National was last in power union membership has fallen
Perhaps youd care to say exactly when that Was,. According to my calendar National left office in 1999. Since then union membership has grown lots
September 5th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
“”But to be fair, Labour has a very long history of Union support and involvement, in fact they are proud of it.”
True, labour was founded by the radical Federation of Labour in the 1920s. It just happens to be the case that Labour hasn’t passed one significant piece of legislation to support the labour movement since the1970s. BTW the ERA doesn’t count – as I have said on numerous occasions union membership levels have dropped since the inception of the ERA.”
That is pronbably a lie
I reckon so
Unionm membership has grown a lot since 1999
Its certainly a lie that Labour hasn’t passed law supporting the Labour movement
They passed the law in 1984 bringing in compulsary unionism and the Laboure relations act in 1987 also the ERA does count, idiot and a lot of pro union amendments as well as the Health and safety changes making unoions a big part of it
September 5th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Not Socialist
The point of the union getting rid of Field is very valid. Once the Unions spoke up (and it took them long enough, everything they stand for had been violated and they just watched for months – gutless wonders) the Labour party rattled his cage a bit. Before that it was whitewash all the way.
Oh and on the point of our education system being dominated by socialists, try doing social policy as a Non socialist, good god – you have to think !
September 5th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
burt, as I would have it, taxpayer top-up would be matching funds (where party donations met a certain qualifying standard).
For example – say the rule was matching funds would come in up to a maximum of say 1 million dollars per party – for each 100 dollar (maximum) contribution. Thus up to a maximum of 10,000 $100 contributions or 20,000 $50 ones.
I can see no reason why the party could not have other funding – that not qualifying for matching funds. But I would still have this from named individuals only (no company/business/union/anonymous fundraising). I would allow an amount up to $10,000 – to provide for parties like the Greens whose list MP’s put up this amount and for Labour and National candidates who finance their own electorate campaigns.
“How would you define area of interest for a union? How would you plan to separate the area of interest that would be considered Labour party and that which would be considered union given the clear blending of the two from a political party perspective?”
I would only allow individual memberships of parties and I would only allow unions to advertise on labour (small l)/employment/wage/income issues during election periods. Business groups could comment “PAC” on business matters/company tax etc.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
I donated $100 to National last election and I demanded that they got rid of Labour as my “cash-for-policy”. Cheeky buggers are taking their time making it happen though.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:45 am
It seems that organisations of workers who unite to have a political voice and determine democratically who to support is a threat to democracy, yet unelected fat cats who run big big businesses donating vast sums to political parties is not.
What a crazy world the wingnuts live in.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:24 am
“Its certainly a lie that Labour hasn’t passed law supporting the Labour movement
They passed the law in 1984 bringing in compulsary unionism and the Laboure relations act in 1987 also the ERA does count, idiot and a lot of pro union amendments as well as the Health and safety changes making unoions a big part of it”
Firstly, during the 4th labour government union density dropped from 55% to 50% – the labour relations act 1987 in fact was an attempt to partially deregulate the labour market. i.e. it made arbitration volantary amongst many other things that could be seen as anti-union.
Also, Statistics released by Victoria University’s Industrial Relations Centre show that in the year to March, only 9 per cent of private sector employees were members of collective agreements.was down from 21 per cent between 1995 and 2000 and 48 per cent in 1990, the year before the National government passed the Employment Contracts Act. Union “density” is the proportion of potential union members who actually belong to a union.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3759564a11,00.html
September 6th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Anyone can write a silly thesis full of nonsense specially in our sociialst dominated tertary insttitutions.
I am not convinced you can.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
“Unions are far larger now than they were under the last National Government. The registered unions now have assets worth over $100 million. They are the largest direct funding base of the Labour Party.”
As an example the RMTU (Rail & Maritime Transport Union) in their 2005 year took in over $1 million in members’ subscriptions. The individual members pay around $350 per year in subs. These subs are increased in proportion with each wage rise. The union’s total income was $1.2 million, their expenditure was even more. They have assets of over $2 million at present.