Did you know?
In 1999, a massive 74% of Labour’s donations were anonymous – totalling $824,375. Yep almost one million dollars.
In 2002 Labour’s level of anonymous donations was only $55,000 less than National.
So Labour are absoluite hypocrites when they claim that these anonymous donations are bad, are wrong, and must be stopped. They have happily taken them in. They have explicitly not amended the law to stop them, as they could have done at any time since 1999.
So why are these donations suddenly a bad thing? Simply because Labour didn’t get as many as National this time around. Suddenly this major funding source for Labour becomes a bad, evil thing.
So my question to Helen is if you are now against anonymous donations so much will you hand back all the ones you have happily banked?
September 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
“In 1999, a massive 74% of Labour’s donations were anonymous’
And in the present day 92% of National’s donations are.
“So my question to Helen is if you are now against anonymous donations so much will you hand back all the ones you have happily banked?’
Sorry David but that is truly desperate.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
DPF you appear to have a typo in line 3.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
So labour’s anonymous donations of total $55,000 less than Labour? Jesus. How about that.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
“Sorry David but that is truly desperate.”
It’s a fair point, however.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Agenda TV this morning, Gerry Brownlee: “Well be very careful about where you’re gonna go here because any money that comes from our trusts of course – or trusts that support us I should say are counted, but look we’re now having an argument about the law which I think’s relatively clear”
Mmmmmm of course if they are “our trusts” then they are receiving donations on behalf of National and the individual donors to such trusts should be disclosed in National’s return. If they trusts that happen to donate to National then the donation comes from the trust and where the trust itself got their funding from has nothing to do with National’s return.
One should be precise in such matters to avoid confusion.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Not only are they hypocrites about anon funding but third party election activity. The National Party is just itching to take the unions out of politics in NZ and the Labour Party is going to hand this on a plate. But even if the Labour Party get to pass these laws (and that is a big if), what assurance will they give the public they will espect them.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Agenda TV this morning, Gerry Brownlee: “Well be very careful about where you’re gonna go here because any money that comes from our trusts of course – or trusts that support us I should say are counted, but look we’re now having an argument about the law which I think’s relatively clear”
Mmmmmm of course if they are “our trusts” then they are receiving donations on behalf of National and the individual donors to such trusts should be disclosed in National’s return. If they trusts that happen to donate to National then the donation comes from the trust and where the trust itself got their funding from has nothing to do with National’s return.
One should be precise in such matters to avoid confusion.
September 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
haha, David you are really getting desprate now!
Since you have deemed it ok to look back on funding in 2002, I expect you will be wrtitng a long essay on Bill English and his policy statements funded from his leaders budgets
hypocrites indeed!
September 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Tim
Honestly I don’t think union support for the Labour Party is that politically or financially advantageous to Labour. Of course any legislation on “third party” (better described as not political party or candidate activity) by unions who are affiliated are arguably not a“third party” as they are actually part of the Labour Party.
The simple response to Labour’s proposal on non political party/candidate individuals and groups is that it is an attack on the fundamental freedom of expression. The purpose of the Electoral Act is not to limit, cap or otherwise control non party/candidate right to argue for lawful political change. The Act’s purpose is to control the contest of political parties and candidates not limit political expression to political parties/candidates. Labour’s proposals are simply an attempt to ration and control political dissent by individuals and groups in civil society. Politics for them should be limited to politicians and political parties.
It would seem on DPF’s information of anonymous donations that these tend to favour the party who is likely to form a government when some believe there might be a mood to change the government. When one thinks about it this itstands to reason. One that basis National will do even better next election (all other things being equal) than it did this time and Labour will raise even less.
September 16th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
What about the donation made anonymously by the people of New Zealand..$800,000..to the Labour Party? Channeled through the Parliamentary Service fund.
September 16th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Well if indeed the pledge card is an electoral activity and therefore an electoral expense for Labour, then who funds it of course doesn’t matter. It is an interesting question of how much a spend would be recorded in Labour’s return – could be a donation from Parliamentary Service or and Expense as it was an election activity done with Labour’s authority. Hard to know which one it would be if indeed it is either.
September 16th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Union support for Labour is public, if you are a member if a union that donates to the LP you are perfectly free to put a motion to conference or even stand as a candidate.
Another straw man for the right-wing, the labour movement has always had two wings, political and industrial. You would have thought that 70 or so years would be anough time for Tories to get used to this arrangement, however it seems they are still having problems with the concept.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Did Don Brash have an affair with your mother or something sonic? I don’t understand why you have this unrational support for Labour as if everything they do is perfect and holy, with no possibility of corruption.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
The cost of the affiliated unions’ third party campaigning is attributed to Labour’s campaign expenditure and hence ceases to be third-party campaigning by definition – if it is of no worth in terms of getting out the vote, then it is indeed a waste of money for Labour.
September 16th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Ha, Sonic’s mother wishes.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Sonic is either seriously deluded, or is on the Labour Party payroll.
& if the latter is the case then it follows the Lairbour form book of not getting value for money.
September 16th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Sonic is actually Trevor. Just ignore him and he’ll piss off home to Wainui eventually.
Hey Sonic hows Cloe?
Love the slippers dude.
September 16th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
so david…it makes sense to have no anonymous donations for anyone..eh..?
isn’t transperancy a key pillar of democracy..?
how can you oppose this (obviously)needed reform…?
(y’know how it goes david….it not only needs to be right..it needs to be seen to be right..)
it’s as simple as that really…eh…?
we’d have no more religous nutjob secret smear campaigns against minor parties..?..would we..?
and yes..i also saw gerry brownlees’ ‘slip’….where he said “our trusts”..
that caused eyebrows around here to shoot up…and could be fertile ground for maybe ..mr wishart to plough..?
(oh ..hang on..he dosen’t ‘attack’ the centre-right..does he..?
he’s very ideologically focused isn’t he..?..when he is down there in the sewer..?
and dpf…
you’d have to say gerry ‘bitch-slapped’ you ..eh..?…with his..”you..of all people..should know..”..riposte…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 16th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Hey Phil, are you the one Peter Davis propositioned recently?
September 16th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Sonic “union support for lairbore is public”, yes without a doubt this is a true statment. But what is not public is the level of support given. I wonder how much the working man is “donating”. This poxy little party claims to stand for the working man but has no problem helping themselves to funds given in union membership fees. These poor fools do not realise they are been rip off twice, in union fees then income tax. Atleast I only have to fund these arseholes once.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Now we know why Labour claim anonymous donations are “corrupt”. They are speaking from experience.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Mark – please leave Mr Davis out of the debate.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Sorry, you’re right; we are better than that (unlike the left).
September 16th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
phil, I’m sorry you are just a freak.
September 16th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
It would be simple to prohibit Unions donating money to the Labour party unless they have the individual consent of the member or better still make it totally illegal.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Tim, is there some reason you think that would be in the interests of democracy? Tell you what. If Labour drops the union donations, then will the Nats drop their big donors? That would certainly make things a lot fairer.
Better still, if both parties had exactly the same money for their propaganda then it might actually come down to policy differences. And someone outside of the big two might actually get a shot too.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:41 am
thank you mark..thank you..for my first belly-laugh of the day..
this is mark..(straight after asking me if i was the person peter davies propositioned…and being chastened by dpf for mentioning/slurring davies..)
“..Sorry, you’re right; we are better than that (unlike the left)…”
nice one…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 5:42 am
thank you mark..thank you..for my first belly-laugh of the day..
this is mark..(straight after asking me if i was the person peter davies propositioned…and being chastened by dpf for mentioning/slurring davies..)
“..Sorry, you’re right; we are better than that (unlike the left)…”
nice one…
and pdq seems to be quite the wordsmith..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Guess who I saw come out of a supermarket yesterday evening and get into her car?
Laila Harre!
Was the supermarket in Otara, Mangere, Clendon or up-market Milford?
Was the car worth $100, $1000, $10 000 or up-market $100 000
Clue: No prizes for the winner!
September 17th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Did you see the confrontation on Eye to Eye yesterday when Laila and her like self promoting commie McCarten were face to face with Deborah Hill and Roger Kerr? McCarten in his usual bullying talk over the top of everybody else manner called Debs “disgusting” because she had the courage to accuse Harre and McCarten of using the Progressive workers to further the political objectives of the union movement. As I keep saying, the truth to the left is like a cross to a vampire, and if you confront them with that weapon, they’ve never got anything but smears and agression and hate. Go for it Deborah, you did so well, and I’m sure you won’t ever let yourself be intimidated by the likes of the propagandising blowhard and would be bully McCarten.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:57 am
When there is a National Government I hope it becomes policy to basically take the Unions out of politics in New Zealand. Firstly to prohibit union membership fees being donated to the Labour Party and secondly make it illegal for members of a Union becoming “affiliated” to the Labour Party unless each individual person gives explicit written and confidential consent to become a member of the Labour Party. Thirdly make it a criminal offence to use any money from the Leaders’ fund for political purposes, and for the Audtor Genral to issue guidelines defining what “political purposes” is, this to include using the parliamentary swithboard for political polling and focus group polling. Fourthly to conduct a thorough audit of the Labour Party’s use of parliamentary funding for political purposes and declare any fuding improperly used to be a debt due by jointly and severally by the memebers of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am
and exactly the same precepts placed on national..?..
we can assume tim..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am
and b.t.w. tim..you have my vote for dictator we should really really avoid..
would you have redbaiter as your minister of security..?
eh..?..round up all the leftie commis scum…eh tim..?
as others (from your side) have noted tim…you do the right no favours with your delusional ranting..
and the question must be asked..
are you a dissembling leftie..?
if so..you (and the others) are doing a cracker job of smearing the right..eh..?
keep it up..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 10:14 am
and b.t.w. tim..you have my vote for dictator we should really really avoid..
would you have redbaiter as your minister of security..?
eh..?..round up all the leftie commis scum…eh tim..?
as others (from your side) have noted tim…you do the right no favours with your delusional ranting..
(ranting that brings you (uncomfortably) close the rights’ fascist forbearers..)
and the question must be asked..
are you a dissembling leftie..?..tim..?
if so..you (and the others) are doing a cracker job of smearing the right..eh..?
keep it up..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 11:01 am
The target will be the Labour Party who have been abusing parliamentary funding for years and years.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Tim, I can just see the public rallying behind the first act of a triumphantly elected party being to go after the opposition. Not. But I’m not surprised you have no higher ambitions or ideas, because you have never once expressed them. Which is why your party loses far more often that one with it’s level of financial backing should.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Ha Phule – Do you not recognise your mirror image when you see it?
To easy.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Hey Phil, how the Greens polling these days? Are they still within the margin of error or have NZers actually started giving a shit about them?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
If one quote’s Transparency International on the PS spending on the election campaign, don’t forget what they said on the anonymous funding as well. Unless one wants to lose credibility on this issue. That smacks of a desperation to exploit financial advantages to win elections – which would end any tactical advanatage National has gained on the current spending issue.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Besides the 2005 situation only arose, say National, because of 2003 changes. There is no reason not to change the anonymous funding situation as well.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
i think it was 7.5-8%..something like that..
the greens will be in the next parliament..
be in no doubt about that..
i’d be surprised if they get under 10% next time out..
(seeing as you asked..?..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Phil – so you’ll be crediting the gain to Russel Norman then
September 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
yeah..
it looks like his high profile campaigning has really hit pay-dirt…
(too many ‘stunts’ tho’..eh..?..he’s just everywhere..)
btw..the week to week calender of the greens clearly shows one mp who is out there doing the hard yards…the dreadlocked one..
good to see he is back on focus..
but the greens will do ok..next time out..(as i think you’d agree)..no matter who leads them..
there are the strengths of the individual mps
and of course..
the tides of change/history are with them..
it’s as simple as that..
more green party mp’s/more maori party mp’s..and a gutted labour should be the winning combo next time out.eh..?
national under key will do ok..
but will still be nobbled by a lack of coalition partner..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 18th, 2006 at 8:38 am
I don’t really know which Blog to post this on, but this one will do.
Attention needs to be brought back to the real issues. Labour Party Pledge Cards and the almost forgotten figure of Taito Phillip Field.
The National Party and its supporters must keep the pressure up on these issues. The group of individuals who must get really active are the back bench members who need to make themselves heard very clearly, particularly out in the electorates. They are not in Parliament just to listen and not contribute.
I don’t care about Brash, Clark or Davis’ private lives but I am sure as hell deeply concerned about the acitivities of MPs who manipulate the facts to protect their political lives.
Field and Clark must not be allowed to escape under the cover of smoke from these diversionary operations.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:40 am
I don’t really know which Blog to post this on, but this one will do.
Attention needs to be brought back to the real issues. Labour Party Pledge Cards and the almost forgotten figure of Taito Phillip Field.
The National Party and its supporters must keep the pressure up on these issues. The group of individuals who must get really active are the back bench members who need to make themselves heard very clearly, particularly out in the electorates. They are not in Parliament just to listen and not contribute.
I don’t care about Brash, Clark or Davis’ private lives but I am sure as hell deeply concerned about the acitivities of MPs who manipulate the facts to protect their political lives.
Field and Clark must not be allowed to escape under the cover of smoke from these diversionary operations.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:56 am
What DPF forgot to add was that in each year he mentions National received more in anonymous funding then Labour. It is call “spin” when you write like that David.
The point is whether democracy is aided and abetted by secrecy. I think that, as with free markets, democracy works better when all players have access to all the information. I think it does. For NZ was the *only* jurisdiction where considerable covert EB participation in an election was revealed prior to the voting day. This happened by pure fluke, no thanks to the democratic leanings of that organisation or National.
DPF I know disagrees, and so does the increasingly secretive looking Don Brash. Think National, think big secrets.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:21 am
“The point is whether democracy is aided and abetted by secrecy.”
Well it probably isn’t Noddy, but its a reflection on politics under the socialists that more and more people in NZ are worried about what might happen to them if they speak out against the Klark totalitarian clique. Look at the smear campaign against Don Brash, who had the temerity to ask that Labour pay back stolen money. Look at the smear campaign against the EB, who had the damn nerve to actually speak out loudly on a few political issues. Look at the threats to deprive Maxim backers of access to government contracts. Look at the smears against “Investigate”. Democracy isn’t aided by secrecy, but under Stalin, it was rife. Its an outcome of totalitarian government.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am
RB, you do realise that by spelling Clark as Klark you come across as even more deranged?
September 18th, 2006 at 10:38 am
that one ‘telling’ phrase from brownlee on agenda on sat morn..
was when he said ‘our trusts’..and then hurridly corrected himself…
(and did anyone else hear helen clark on bfm this morning…?
whoar..!..go listen on the website..
hear ‘scary helen’..in full flight..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
What I realise Sonic is that you can never come back with anything but worthless one liners attacking Redbaiter, which is quite kind of you in one way, becasue every time you do it, it supports my theory that leftists never have anything but hate driven smears against anyone who confronts them with the truth.
Here’s another bit of truth you can abuse me for. Ian Wishart is pursuing the matter of the LA airport incident for one reason really, and that is because he has been stonewalled. He alleges an orchestrated campaign to hush up whatever occurred. So naturally there’s no evidence of any event occurring in LA. The event tho (at this stage) is not the story.
The story is the cover up. Like Watergate, to start with there was no proof of any connection between the burglary and Richard Nixon. Persistence by a few dedicated reporters paid off. The important issue here Sonic is to discover the truth wouldn’t you think?? After all, if nothing happened at LA, what is there to hide??
September 18th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Talking about yourself in the third person, first sign of madness.
Nice you are doing your best to give the airport story legs though.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hello, we test Your guest book. If our testing delivered inconvenience you, please, write us about it on dick@promaild.org with pointing of address of Your guest book.