Just when you thought they couldn’t get lower

September 7th, 2006 at 7:24 am by David Farrar

Well I doubt even the most rabid supporter will defend on this one. Having failed to distract attention with dredging up the Brethren’s campaign and anoymous donations (which has specifically kept legal, and receive themselves), yesterday they said they would start revealing “secrets about the private lives of National MPs” unless they back off about Labour’s illegal election over-spending.

It seems there really is no gutter low enough. I think even McCarthy would be repulsed.

There is a simple solution for Labour to stop people calling it corrupt. Take action against Taito Phillip Field (giving false eveidence to the Ingram Inquiry should be grounds alone) and pay back the illegal spending.

And as I am not an MP, I can use the hypocrisy word and point out that Labour has over the years called National corrupt on multiple occassions. They called Jenny Shipley corrupt for having dinner with Kevin Roberts. They alleged National had its policies written in Washington DC. So they are being fucking precious by complaining when the blowtorch is on them.

And the difference between the cases in that there was not a shred of evidence of wrong-doing in the two cases mentioned above. In the cases of the election over-spending there are formal reports and opinions from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission, the Auditor-General, and the Solictor-General.

The Press Editorial sums up Labour tactic’s well:


Labour’s cynical attacks on National over election spending smack of a desperate attempt at self-justification.

But amid these claims and the mutual taunts of corruption being thrown across an increasingly chaotic House, the real issue is straightforward: whether Labour in last year’s election broke the rules by spending parliamentary funding on soliciting votes. Given that it defies belief that the pledge card was not designed to gain votes, the conclusion has to be that Labour took a calculated gamble to bend the rules and has now been caught.

Its allegations against National are designed to divert attention from this basic point and from the issue of what role over-spending played in Labour’s return to power. But the attacks, to date at least, appear based on the theory that if enough mud is thrown, at least some of it will stick.

The over-riding priority must be establishing greater accountability for the public money spent on campaigning and restoring full public confidence in the electoral process itself. Rather than lashing out at National to divert attention from itself, Labour’s best hope of retrieving even some shreds of dignity from the current imbroglio would be to work positively towards these goals.

Tags:

271 Responses to “Just when you thought they couldn’t get lower”

  1. Spirit Of 76 () says:

    Seeing any Labour MP now makes me feed the need to take a shower

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Spirit Of 76 () says:

    Seeing any Labour MP now makes me feel the need to take a shower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Blueballs () says:

    Rack up and hose the lying thieving socialist Stalinist scum out with DU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Seamonkey Madness () says:

    Love your last tag for this post DPF. Very fitting. =)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. james.c () says:

    The reference to Labour’s best hope being to forget the mud slinging is simply not true (unethical possibly). Slinging mud against National will be effective.

    Already the issue has been clouded in the public perception, and Labour will not allow the public to forget the EB. What was a simple issue has now been totally confused, amid what seems like speculative gambles as to National’s own conduct.

    Right or wrong, Labour’s course of action is already starting to look effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tim barclay () says:

    So far the minor parties have stayed out of the great row. This is a battle for survival of the Labour Party. But there will come a day when the minors will have to decide – particularly Peter Dunne. NZF may split (again) and I assume the Greens will obstain. How the numbers will stack up I do not know but I cannot rule out an election in the first quarter of next year. The Greens and the Maori Party will benefit most if the Labour Party impodes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Spam () says:

    Yes – National should find a counter-slogan on the EB.

    Perhaps report Helen to the Human Rights Commission for her continued referrals to the EB as a ‘wacky cult’ – not really acceptable, given that we have freedom of religion here in NZ.

    Perhaps just the simple line that “National did not receive money from the EB – and the EB were using their own money – not the taxpayers”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. phil u () says:

    where’a murray and kimble..?..when you need them..and redbaiter..?(..oh..it’s all right..blueballs is subbing for him.)..

    this in response to your ‘invective-call’..david..

    and david..you know as well as i do that the reason for this thermo-nulear meltdown between labour and national..is because labour is calling it that national has broken the ‘accord’..

    that accord that sees them unanimously vote to increase their perks and privileges..

    and this is one of those ‘shadowy’perks and privileges areas…campaign funding..

    and of course national should be freaking out..’cos in retaliation labour are going to take away one of their main sources of funding/funders..
    the anonymous donation…

    and can i just note..?..it’s going to get worse before it gets better…

    this thermo-nuclear meltdown..

    phil

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. iiq374 () says:

    Unfortunately james.c is right.

    DPF you over estimate the intelligence and attention span of the general public.
    Labour tends to win these types of battles because they actually seem to have realised how thick the average voter is – and that is all you need to have on your side is the average voter…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tim barclay () says:

    Phil I do not think National will have any trouble receiving donations, not this time. Labour of course have benfitted from anonymous donations. I do not think the Unions will be too pleased if Labour’s corporate donations book is revealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. boysmum () says:

    I read that there was no point in another election because there was no evidence to suggest that the 2005 election result would have differed if Labour had or hadn’t overspent.
    I agree. The point of having another election is that Labour has been seen to be CORRUPT.Shouting ever louder by them that they aren’t is just a smokescreen. Let the people decide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. culma () says:

    After 6 years of tripe from Clark,Mallard,Cullin, Field, Dynhoven, DBP, Hodson, Dalziel and on and on and on.
    This sort of action tells me Clarks Mob are all out of idea’s and the country just aren’t interested in what they have to say.
    Sounds very much like a group in the final death throws to me, using what ever to hold onto power.

    Mallard a hard man – please thats like saying Mr Blobby is staunch!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. sonic () says:

    Goodness what a hypocritical bunch you are. After weeks of mudslinging (Liarbore, more corrupt than the third world, stolen elections) it is a little bit late for you all to climb on that moral high horse.

    First rule of politics, do not dish it out if you cannot take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. brian_smaller () says:

    So Labour will trot out the fact that there a few closet homos in National ranks? So who cares as long as they are not stealing our money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. southern raider () says:

    Sonic,
    Maybe if Mallard does start the war of secrets then we might find out officially why Peter Davis was arrested at LAX.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. sonic () says:

    Perhaps, lets just get all of the secrets out into the open, then we can all decide who is corrupt and who is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. culma () says:

    Spam – just goes to show there isn’t a group in this country Clark won’t sacrifice or put to the sword to appease her own personal satisfaction or Bialzibub, (who she has modeled her present look and also worshiped daily)!

    I only have one thing to say to this pack of bastards (Present Labour Govt) I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on any of you if you were burning, and please take it in the vein it is meant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Insolent Prick () says:

    Don’t think there’s any benefit to Labour by going down this road.

    It shows how much Labour have lost their heads. To think for a moment that the public would forgive them for their electoral corruption on the basis of defamatory rumours about National MPs private lives is distraction politics to the extreme.

    Labour Party family members are not immune to personal indiscretions either. For Labour to even consider starting a toxic war that brings in family members is simply disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Linda () says:

    National must refrain from following Labour into the gutters. To be fair, I don’t think Don Brash would let them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt () says:

    The writing is on the wall folks. Think big orange pens and ticks to be placed on bits of paper.

    What will you choose: The red pill or the blue pill ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hiding under here () says:

    The Govt better be very careful. I was in the public gallery of the House yesterday, and I distinctly heard a number of Labour backbenchers shout “Paikea” and “whalerider” in the direction of Gerry Brownlee. There were some very angry faces in the Press Gallery. This sort of thing is only going to rebound on Labour. There are plenty of scandals sitting on Labour side of the House that have remained out of sight. I suspect they will not remain that way if Labour continue with the mud-slinging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. DavidW () says:

    Would be OK if the media would just fail to report on it but there is a (fairly large) section of the great unwashed who are just hanging in their prurient interest for the “private lives” detail. Great for circulation so there is no chance of the community to say – “we are just not interested.”

    The whole foundation of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is that both sides have to believe that the other is prepared to press the button. If one side blinks, the other has won, which of course leads to – BOTH LOSE

    A very, very dangerous slippery slope indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Farrar () says:

    People – please don’t post your own rumours here – I will start deleting soon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Peter S () says:

    Had Labour tried this tactic a couple of months ago I would have rated their chances of success as being quite high.

    However, there seems to have been a subtle, but significant shift in the tone of MSM reporting since then. Whilst in the past Labour’s accusations would have been reported simply as accusations, the editorials are reporting them as responses to National’s attacks, and the words spin, mudsling, deflection and evasion are often included. This type of thing has a huge influence on a reader that does not have an already forme, strong opinion on the subject.

    Case in point. On xtra this morning in the political section there is a short article titled “Comments Provoke Gasps In Parliament.” The article finishes with the sentence “In his question Mr Mallard described the Exclusive Brethren as “chinless scarf-wearers”.”

    In my opinion any casual reader will walk away with those two things in their mind, not the bit in the article about a question over an alleged secret meeting with the EBs.

    If the tone of the press continues, Labour may come out of it looking desperate, mean & tacky in the public eye.

    I also wonder how Mallard’s scarf comments & Clarke’s wierd sect comments will hold up in relation to the anti hate speech bill, especially in light of their attacks on Bob’s burkha statements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Murray () says:

    Oh look phools talking incomprehensible crap, must be a day ending in y.

    Remember kids, a day without drugs is a day without phil.

    Love that high moral ground they’re taking. What does a worms under belly look like Helen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. TJ () says:

    Why do the press and people perpetuate the myth that Trevor Mallard is a Hard Man.In The 70′s he was a Union Bully for the Teachers Union.(A 12 year old can frighten a teacher )My Observations of the man is that he is a weasel hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege and when it comes to putting up out side the house he is known as a runner.There is nothing hard about a man who hides behind Helen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rocket Boy () says:

    If nothing else the whole sorry saga of the pledge cards and the ‘election overspending’ highlights how National Party thinking works. National attacks the government around the fringes on things that the average man on the street really doesn’t care about. When labour tries similar tactics it is being ‘fucking precious’. What people care about are jobs, the economy, good leadership etc

    I agree that the whole area of election spending needs resolving and that may result in Labour having to pay the money back as well as other parties like ACT paying back there overspending. However I also think that the whole area of political donations needs to be sorted out and made transparent. National taking anonymous donations and channeling them through trust funds is not a good look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. sonic () says:

    “alleged secret meeting with the EBs.”

    So Brash lied then? hardly a non-story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. llew () says:

    “he was a Union Bully for the Teachers Union”

    And he’s still a bully. He’s one that I won’t miss at all when his time is over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Peter S () says:

    Sonic,

    “alleged secret meeting with the EBs.”

    “So Brash lied then? hardly a non-story.”

    Nice illustration how people only really take notice of part of what they read. I guess others reading the post with slighly less partisan mind sets would have taken in other information.

    This does demonstrate the main point that I was making about the importance of the wording of editorials. People catch on to a key phrase, and that colours their whole view of an article.

    It is why, given the tone of current reporting, I suspect Labour may find that the shots it is firing will pass dangerously close to their own feet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. phillipjohn () says:

    “National must refrain from following Labour into the gutters. To be fair, I don’t think Don Brash would let them.”

    oh please, what was the Benson pope thing about then? National is just as desperate to gain power as Labour is to hold onto it, and they will both do what ever they think is most efficacious to achieve their ends. In the end I believe most people recognise this about politicians. The only party that doesn’t seem to resort to the gutter is the Green party. So all politicians being equally inscrutable, it comes down to policies, and it seems that Labour has been successful at hogging the middle ground. National is too far to the right for most people. They were dragged there by Brash who is a market fundamentalist. Because of his extreme right wing bent he was able to topple Bill English with the backing of some very wealthy people = big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the 2005 campaign.

    So that’s where we stand at the moment. My prediction is that if National dump Brash for the next election for someone a bit more centrist and with even a touch of charisma they will win. Let’s just hope they stay with the comb-over corpse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Billy () says:

    Rocket Boy, Labour gets anonymous donations as well. Are you planning on condemning them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Linda () says:

    philipjohn – Benson-Pope was in charge of our schools and there is complelling edvidence that as a teacher he assulted students. It was completely relevant to his JOB as a minister. I still can’t believe he’s still an MP – let alone a minister.

    Threatening to reveal personal information about MPs that has NO relevance to their JOBS is gutter politics.

    Get over it – Labour have degenerated to becoming scumbags but I still have hope at least a few of them will walk away from the rest and show some backbone and some integrity – but I’m not holding my breath!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gd () says:

    Never under estimate the citizerns.Those who inhabit the House do so at their peril. The citizerns are only so paitent and so tolerant. At some point the collective will lose its paitence and tolerance and IMHO that time is not far off.We are seeing a meltdown in Parliamentary governace.All of the parties are responsible and all will be punished some more than others.Labour will be the biggest losewr and could be decimated as voters move to their next preference of worse still abstain withe the view ” a plague on all your houses” The Nats will be punished to a lesser extent. The result could see the next Parliament made up in a way few would imagine in their worst nightmares.Watch this space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt () says:

    phillipjohn

    What was that about DB-P. Prima facie cases that were never prosecuted follwed by move on.

    Exactly the sort of stuff that an opposition is in place to make a fuss about.

    Or (and please answer this) do you think that physically abusing students and repeatedly perving on young girls is a good thing for an MP to have alledgedly done ?

    As long as the prima facie case is not tested in a court we can say there has been a potential miscarriage of justice and/or corruption in the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. sagenz () says:

    Seems suspiciously close to attempted blackmail to me. And it appears Mallard repeated the obligations outside the house.

    Graeme Edgeler or the like care to give an opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Murray () says:

    Will the honorable Labour MP’s please stand up and move to the side.

    Get some distance between you and ground zero or decide you’re happy to go with this plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. george () says:

    Clear the decks, stand by for action. Nothing like a good dung-out of parliament. With a spot of luck we could get rid of degenerates from all sides of the house.

    Ever noticed a dog fight? If one goes down yelping the rest are on to him in a flash. Watch the fearless leader turn the pack on her own, until its her yelp and then what goes round comes round.

    Bring it on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Craig Ranapia () says:

    I do love Tony Milne’s fresh helping of spin – apparently, now, Labour bears no responsibility for anything they do. It’s all National’s fault! Perhaps Tony should host a fundraising screening of Richard E. Grant’s Wah-Wah (bloody good, BTW) – a title that should be most attractive to a party that sounds more and more like a toddler ready for a time out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. phillipjohn () says:

    “Benson-Pope was in charge of our schools and there is compelling evidence that as a teacher he assaulted students. It was completely relevant to his JOB as a minister”

    OK, so we are worried that he’s going to leap across the bench one day and give Don a good slapping are we? If there is any relevance to Benson-Pope’s past in the context of his being a current MP it is that his behaviour was unethical. But what count’s as unethical? Is cheating on your spouse unethical? I think it’s at least as bad as slapping someone about. If so then Don Brash shouldn’t be an MP, after all he cheated on his past wife with his current one. So any MP that has behaved unethically shouldn’t be able to be an MP? Say good by to the whole god-damn lot of them then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Linda () says:

    In his JOB as a teacher BP assulted a student. That’s a criminal act. You can’t go to jail for having an affair. Don’t you get it?

    I guess not – if you plan to vote Labour. You are a fine product of our public school system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. sonic () says:

    Interesting

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3788832a11,00.html

    “Labour signalled sweeping changes yesterday to campaign financing laws – another tactic designed to hurt National, which channels most of its campaign donations through trust accounts. Under the changes, the source of any donation over $250 will have to be identified.

    Of the $1.88 million of donations declared by National last year, $1.74 million was channelled through six trust accounts to prevent the names of the donors becoming public”

    Better get the sausage sizzles organised chaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Linda () says:

    In his JOB as a teacher BP assulted a student. That’s a criminal act. You can’t go to jail for having an affair. Don’t you get it?

    I guess not – if you plan to vote Labour. You are a fine product of our public school system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PaulL () says:

    Personally, I am all in favour of all the dirt being dished, for a few reasons:

    1. Who knows what other blackmail is going on relating to it – this continual implied threat makes me wonder who is pulling their punches on what

    2. I don’t like other people making decisions for me on what is relevant and what is not. In my work life I have generally found that those who consistently break commitments to their significant others also cannot be trusted with work commitments. I presume politics is no different.

    To those who keep pointing out that Don Brash had an affair, left his wife and is now married to the other party in his affair – the point is that it is all public information and the voters can make their own minds up about relevance. This other dirt is not public, and nobody has had a chance to make their minds up. Maybe it is relevant, maybe it isn’t.

    I know for my part that someone getting divorced and remarried isn’t really relevant to me. But if Don was having a string of affairs, that would lead me to question his honesty. I see no particular reason why this would be treated as a secret if it were happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. sonic () says:

    Just to add, on those figures 92% of National’s income comes from anonymous donors.

    Breathtaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic:

    Well, I’ve heard this all before and isn’t it funny how the bill never quite seems to get on the order paper. Still, I’ll suspend judgement until I see what’s being ‘signalled’ in hard print, and hope for the sake of Labour’s credibility it won’t be full of carefully designed loopholes you could drive the Titanic though, a la McCain-Feingold in the US. Wouldn’t that be naughty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. burt () says:

    sonic,

    so 92% of National funding came from legal (but anon) sources.

    THIS IS NOT THE POINT YOU DIPSTICK….

    What proportion came from illegal use of tax payer money ??????????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Billy () says:

    Sonic, the point of anonymous donors, and the way the system is set up, is anonymity between donor and donee. Anonymity from everyone else is a necessay bi-product of that. It is legal. Labour have been in government since 1999 and have done nothing to change it. I wonder why they have chosen now to highlight of the issue? I can’t see how it relevant to the issue in hand: labour’s illegal theft of public money for its compaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. DavidW () says:

    Yes Sonic, fear of retribution by an unscrupulous and vindictive labour movement will do that to people who have had a gutsful, wish to support change away from the status quo but have no other agenda to push.

    A bit like the EB I suppose. Who would want to be identified if they are going to be abused, vilified, ridiculed and otherwise shat on from a great height like that.

    Pretty good case study I’d say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. sonic () says:

    92% is an amazing fugure, spin that whatever way you like it’s a killer number and one Labour should be shouting from the rooftops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. phillipjohn () says:

    “In his JOB as a teacher BP assulted a student.” He has never been convicted for that.

    I wonder just how many Benson Popes the Nats have in their ranks. I reckon probably quite a few, so if this is what National wants politics to be about, then we are going to have many more of these farces. How petty and boring, I wish we could debate issus and policies rather than personalities. Fuck it’s just like highschool all over agin, you people are truely pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. DavidW () says:

    Sonic,

    So you subscribe to Trotter’s argument about justified corruption do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. sonic () says:

    I see David is spinning already, iirc the first rule of spin is that when on dodgy ground change the subject.

    What has National got to hide is the real question, why will they not own up to who is funding them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hardy fucken ha () says:

    ‘Just to add, on those figures 92% of National’s income comes from anonymous donors.

    Breathtaking.’

    Lets put this into context shall we. The anonymously given money was GIVEN CONSENSUALLY and LEGALLY. The $800,000 that Labour spent was TAKEN COERCIVELY and ILLEGALLY. In addition, Labour accepted over $300,000 of ANONYMOUS donations without battering an eyelid. Now we are expected to believe that they are deeply concerned about anonymous donations – give me break. Piss off back under your slimey little rock Sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. phillipjohn () says:

    “Yes Sonic, fear of retribution by an unscrupulous and vindictive labour movement will do that to people who have had a gutsful, wish to support change away from the status quo but have no other agenda to push.”

    This is just rediculous. We have the 3rd lowest union dinsity levels in the OECD behind the US and Korea = amongst the weakest union movements. Over the last 5 years we have had less strikes than in any given year in the 1970s.

    Our unions are mostly moderate 3rd way adherants that follow the “partnership” approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hardy fucken ha () says:

    ‘Just to add, on those figures 92% of National’s income comes from anonymous donors.

    Breathtaking.’

    Lets put this into context shall we. The anonymously given money was GIVEN CONSENSUALLY and LEGALLY. The $800,000 that Labour spent was TAKEN COERCIVELY and ILLEGALLY. In addition, Labour accepted over $300,000 of ANONYMOUS donations without battering an eyelid. Now we are expected to believe that they are deeply concerned about anonymous donations – give me break. Piss off back under your slimey little rock Sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    Sonic asks: “why will they not own up to who is funding them?”

    OOh, choose me

    Because they don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ross Miller () says:

    The threat by Labour to unleash the parliamentary equivalent of nuclear warfare, if carried through, will backfire.

    Am sure Labour maintains so-called ‘dirt’ files and yes, the public will salivate on them. But clearly there has been a seismic shift in perception the last few weeks. The ‘teflon’ has gone. The ‘great unwashed’ know instinctively that rorting money from the public purse is wrong, wrong, wrong. They will see this latest thtreat as nothing more than a desperate attempt by a desperate Party to divert attention from their cynical misappropriation of public funds.

    Helen Clark looke ugly when she is under pressure and people under pressure lash out whichway whatever … so at least the tactic is understandable.

    But its just so sad to see the depths to which that once honourable Party has sunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. burt () says:

    phillipjohn

    In one post you say DB-P pre MP activities have nothing to do with him being an MP, then when that is shot down in flames you say how many National MP’s have done the same thing.

    Do you have an opinion on this matter or do you simply defend the Labour party at all costs, even when it shows you have no integrity, principals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. sonic () says:

    “The anonymously given money was GIVEN CONSENSUALLY and LEGALLY’

    And secretly.

    “Because they don’t know”

    As the saying goes, “Yeah Right”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. phillipjohn () says:

    Sonic asks: “why will they not own up to who is funding them?”

    “OOh, choose me Because they don’t know.”

    Nominate this guy for naive statement of the century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. DavidW () says:

    pj
    labour movement also includes the Labour Party who seem to have devoted considerable resources to gather dirt files on opposition.

    question – who’s resources? their own or the taxpayers? I can’t see Mallard & Co personally seeking this stuff out, so who has been breaking into computer files and going through the rubbish?

    BTW opposition should be taken to include others outside of Parliament as we have seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. david () says:

    sonic, just what is it about “anonymous” that you dont understand. If you think they know who made the donations then anty up and file a complaint. And prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. sonic () says:

    All of National’s donors are selfless Philanthropists (?) who desire nothing in return for their millions of dollars, that is why they make sure that no-one can ever know that they donated as they would not want any favours from any future National govt.

    Also, of course, they are worried about being dragged from their beds by Helen’s KGB and imprisoned in her secret gulags.

    Is that a fair summation of your position David? Got anything you would like to add?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hardy fucken ha () says:

    “The anonymously given money was GIVEN CONSENSUALLY and LEGALLY’

    “And secretly.”
    Election 1999
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 30,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 20,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 100,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 50,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 114,375.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 120,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 195,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 50,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 60,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 20,000.00
    NZ Labour Party Anonymous n/a 25,000.00

    Election 2002

    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 30,050.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 50,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 100,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 50,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 40,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 50,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 40,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous 20,000.00

    Election 2005

    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
    New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $70,000.00

    Source: Elections.org.nz

    Pot calling the kettle black eh. The labours ears must be ringing from all the cognitive dissonance in their heads. Just cos they can’t compete and get caught cheating they throw a “tissy.” Piss off back under your slimey little rock Sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. phillipjohn () says:

    “labour movement also includes the Labour Party who seem to have devoted considerable resources to gather dirt files on opposition.”

    Well the labour party recieved more donations from business in 2005 than the labour movement – they are more part of Buisiness NZ than the CTU.

    “In one post you say DB-P pre MP activities have nothing to do with him being an MP, then when that is shot down in flames you say how many National MP’s have done the same thing.”

    Once again, he was never convicted for this alleged offence, it was muck racking. And it seems to be something that National is entirely comfortable with carrying out, so they had better learn to deal with it when their dirty laundry is aired in public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. sonic () says:

    Someone seems obsessed with rocks.

    Anyway let us reach for consensus and agree that in the case of a donation of more that $1000 the donors name should be made public.

    Agreed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Billy () says:

    Sonic: “All of National’s donors are selfless Philanthropists (?) who desire nothing in return for their millions of dollars…”

    Doubtless, they do desire something: National to win the election. Motivation enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. phillipjohn () says:

    “Pot calling the kettle black eh. The labours ears must be ringing from all the cognitive dissonance in their heads. Just cos they can’t compete and get caught cheating they throw a “tissy.””

    YES! Our donation system has to at least be cleaned up, but preferably gotten rid of all together. Labour is jelous because the rich like National more – i.e. tax cuts. If we don’t want to end up like the US, where big business calls the shots we had better think hard about this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimble () says:

    sonic you are full of shit. If you had the goods you would present them, but you dont, so just shut the fuck up, fuck the hell off and stop masturbating over your delusions of corruption in the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. phil u () says:

    yes ..hardy fucken ha ha..and that adds up to…?

    i’m sure labour will forgo that couple of hundred grand…

    to kick $1.74 million out of nationals’ ‘kick’..eh..?

    and i do like that figure of 92% of nationals funding is anonymous…

    so..expecrt to see/hear it again..eh..?

    no matter how much you righties squeal like stuck pigs..you cant get past the fact that this will hurt you ’till it bleeds’..eh..?

    who’s fucking who..and not paying..is a side issue…

    it’s that $1.74 million that will hurt..

    “sticks and stones will ..etc…but touching my money will really hurt me…”

    can i just bathe in a little pool of schadenfreude..and go ‘tee-hee’?..

    thanx..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. sonic () says:

    Kimble’s balanced and reasonable post just shows how unconcerned the National Party’s supporters are at the prospect of losing all that lovely, untraceable cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Billy () says:

    Frankly, I wish Labour (who have complete control of this issue) would hurry up and make anonymous donations illegal. That would stop this side show detracting from the real issue (which Sonic and philipjohn seem to have stopped wanting to talk about).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    So DPF – any ideas about how long until National proposes “pay check protection” legislation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kimble () says:

    sonic you dick, anonymous donations are a way to PREVENT corruption. They are anonymous to the public AND the party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ed () says:

    I’m reminded of the words of Nick Smith last year
    If the standard is going to be that…I could make reference to the Prime Minister’s childlessness and to Lianne Dalziel’s drunken spell in Hanmer Springs

    A government so ripe with arseholes, snakes, freaks and sewer rats shouldn’t jump so quickly to personal attacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. phillipjohn () says:

    “sonic you dick, anonymous donations are a way to PREVENT corruption. They are anonymous to the public AND the party.”

    Fuck, how naive can someone be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. TIC () says:

    “Rather than lashing out at National to divert attention from itself, Labour’s best hope of retrieving even some shreds of dignity from the current imbroglio would be to work positively towards these goals. ”

    Labour’s spin doctors have now started using the codephrase “comprehensive campaign finance reform”. This is, of course, comprehensive whitewash as part of diverting attention away from Labour’s misdemeanours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Fisiani () says:

    Some contibutors on this blog perpetuate the myth that Don Brash lied about the EB.

    The ‘problem’ was that he was honest. He was parsimonious and sparing with the truth but at all times he was scrupulously honest. He does not have the nous to spin and lie.

    I challenge anyone to provide the slightest proof that he lied.

    PS A statement like “I do not know who wrote the pamphlet” is TRUE.
    He did not and probably still does not KNOW, WHO specifically wrote the pamphlet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. DavidW () says:

    sonic
    A company can easily be removed from the list of preferred suppliers without reorting to your hysterical gulag comments.

    Still not answering the question about justified corruption I see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. sonic () says:

    The poor businessmen, living in fear, forced to hide as they donate millions to National, my heart bleeds.

    I did not answer your question as you were trying to change the subject, and guess what you still are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic wrote:
    Anyway let us reach for consensus and agree that in the case of a donation of more that $1000 the donors name should be made public.

    Agreed?

    So, (just for the sake of argument) the Labour Party starts getting a lot of cheques for $999.99 from Owen Glenn and a surprising number of his employees and close personal friends? Sorry, but unless you actually want to go the whole hog and require the source of every penny that’s spent on a campaign, give (say) the Electoral Commission real powers to audit political party books, and bring in well-designed bans on ‘bundling’ any such cap is remarkably easy to rort. Somehow, I don’t think any political party is going to vote to effectively have their membership listed on a website. But, as I said, let’s see what Cullen is going to put on the order paper – if he ever does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Blair () says:

    Let me explain anonymous donations for the retards out there. The reason we have anonymous donations is the same reason we have anonymous voting – it’s so no government (or opposition for that matter) can give you shit for it afterwards. Your choice of party is a private matter that is nobody elses business. Publicly declared donations only help an incumbent government consolidate power, which Labour supporters would do well to remember, since they are going to lose the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. phillipjohn () says:

    “Sorry, but unless you actually want to go the whole hog and require the source of every penny that’s spent on a campaign, give (say) the Electoral Commission real powers to audit political party books, and bring in well-designed bans on ‘bundling’ any such cap is remarkably easy to rort.”

    I agree, if donations must exist they should all be public. I just wish that cash donations were illegal all together – it does no service to our democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. george () says:

    sonic, are you paid to write these posts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. phillipjohn () says:

    Let me explain anonymous donations for the retards out there. The reason we have anonymous donations is the same reason we have the interest group system – it’s so extemely wealthy people can have a disproportionate share of power in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. sonic () says:

    No George, but if anyone out there does want to drop me a few bucks feel free (no anonymous donations accepted I’m afraid)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. DavidW () says:

    aaah sonic

    go back to what this thread is all about

    pot-kettle-black you dickhead

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. george () says:

    Sonic. good to get a straight forthright answer out of someone on the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. sonic () says:

    The thread is about Chris Trotter David?

    Anyway I note no-one has come up with a single good reason why the public should not be told who pays National and Labour’s bills.

    I think that is a vital piece of information in a democratic society and the vitriol we have seen here from National supporters only makes me more suspicious about why it is kept from us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. phil u () says:

    blair..would you like to buy some magic beans..?

    do you seriously expect us to believe the party hierachy don’t know who has given them large amounts of spon-doolies..?

    getouttahere…!

    of course they know…

    the anonymous designation/protection(?) isn’t for them..it is to protect the donors…

    now repeat that after me blair..

    it is to ….

    and when yo send me the chegue for the magic beans i’ll send you some photos of this wicked bridge i’ve got coming up…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tim barclay () says:

    Make the donations public. We have had one attempt at this much earler with Bolger. But I do not think business will be too fussed about being seen to help National get rid of a dying Labour government. Of course the boot will be on the other foot if business wants to donate to Labour when there is a National Government. I assume they will not and given the problems Labour would have from the Unions I assume that source of funding for the Labour Party will cease permanently. Maybe that will be a good thing anyway. National can still get funding from its very ample vounteer support base. None of this, none of it justifies Labour dipping into public funds when they wanted to illegally outspend National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. DavidW () says:

    No sonic
    the thread is about labour’s threat to use smear tactics but you have tried to take it into all sorts of other areas like election funding, the anonymity of donations (or lack thereof) etc.

    You seem to have a lot to say about National’s perfectly legal funding stream so I have been (so far unsuccessfully) trying to delve a little further into where you stand on Labour’s use of parliamentary Services Funds.

    That you remain silent on that issue says more about you than me I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    er no philipjohn and sonic.

    whatever you think about anonymous donations – and when i was younger i too thought they were a bad thing (transparency etc etc) there are a couple of salient points to bear in mind:

    1. do you want your vote to be public information?

    2. if you had to work for or with or sell services to or be regulated by the incumbent government do you think them knowing you voted the other side would be a good thing or useful to your career?

    3. if your system is based on fundraising – as ours is – do you want parties to know who the people are giving them money? Does this increase or reduce the risk that funders may expect favours or government’s feel obligated?

    4. is it a good idea for government’s to have a list of business and individuals who made donations to the other side – is this likely to colour government’s relations with, choices about or business relations with those funders?

    5. would your position be the same if the other side were in government and using this information against you?

    essentially we have seen how the current government seeks to punish dissent from anybody. If my business sought to sell services to Government (which is the biggest employer and biggest single set of businesses in NZ and around 40% of the total economy) would I want that put at risk?

    Now its all very well getting all purist about this -free country, democracy etc, but the risk of being seen to oppose this government is very real. Public servants dare not (cf Kit Williams) and businesses would be very foolish to try.

    All of which is a strong case for anonymity.

    Now if you are a student and have never experienced the real world you will think I am unreasonable, or paranoid. Good, enjoy that experience, you are living in the safest coccoon you will ever know.

    I think its important for young people to feel confident in their opinions – you have plenty of time later to get mugged by reality.

    This is why i enjoy schoolkids like you philipjohn, you honestly believe your thesis matters. Its quite sweet really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. sonic () says:

    Not a student Nigel, but nice try.

    I disagree with the comparison to voting, we all have just 1 vote so our potential to influence a govt individually is small. However a wealthy man can exert huge pull by passing on some of his wealth. Under the present system we have no way to know if legislation is being influenced by party donations, that is wrong.

    As for govt punishing people that voted for the other side. I do not think it is very likely as procedures are in place to make suer govt contract are allocated fairly. However if this is a worry those procedures can be tightened up.

    On Labour’s pledge cards, I’m against what they did however I do not share your faux outrage. Did anyone here actually ever get a pledge card through the post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Linda () says:

    Sonic – if National MPs don’t know who is funding the party, then they cannot be influenced by them. That’s why the donations are anonymous. Get it?

    Labour MPs know Labour is funded by the Unions. Therefore they are influenced by the Unions. Get it?

    I’d rather have the donations anonymous thanks very much.

    And before you start, please don’t slander National MPs by saying something like “of course they know” or other made-up rubbish. Facts please, not lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. sonic () says:

    Linda, I would assume part of every National MP’s roles is to raise money for the party.

    Correct?

    Now if a National MP had a rich businessman living in his area would he not be expected to tap him for funds?

    So how could he not know who donated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Insolent Prick () says:

    Sonic,

    For an anonymous donation to remain anonymous, a party official has to declare that the party does not know where the money came from. That is a statutory declaration. If you are saying that the National Party does know where its anonymous donations has come from, that amounts to an allegation of criminal conduct on behalf of the party: i.e., filing a false declaration to the electoral commission.

    Labour receives large numbers of anonymous donations as well. Either both parties are filing false statutory declarations, or they are not. Either way, you had better be very certain that you have evidence that false statutory declarations are being made, or else you are defaming officials from both National AND Labour.

    Either take your evidence of false statutory declarations to the police, or stop defaming officials from the Labour and National parties with baseless accusations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. sonic () says:

    IP are you seriously arguing that no-one in the National party has the slightest idea of where 92% of their funding comes from.

    That is laughable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. jizzwader () says:

    ‘Did anyone here actually ever get a pledge card through the post?’

    No but I saw them trampled underfoot at a Labour rally at the University of Auckland just prior to the election – what a waste of taxpayer money. Guess who was their helping hand them out? Helen Clark promoting her 0% student loans policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPam () says:

    Sonic -

    YOu really are very tiresome. Your point isn’t one, and it sure as hell isn’t related to this thread topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. gooner () says:

    ‘…that amounts to an allegation of criminal conduct on behalf of the party…’

    Moreover, the party secretary who signs the returns. It is actually, I believe, perjury to sign a stat. dec. knowing it is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    Sonic – can’t all your scepticism and accusations be leveled at Labour just as easily as National? Labour also recieve vast amounts of anonymous donations and operate under identical procedures to the Nats to maintain the anonymity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. sonic () says:

    “can’t all your scepticism and accusations be leveled at Labour just as easily as National”

    Yes, large anonymous donations should be banned for all parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kimble () says:

    yeah, sonic, it is very important that the Parties KNOW who is giving them money.

    You and your lot are assuming that they already do, but you have ZERO proof, only your over active imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPam () says:

    Sonic –

    Banning donation is stupid.

    Lets say that they bring in state funding. Lets then say that you want to start your own party. But to start a party requires funds, and you can’t get state funding, because you don’t have any seats. And you can’t get donations, because they have been made illegal.

    Do you think this is, in any way, good for democracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Insolent Prick () says:

    Sonic,

    Why is it more likely that somebody in the National Party hierarchy knows where the anonymous donations came from, than somebody in the Labour Party hierarchy knows where their anonymous donations came from?

    92% is a misleading figure. That is only declared donations, over $10,000. National and Labour both receive very substantial donations well below the notifiable limit.

    Again, if you’ve got evidence of National officials knowing where anonymous donations came from, take it to the police. If you haven’t got any evidence, then you’re risking defaming National Party officials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. sonic () says:

    We can trust politicians to always tell the truth, is that your point Kimble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. phillipjohn () says:

    “For an anonymous donation to remain anonymous, a party official has to declare that the party does not know where the money came from.”

    Say a business gives $1.2 million to National, they make this donation known to the party. Then the National Party says, hold on, we know who the money came from, we had better give it back! Come on who are you trying to kid?

    Even if we take the child like view and believe that the politicians are totally unaware of who their benefactors are it is still undemocratic. For instance, if I am Don Brash and I propose a cut of the corporate tax rate for foriegn invistors of 50%, guess who is going to be filling my coffers up? Not Charly’s fish and chip shop.

    The National party relies of afew ultra wealthy people to supply them with funds. It floods the country with advertising, and brainwashes people into believing that what the richest 2% of the population tell them to do is the best for everyone.

    For the sake of our democracy this has got to stop. So we must end not only anon donations but all donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. david () says:

    PhillipJohn:
    Your economic naievity is charming, endearing almost. Sort of like how a child believes in Santa. Perhaps for the rest of us you might like to define what you call “rich”. You sure seem to have a problem with people making money. And then of course having the gall to donate to a Political Party.
    So come on, what is the definition of rich? What threshold of income do our peers have to be wary of before they attract your scorn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic wrote:
    Did anyone here actually ever get a pledge card through the post?

    I reply:
    Um, yes, which certainly made me giggle on the trip from the letterbox to the rubbish bin.

    Sonic wrote:
    Now if a National MP had a rich businessman living in his area would he not be expected to tap him for funds?

    So how could he not know who donated?

    I reply:
    Well, Wayne Mapp (who happens to be my local MP) has no idea who much I donated to the party’s campaign fund last year because it went straight to party HQ in Wellington. I also think it would be rather counter-productive for any constituency member to be going round the electorate with a begging bowl, don’t you think? I suspect Helen Clark and Don Brash are quite happy to leave ‘tapping rich businessmen’ to Mike Williams and Judy Kirk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. phillipjohn () says:

    “Lets say that they bring in state funding. Lets then say that you want to start your own party. But to start a party requires funds, and you can’t get state funding, because you don’t have any seats. And you can’t get donations, because they have been made illegal.”

    Fine, make funding dependant on memership numbers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Ben Wilson () says:

    I think the time has indeed come for a shit slinging showdown. It’s the only strategy National has run for over 2 years now, and you can only tolerate the other team playing the man and not the ball for so long.

    If there are indeed mountains of mud to sling at the Nats, I’d like to see it, since the Nats have pulled no punches at all.

    I’d be surprised if there’s any serious wrongdoing with public funds, since they haven’t had control over any for quite a while, but the dirty laundry of their personal lives seems to be fair game. Watch out philanderers, boy racers, corporal punishers, drunks, and whoremongers. There’s a tidal wave of tedious attention to your private lives coming.

    When the showdown is finished we might finally be able to play some rugby and have government and opposition who actually discuss political issues that might actually have any affect on you and me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. phillipjohn () says:

    Sorry david, you havn’t actually made an argument so I can’t respond to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Spam () says:

    PJ:

    And where does the funding come from to generate the publicity to attract membership?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kimble () says:

    Well its not as if we can trust you, sonic, to put up or shut up. Nor can we trust you to argue honestly, sensibly or logicly.

    Here is what your argument comes down to:
    For the sake of our democracy we must make sure that the political parties are defined by those that support them rather than their ideas and policies!!! We must make sure that they know to whom they are beholden.

    The reason YOU want the donations to be made public is so you can use them to discredit Nationals policies. You are even trying to do that now despite NOT KNOWING WHO THE DONATIONS ARE COMING FROM!!!! Just imagine how much easier it will be for you to discredit Nationals policies when you can simply point to one of their donors and scream corruption. You will never need to think or have your ideas challanged ever again!

    It is really quite remarkable how the donations are anonymous, and yet sonic and phillipjohn KNOW where they are coming from!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. david () says:

    PhillipJohn
    But you did respond…. Dont want to answer the question? You are a Political Science dude arent you.Did Margaret Wilson lecture you? The left argue the politics of envy (rich bad, poor good because how else did they get rich unless they exploit the poor)) and I’d like to genuinely know how much I and my peers are allowed to earn before we cross that line.
    Ben
    Yeah, I just cant wait to hear about Judith Tizards love life.Or Jerry Brownlees. Enough, it’ll put me off lunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Billy () says:

    Ben Wilson, you’re doing that thing the left always do. You assume National could not possibly be sincere. Imagine for a moment that National actually believes that Labour illegally stole taxpayers’ money to win the election. I’m not asking you to believe it, just to believe that National believes it. What would you have them do? Ignore that corruption?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. phillipjohn () says:

    “It is really quite remarkable how the donations are anonymous, and yet sonic and phillipjohn KNOW where they are coming from!!”

    Yeah, so someone made a donation of $1.2 million dollars to the National Party in 1995 -it was my Aunt Julia, a primary school teacher. Come on it’s pretty obvious that this donation came from a pretty wealthy person/group.

    “And where does the funding come from to generate the publicity to attract membership?”

    Well, it’s called grass-roots organising, like the green party does. Did you know that the only significant donations the Green Party got in 2005 was from their own MPs. Really it is a testament to their organising abilities that they can still make it over 5% of the vote with no money at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kimble () says:

    About time Ben turned up to make an ass of himself.

    When has National made comments and threatened to reveal the dirty secrets from the personal lives of Labour MPs? Name three occasions.

    Another question, how corrupt does your own party have to be before you think they have gone too far?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    If there are indeed mountains of mud to sling at the Nats, I’d like to see it, since the Nats have pulled no punches at all.

    The reason the Nats have been so robust is because Labours recent behaviour is so outrageous. I think it would be utterly vile for Labour to start wrecking marriages and ruining lives in retaliation for the opposition simply doing what they’re paid to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Fi () says:

    OK Two hours gone by and not one scrap of evidence that Don Brash told a lie.
    That is because there is no evidence.

    OK You lefties. I’ll gbe generous and give you another 22 hours to comeup with proof of any DB lie re the EB. After that then any such allegation is and always has been, scurrilous muck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Duncan Bayne () says:

    The diversion into the matter of anonymous donations has been entertaining, but rather pointless. Here’s a hint: shooting the messenger doesn’t invalidate the message, even if you score a bullseye.

    Let’s say the hysterical Labour spin-doctors are right, & National is *every bit* as dirty as Labour. They aren’t, but let’s for the sake of argument say they are.

    Does this change the fact that Clark (& others in her party) committed a crime, despite clear warnings about the illegality of their actions?

    Does this change the fact that they then tried to lie & spin their way out of trouble?

    Does this change the fact that they should be charged by the Police, punished for their crimes, & then made to repay the loot?

    The fact that Labour is now offering “but they’re as dirty as us” as a defence is a sure sign they have no genuine defence to offer. This should be a sign that it’s time to tighten the noose, not start a bitchfight over anonymous donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kimble () says:

    Thank you dim, you have been the surprising voice of reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. phillipjohn () says:

    “The left argue the politics of envy (rich bad, poor good because how else did they get rich unless they exploit the poor)) and I’d like to genuinely know how much I and my peers are allowed to earn before we cross that line.”

    Any time an extreme minorty that can hold sway over a country – like the Business round Table did in the 80′s, and the people who made the $1.7 million donation to National in 2005 it is extremely bad for our democracy.

    I believe that people should be free to seek their own self interest – if it’s to become rich then that’s there business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. david () says:

    PhillipJohn,
    You are right, an extreme minority holds sway over the country right now. And I agree it is very bad for democracy as they are obviously abusing it. Are you starting to see the light?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimble () says:

    So having a small number of people with power over the vast majority is extremely bad for democracy? Dick, that IS democracy! With MMP especially!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. phillipjohn () says:

    “You are right, an extreme minority holds sway over the country right now. And I agree it is very bad for democracy as they are obviously abusing it. Are you starting to see the light?”

    Funny David, I didn’t pick you as an advocate for direct democracy, but yes I agree, parliamentary democracy is the system of elected dictatorship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. phillipjohn () says:

    BTW having semi-publically accountable elected representitives that recieve no funding from large corporations or wealthy individuals making the decisions would be slightly different than the NZBRT doing the same no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. david () says:

    WTF is direct democracy? I would have thought parlimentary democracy could lead to dictatorship,but not necessarily means it will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. phillipjohn () says:

    “WTF is direct democracy?”

    One word dude: GOOGLE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. TenCents () says:

    You guys are all forgetting that, through their wealth, Rich people must exercise more than a proportionate influence on elections, for these reasons.

    1) They are the ones keeping the country afloat, directly and indirectly. If I had my way, the plebs wouldn’t be voting at all. (‘Sup Sonic)

    2) It balances out the effect a disproportionate amount of people in South Auckland electorates are wielding over the entire country under our current system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Ben Wilson wrote:
    If there are indeed mountains of mud to sling at the Nats, I’d like to see it, since the Nats have pulled no punches at all.

    Yes, it’s really outrageous that the Opposition had the flaming temerity to oppose the Government. Where do they think they are – a democracy or something? Kimble & Daryl, every playground bully is going to have his courtiers and I wouldn’t bother trying to reason with Ben. But like all schoolyard bullies, isn’t it funny how Helen and The Gang start to wail “it’s not fair!” as soon as someone stands up to them? The day is coming – sooner rather than later, I hope – when these petulant bubbies are sent to the Opposition benches for a nice long time out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. david () says:

    googled and youre right.I do like it. In particular I remember one Swiss referendum where the question was? Should we continue to use Nuclear Power for the next 21 years? 86% (or around there) said yes. What actually surprised me was the way the government just followed the will of the people.The problem of course, is educating the voters about the truth of the issue. Never happen here. Apologies for off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. phillipjohn () says:

    “If I had my way, the plebs wouldn’t be voting at all.”

    You would soon have feudalism agian, and we all know what a great system, that was right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. phillipjohn () says:

    “2) It balances out the effect a disproportionate amount of people in South Auckland electorates are wielding over the entire country under our current system.”

    Ten cents – you’re the most fascist poster I’ve seen on this blog so far, well done!

    Seriously – “the argument that goes: Those people should have less say than me because I don’t like their opinion” just doesn’t work in a democracy, sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. sonic () says:

    Imagine all those South Aucklanders having the cheek to vote.

    In an ideal world they would keep doing all the minimum wage jobs that keep 10c and his mates fed and watered and then go out and vote for the party that wants to make their conditions worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. burt () says:

    So while we are having a good rant about who can vote, how about 1 vote for every $10K of income tax paid.

    Afterall, people who supply the wealth should have more say in how it’s used.

    Furthermore, it would remove the incentive for ‘rich bastards’ to massively reduce their tax via trusts etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. phillipjohn () says:

    “So while we are having a good rant about who can vote, how about 1 vote for every $10K of income tax paid.”

    you would have riots by lunchtime and a revolution by sunset. Could be interesting actually, lets do it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Ten Cents () says:

    C’mon guys, I’m only giving you a rev up.
    I was told to lighten up over the whole Saddam Hussein thing.

    Seriously though, South Auckland does wield a disproportionate influence. Not the least problem with this is that the people voting Labour in arn’t actually gaining very much.

    In an ideal world, Sonic, these people would be sharing in the relative prosperity of New Zealand, along with everybody else.

    For example, WFF is doing nothing for the enormous amounts of beneficiaries. Not that I think it should but I bet you Commies have different ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. sonic () says:

    You know until that last line that was an almost sensible post.

    How does South Auckland exert a “disproportionate influence” exactly, do they get two votes each?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. williamsjd () says:

    Labour is behind so-called leaked emails from Brash. They are so corrupt that they (Cullen/Simpson/Clark/Mallard)are resorting to getting people to write fake email purporting to come from National Party people and then ‘leaking’ them to the media.

    This is pure evil stuff from this dictatorship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. williamsjd () says:

    A source within a Minister’s office has confirmed that various Labour staffers have been writing and then leaking ‘fake’ emails to the media saying they come from National Party officials.

    If this is true then this Government will stop at nothing to stay in power. Makes you wonder if the so-called Brash emails are actually real or just made up by Labour strategists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. tim barclay () says:

    I am sure the media are not so stupid as to give publicity to fakes. This is war now and everyone will be lining up. If the Labour Party are leaking fake material to try and discredit Brash then the media who have swung against Labour will not publish them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. sonic () says:

    Williams, I’m not sure how technical you are but it is pretty impossible to fake the headers and footers on an email without it being pretty easy to spot by an expert.

    Many companies now accept emails as binding contracts for exactly this reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. gd () says:

    Did the good people of South Auckland follow that old Socialist mantra of “Vote early and vote often”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Ben Wilson () says:

    Squealing about undue focus on irrelevant minor misdemeanors is going to fall on very deaf ears, courtesy of our glorious opposition. Lame, but let’s end it.

    Craig, being a courtier of the playground snitch is hardly becoming either. But let’s get this bs snitchfest out of the way. You asked for it. I think it’s a general failure of our representatives in their role, but some fights just have to happen.

    If National has nothing to fear then it should be short and sweet anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kimble () says:

    Large numbers of South Auckland people vote in blocs. A single minister can effectively control the casting of several hundred votes. Mothers and fathers tell their kids who to vote for. I have met a large number of people who have voted since they were eligible, but never actually had the decision of who to vote for.

    Now, reconsider the reason why Labour doesnt want to do a damned thing about Taito Field.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. sonic () says:

    “Large numbers of South Auckland people vote in blocs”

    And so do large numbers of rich people on the North Shore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kimble () says:

    National members are being threatened for acknowledging the inappropriate behaviour of the members of the governing party.

    Doesnt sound too good when you put it like that, does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. The Swift Man () says:

    Who is Peter Davis?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. williamsjd () says:

    Sonic, what this space with these fake emails floating around – watch out for the hotmail addresses. You seem to be defending them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kimble () says:

    sonic, you are retarded, right? Because your last comment is the most retarded thing you could have possibly written.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. sonic () says:

    A fake email could be spotted in 30 seconds flat. Or National could just deny it.

    You sound worried Williams, very worried.

    Kimble, just making the point that it seems fine to criticise people in South Auckland for “voting in blocs” but not people in teh North Shore who all tend to vote the same way as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. phillipjohn () says:

    Labour is saying you want to sling crap at us from the gutter? Then don’t make us come down there and do the same.

    Doesnt sound too good when you put it like that, does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. sonic () says:

    National have been dishing the dirt for months but scream like crybabies when someone does it to them.

    Doesnt sound too good when you put it like that, does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. vanzylnz () says:

    It is interesting to note that sonic and pj has been here for hours answering with the same drivel. Is it true that 10 they are being paid by Labour to blog the same lies over and over and 2) The money is being channeled through the DWU to pay for them? I think that it might be just a rumour. But you never know. Would do to keep an eye out for evidence. Oops sorry not evidence not necessary

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. sonic () says:

    Well if I had “a friend” spending $1.3 million to discredit anyone who disagreed with me your comparison might have a point.

    It might however be simpler to assume I’m having a slow day at work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. david () says:

    yeah, those “friendly” unions eh? BTW, I keep seeing this million dollar plus figure used for the EB pamphlets. Got any proof of that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. sonic () says:

    Just repeating the media reports david, now you mention it I have not seen a breakdown of the figures.

    Seen this?

    “Prime Minister Helen Clark told Parliament that National’s leader doctored his diary in an attempt to cover-up the meeting.

    She says she understands Don Brash met with the Exclusive Brethren against the advice of his staff but took the meeting out of his diary so his deputy Gerry Brownlee did not know.

    Miss Clark says Mr Brownlee did not know about the meeting until Don Brash fessed up.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Squealing about undue focus on irrelevant minor misdemeanors is going to fall on very deaf ears, courtesy of our glorious opposition. Lame, but let’s end it.

    Well, Ben, I’d just say your idea of ‘trivial misdemeanours’ is rather different from mine – and I do hope, in the great scheme of things, you’ll be equally generous to folks who bilk the IRD or Work and Income of six-figure sums. I very much doubt this, or any other Government, will.

    And, I’m sorry, if you can’t see any difference between Mallard’s extraordinary performance in the General Debate yesterday and the Opposition having the gall to, well, oppose the Government I despair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. david () says:

    The doctor doctored his diary. Oooooo, scary.Charge him with treason.Amazing the way she can use language to create a slur out of changing an appointment. Classic but who cares. You see, the EB thing is “beltway” politics. The rest of the Nation only cares about money being stolen from them.Which Labour has.Also I think we all know Clark, Cullen and co are smartarses and they always resort to this. Boring and not good enough now I’m afraid.
    And sonic, didnt your mum tell you not to believe everything you read. Especially things written by journalists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    National are currently attacking Labour for unethical political behaviour. Since we pay our MPs to be politicians it’s appropriate for the opposition to hold the Labour party accountable for their political activities.

    We don’t pay MP’s to be good husbands, wives or whatever and it’s none of our business whether they are or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Kimble () says:

    You are retarded, sonic.

    The point isnt that people in a certain area vote for a certain party. It is that in South Auckland a large number of votes are cast because of the directive of one or two people. The same cannot be said for the rich in the North Shore. Hence, you are a retard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. sonic () says:

    She said the same thing about commentators on blogs david…

    If true, what is interesting about Brash hiding his meeting is that it shows that Brownlee (a far smarter politician) knew that the EB were electoral poison. It is also possible that he disaproved of whatever scheme they were cooking up together.

    When people are trying to conceal something it usually means they have something to hide, dont you agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. sonic () says:

    Shorter Kimble.

    All the people in South Auckland are too stupid to know who to vote for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Kimble () says:

    “National have been dishing the dirt for months but scream like crybabies when someone does it to them.”

    sonic, here is your chance to put up. Name one occasion in the last few months when the National party has dished the dirt on the personal life of someone from the Labour party rather than on their behaviour as an MP. Just one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. sonic () says:

    David Benson Pope?

    Will that do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Kimble () says:

    And another retarded statement from sonic. Doesnt he ever rest?

    I didnt say all people in south auckland are too stupid to know who to vote for. I said that there is a large number of people in South Auckland who vote as they are instructed to by their ministers and by their parents.

    So a small minority of people is able to wield the power of hundreds of votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. phillipjohn () says:

    “It is that in South Auckland a large number of votes are cast because of the directive of one or two people. The same cannot be said for the rich in the North Shore.”

    Firstly I have no confidence in you telling the truth in this matter and secondly, how do we know what people do once they are in the polling booth? That’s why it’s called a secret ballet no? Sure a church leader or someone might tell them to vote one way or another but people have their own minds and will choose to accept or disregard anothers opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. vanzylnz () says:

    Dim for everything I said to you or thought about you in the past I apologize. You are indeed a man with integrity. Nice to see. I hope that some of us on this side of the fence will have the same courage when our team behaves so lowly (and it will happen ).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Kimble () says:

    “Firstly I have no confidence in you telling the truth in this matter…”

    But we should all have confidence that you are telling the truth when you say that National gets all its donations from rich people?

    “but people have their own minds and will choose to accept or disregard anothers opinion.”

    You have no idea, pj.

    And sonic, #1 that wasnt from within the last few months, but more importantly #2 David Benson-Pope misled parliament, which is where all his problems started.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic wrote:
    When people are trying to conceal something it usually means they have something to hide, dont you agree?

    Gee, Sonic, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Ben Wilson () says:

    Craig, we clearly do have different ideas about misdemeanors, since you carry on about speeding like it’s the crime of the century. Personally I think having an extramarital affair is worse but I wouldn’t bother going on about either one.

    I don’t get your generosity point. Far too cryptic, sorry. Since your ‘Nuremberg Defence’ meltdown, I’m careful not to interpret any of your insinuations unless you make them plain. You might have a hard shit and set up some straw man like your final paragraph.

    I don’t know or care what Mallard said yesterday, or have a problem with the opposition opposing the government on issues that relate to, well, governing. But since National has tirelessly pursued personal attack after attack, and constantly sought to bring the personal character of the Labour MPs into question, I think this scrap has to be had.

    National is the schoolyard smartarse who likes to punch the big kid in the arm and run away. Or the boxer who bites someone’s ear but squeals when they get an elbow. Or the hooker who squirrel grips their opposite number trapped under a maul and calls for the ref when they cop a smack on the gob. If they now get clobbered I couldn’t give a shit. If they have a fight and win, great, good on them for picking a fight they can win. Personally I think they will lose badly, as will the people they are supposed to be representing.

    This is always the finale of a persistent character attack. You get it back with beans. It’s a complete waste of everyone’s time, which is why it’s usually avoided by the more sensible main parties. But it seems that National can’t accept they lost the election, despite their slick, expensive campaign, and their rich, if unacknowledged, support. They can’t win it on policy so they want to go for the individuals and character. Well *their* individuals and character better watch out, eh?

    I expected more from our GOP. Their are so many areas of policy and governmental incompetence that they could be working on having a better option than Labour on. They could actually be working on something that would make a lick of difference to NZers, that might get more votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Spam () says:

    phillipjohn -

    So secret ballots are secret, but anonymous donations aren’t anonymous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Chris Auld () says:

    “Williams, I’m not sure how technical you are but it is pretty impossible to fake the headers and footers on an email without it being pretty easy to spot by an expert.

    Many companies now accept emails as binding contracts for exactly this reason.”

    Sonic!?! You have been smoking too much crack.
    Ain’t impossible to fake at all. Does require some knowledge of SMTP headers… but not difficult to fake.

    Emails as binding contracts… urm. No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. darren () says:

    Swift Man

    Peter Davis is Helen Clark’s husband.

    Now, in recent days people have posted titbits of rumour about him.
    Not sure if it is true or not.
    There have been rumours for years about the status of Helen and Peter’s marriage, but since DPF says he will delete rumours, I will not spell them out.
    But they are quite widespread stories, stories that have circulated for many years.
    It all makes me wonder what Liar-bour has to gain by outing the affairs of National MPs when their own side also have their secrets, especially Helen and Peter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Kimble () says:

    So, it is a personal attack if you point out that a Minister abused their position for personal gain?

    It is a personal attack when you point out that a Minister knowlingly misled Parliament?

    It is a personal attack when you point out that the Prime Minister refused to take any responsibility for something which any reasonable person would consider her at least partly responsible?

    No. They arent. It is a personal attack when you point out that the leader of the opposition had an affair. It is a personal attack when in defence of the person who misled parliament you dig into the history of the Deputy leader of the opposition to find not an example of them misleading parliament, but an event supposedly similar to the one you guy lied about.

    But this distinction is invisible to Ben, who obviously reckons the opposition party should restrict their actions to presenting alternative legislation and ignore any acts of dishonesty from those in goverment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Toby1845 () says:

    Spirit of 76: “Seeing any Labour MP now makes me feel the need to take a shower.”

    Just make sure that David ‘Botty isn’t really a rude word’ Benson-Pope isn’t looking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Ben Wilson () says:

    Kimble, I certainly do think that the opposition should be ‘presenting alternative legislation’ as a core task, yes. You seem to think that their core task is your petty list.

    Which I notice includes the DBP affair. But you call that misdemeanour ‘a Minister knowlingly misled Parliament’. Well, dude, if asking about events of more than 10 years ago in a different job so as to snare someone into making disingenuous statements in parliament is fair game, then expect more of it.

    The only ‘scandal’ within Labour that I think is worth bothering with was the Field affair, a pretty grosteque abuse of ministerial power, for personal gain. The pledge cards thing is still going through its legal battle – if it’s found against Labour then they should pay it back. If they do, end of story. If it’s not found against Labour then it should also be end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Kimble () says:

    The role of the opposition is to keep the government honest, not just on the big stuff.

    It WOULD have been a misdemeanor if DBP had quickly admitted he was mistaken or that he had forgotten. But he didnt. It would have gone away quickly.

    Why didnt he admit he was mistaken? Why did they stir up more shit by trying to deny then defend the actions? Why couldnt they be honest on this slight infringement?

    By refusing to be honest on the small stuff they MADE it something big.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Toby1845 () says:

    DPF – I suggest that you consider banning sonic for a while. He has great difficulty staying on topic, and quite simply isn’t very inelligent.

    A month would seem appropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. PaulL () says:

    Toby, if that was DPF’s criteria, there wouldn’t be many people left commenting here :-)

    Personally, I would like a blog function that lets me set a blacklist of people I personally don’t want to read, and have it automatically block out their comments whenever I visit. Maybe just for a few weeks, then they could pop back in.

    And a list tracking who has been blacklisted by how many people. The one month thing would mean it was a hassle to keep someone blacklisted, so they would have to be really annoying before it was worthwhile. The list would be interesting.

    Of course it wouldn’t work – it would annoy the crap out of me to read responses to posts I hadn’t read. But interesting thought…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. err.. () says:

    “PS A statement like ‘I do not know who wrote the pamphlet’ is TRUE.
    He did not and probably still does not KNOW, WHO specifically wrote the pamphlet.”

    Largely can’t be fucked with this comment thread, but damn if this one wasn’t funny. Remind me to try this on a police officer should I ever get a speeding ticket.

    “No, officer, I wasn’t speeding – it was my car!”

    Literally true, but basically a crock of shit. If that’s your best backup then… well, yeah. Or are we going through the Clinton mirror and trying to redefine the word “the” or something similar?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Paul Marsden () says:

    This debacle has taken on the persona of a South Auckland street brawl. Im disgusted by it. Now, I dont think that I am a particlularly bright individual, but I feel almost Einstein-like when reading some of the views of the likes of Sonic & phillipjohn. Is it my immagination or does their narrow, immature and one-eyed thinking, mirror that of the Labour hiercachy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Ben Wilson () says:

    Kimble

    “The role of the opposition is to keep the government honest, not just on the big stuff.”

    Sure, but it isn’t news. National avoids the big stuff by focussing on the little stuff, to their own detriment, and by democratic proxy, to NZ’s detriment. They have taken their lead from Winston Peters, running his style of ‘opposition’, which always was an irrelevant joke.

    And DBP’s ‘misdemeanor’ was still small and not relevant to his current work, no matter how you spin it. Which is why I say: Watch out for some dirty, irrelevant questions from the other side. Noone’s going to have any sympathy for the ‘that’s my personal affair’ and ‘that happened ages ago’ defences now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. geniusNZ () says:

    err…
    but it is fundimental to politics. Can you imagine making a self incriminating guess every time someone asked you a question? Only the bad stuff would ever get reported and you’d be out of business in no time at all.

    Speaking of business do you work in one or represent one?
    Imagine you work for a company and you are asked “do you know of any faults in your products?”
    or “somthing went wrong why was that?”
    and your first guess was “my bosses fault!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. burt () says:

    Dear err..

    As you say, “No, officer, I wasn’t speeding – it was my car!” would not work to get off a speeding ticket. Neither would “I’m not the only one speeding, was that a 50 kph sign back there, I thought it was a 50 kph.”.

    Yet Labour seem to think that “Everyone else is doing it so it’s OK”, OK enough to contemplate changing the law to make it so. Is a good excuse.

    National took the “Was that including GST – oh dear…” approach and owes $100K as a result.

    So might be worth trying the “No, officer, I wasn’t speeding – it was my car!”, especially if you are a Labour MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. geniusNZ () says:

    maybe there should jsut be a “dirt dishing” department that publishes all the scandals (with a litle scope for editing out the total crap) and then ban MP’s from raising it themselves in parliment.

    Ie make it all public but cripple its ability to ruin our palimentary debates and be used in a political way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. err.. () says:

    “Speaking of business do you work in one or represent one?
    Imagine you work for a company and you are asked ‘do you know of any faults in your products?’
    or ‘somthing went wrong why was that?’
    and your first guess was ‘my bosses fault!’”

    Well, assuming this was My Boss who was Paying My Wages then I’d probably lie. But if I got busted on it then I wouldn’t be standing there trying to claim that they weren’t, technically, MY products they were actually company-produced ones made by other people. And that’s a bit of a dangerous line to go down because it kind of implies that Don is working for the EB and was just protecting his boss, dunnit?

    And just because the Labs are a bunch of fuckwits doesn’t excuse the Nats – by the same logic that we designate Labour fuckwits, funny enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. burt () says:

    err..

    The 90 day probation period is intended for people like you. If you can’t admit your mistakes at work ( given the parameters of the question from geniusNZ ) then you don’t deserve the job. Unrectified faults cost an enormous amount to fix after they show their ugly heads compared to fixing them before they are apparent and/or dangerous.

    Just like politics eh ! It’s not the crime that stitches your position, it’s the coverup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Paul Marsden () says:

    True Burt. But at least National have made it clear they ‘want’ to pay it back (easy of course to say, after the event). They’re all as slimey as each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Burt:

    Whoever Err and Sonic work for, I hope they’re not in a position to dismiss workers. If their evidentary standards were as low as that they apply to Brash I could see a string of very big unjustified dismissal payouts on the horizon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Clerk of the House () says:

    Ben Wilson says “And DBP’s ‘misdemeanor’ was still small and not relevant to his current work…”

    I’m not so sure that I would regard perving at underaged schoolgirls in various states of undress as a mere ‘misdemeanor’ – small or otherwise. Further, his denial of that fact raises questions about his suitability for handling any sort of portfolio, let alone one dealing with children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Fellow Traveller () says:

    “National’s deputy leader Gerry Brownlee struck back at Labour by claiming Labour had done cash-for-policy deals with the unions, rail operator Toll NZ and Westpac Bank, who are publicly listed as donors, as well as its anonymous donors.”

    New Zealand Labour Party Toll NZ Consolidated Ltd Cnr Northcote Rd & Taharoto Drive, Takapuna, Auckland $25,000.00

    The New Zealand National Party Toll Holdings Ltd P O Box 92138 Auckland $25,000.00

    The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland
    $249,948.00

    The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland $1,254,845.00

    http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Logix () says:

    if their evidentary standards were as low as that they apply to Brash

    Finely wrought satire as usual Craig, and nice to see you toning down the tantrums. Keep up the good work. 8/10

    I’m not so sure that I would regard perving at underaged schoolgirls in various states of undress as a mere ‘misdemeanor’ – small or otherwise

    Excellent use of the “ironic juxtaposition” CoH, 10/10.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. err.. () says:

    “The 90 day probation period is intended for people like you. If you can’t admit your mistakes at work ( given the parameters of the question from geniusNZ ) then you don’t deserve the job. Unrectified faults cost an enormous amount to fix after they show their ugly heads compared to fixing them before they are apparent and/or dangerous.”

    Burt, you big munter, the parameters of the question from GeniusNZ were:

    * Customer asks, unspecific to a particular issue, “Do you know of any problems with your shit”. Yeah, of course I do – there are some in every company. Think I’m going to list them all in that circumstance? I’d be out on my ear; or
    * Customer asks, specific to a particular issue “Do you know why that happened” and I know that it happens to be the direct fault of my boss. Do I:
    a) Tell them “Yeah, it was dickhead’s fault!”
    b) Say “I’m not aware at this point in time but I’ll look into it and get back to you”.

    According to you I should be telling the truth in either or both of those circumstances. If that’s your regular approach dealing with customers I’d suggest you might be the one meeting the 90-day probation issue, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. err.. () says:

    “Whoever Err and Sonic work for, I hope they’re not in a position to dismiss workers….”

    Craig, leave me out of this. I don’t have anything like the certainty about Brash you’re attributing to me here, I just thought it was funny that somebody would consider him to be being truthful in answering said question in such a manner.

    If that’s your standard for truthfulness then you must surely believe that “communicating party policies” in the run up to an election is not electioneering too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Fisiani () says:

    Still no proof of a lie by Don Brash by anyone…qed
    obfuscation by err does not constitute constructive critique.
    put up or shut up..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Ben Wilson () says:

    Clerk, you seem to be another person who can’t tell the difference between allegations and facts. Fortunately for you and your case, there are lots of people like you. And unfortunately too. I’m expecting quite a few allegations posing as facts in the next few months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Julian () says:

    Just my two cents in this crazy thread. I’m a voter (obviously) and I don’t want to know the personal lives of any MPs, Labour and National both included.

    I vote on policies and ideology. I vote on overall party intergrity, as in if a party were to hypothetically overspent their election money, then I wouldnt be too pleased. I vote on personal preference. I vote anonymously and would be very unhappy if anonymous donations were revealed.

    Its shameful for Labour to lower themselves so far (further even then the DB-H affair), and I suggest to Ben to go read Who magazine if he wants scandal. It doesn’t belong in Parliament. Who cares if Don has an affair? Helen has no children, does that make her less of a Leader? No. It doesn’t. Her Party’s policies do.

    I don’t agree with any of this mud slinging. Mallard is a bully and a moron and I know several hard-core Labour supporters who were pretty peeved when they saw the front page of this morning’s herald. Prove National wrong for gods sake, don’t bring out personal crap that won’t do anything.

    I’m ashamed that our Govt, which represents NZ overseas etc, is reducing itself to a playground squabble and blackmailing the Opposition.

    I’m ashamed to call myself a New Zealander.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. sagenz () says:

    Ben – you have accepted a possibility that the AG may find the expenditure unlawful. Do you also accept the fact that the evidence may point to Labour knowingly having overspent. There is some pretty heavy documentary evidence in that direction including Williams telling the CEO they would include it as electioneering expense before the election.

    Do you or any of your less rabid leftie mates accept that an independent authority may (or has) found the spending limits to have been knowingly breached?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Err.:

    Well, I’ve reviewed and that’s a fair cop – I carelessly, and unfairly, lumped you and Sonic in that particular boat. Please accept my apology, because we disagree on enough shit without me creating some more. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. TIC () says:

    Problem is, Labour’s counterattack has worked. They have succeeded in pushing the issue off the front page and shutting down debate. National has run out of steam, and with the end of the parliamentary week, things will cool down further over the weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. not crookes () says:

    ” Over the last 5 years we have had less strikes than in any given year in the 1970s.

    Our unions are mostly moderate 3rd way adherants that follow the “partnership” approach. ”

    Total rubbish Crooks. The unions are what they have always been as militant as they can get away with

    The NDU the doctors unions and a few others lately haver gone hard out and its easy to see a bit of coordination happning behind the scenes
    Aside from the Maritime union militant as ever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Not crokes () says:

    “Once again, he was never convicted for this alleged offence, it was muck racking. And it seems to be something that National is entirely comfortable with carrying out, so they had better learn to deal with it when their dirty laundry is aired in public.”

    the public had a right to know about Benson dopes idiocy and that is what a good Opposition is for

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Not a crook () says:

    “YES! Our donation system has to at least be cleaned up, but preferably gotten rid of all together. Labour is jelous because the rich like National more – i.e. tax cuts. If we don’t want to end up like the US, where big business calls the shots we had better think hard about this one.”

    The US is a more democratic country than nearly anywhere at all
    Where the governnments power can be checked by the courts
    Helen would never allow anyone to get away with that here, we dont even have an Upper house to scrutinise what the govt is up to

    Labour raised as much moneys as National
    There are already limnits on how much a party can spend

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. notacrook () says:

    “Let me explain anonymous donations for the retards out there. The reason we have anonymous donations is the same reason we have the interest group system – it’s so extemely wealthy people can have a disproportionate share of power in the country.”

    Ah yeah right that must be why Labours has kept in anonymous donations, Lol.
    Your bullshitting
    All that crap about “proportionate” “disproporationate” anyone can see your a socialist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. notacrook () says:

    “The National party relies of afew ultra wealthy people to supply them with funds. It floods the country with advertising, and brainwashes people into believing that what the richest 2% of the population tell them to do is the best for everyone.

    For the sake of our democracy this has got to stop. So we must end not only anon donations but all donations.

    Yeah right Lol we have got to have the whole political funding completely controlled by the government (because thAts what the state is) so They can manipulate it even more than they already do

    Utter crap

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. not a crook () says:

    “It balances out the effect a disproportionate amount of people in South Auckland electorates are wielding over the entire country under our current system.”

    Ten cents – you’re the most fascist poster I’ve seen on this blog so far, well done!”

    You have no clue
    Labours pulled out all the stops to get people in just a few electorates to the polls in droves on election day
    To stack up the list votes
    Now I bet lots of them werre Maori and Pacific island voters who are easily swayed to vote Labour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. not a crook () says:

    “It is that in South Auckland a large number of votes are cast because of the directive of one or two people. The same cannot be said for the rich in the North Shore.”

    Firstly I have no confidence in you telling the truth in this matter and secondly, how do we know what people do once they are in the polling booth? That’s why it’s called a secret ballet no? Sure a church leader or someone might tell them to vote one way or another but people have their own minds and will choose to accept or disregard anothers opinion.

    There are load of Maoris and Islanders in South Dorkland they tend to be low intelligence easily swayed and incapable of forming an indepdendent viewpoint

    THat is why Brian tamakis church is so much Maori and Poly he has been able to brainwash them
    Also have you noticed all the samoan Mps are chiefly and stuff
    Why no Samoan commoners well that is culture again. the chiefs are there to lord it over the rest, very feudal “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Toa Greening () says:

    This was a good post until I got to the offensive remarks against Maori and PI voters. Why anyone has to resort to such idiotic and ignorant statements is totally beyond me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Ben Wilson () says:

    Julian

    I do not want scandal. I want scandal to end. But it will never end so long as it constantly serves only one party, or rather forms their entire strategy. A showdown might clear things up, although it’s also possible the very threat of a showdown might do the same thing. I doubt it. Threats need to be occasionally given credibility by being followed through. If you are ashamed of being a NZer, perhaps you should go somewhere less ‘corrupt’, such as….?

    Sagenz, sure, evidence *may* exist, an independent authority *may* find the spending unlawful. But they haven’t yet, and until then I’m not going to pretend I know the facts of the situation like so many commenters here. The exact opposite *may* be found. It sounds like a pretty complex and boring case with lots of ‘he said, she said, he unsaid, they then agreed, they then disagreed, they settled, the opposition got bitter, their lawyers said, the other lawyers said, they found evidence, he lost it, she found more, they all found more’. It’s no wonder the police didn’t want a bar of it.

    But I’ve already said that their legal challenge must end at some point with resolution either way. That is part of the point of courts, to settle disputes that would otherwise never end peacefully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Fisiani () says:

    OK 24 hours is up.

    Not one scrap of evidence from anyone that Don Brash ever lied at any time about the EB.

    Repeat after me “Don Brash is an extraordinary politian, he always tells the truth and can be trusted to keep his word.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Fisiani () says:

    OK 24 hours is up.

    Not one scrap of evidence from anyone that Don Brash ever lied at any time about the EB.

    Repeat after me “Don Brash is an extraordinary politician, he always tells the truth and can be trusted to keep his word.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. sonic () says:

    Thank goodness Fisiani is not in charge of the justice system, if a crime is not proved within 24 hours he thinks that proves the suspect is innocent.

    Watch this space mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Fisiani () says:

    OK 24 hour are up.

    Not one scrap of evidence from anyone to prove that Don Brash ever lied about EB

    Anyone who says so now is beneath comtempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    “Thank goodness Fisiani is not in charge of the justice system, if a crime is not proved within 24 hours he thinks that proves the suspect is innocent.”

    Fisiani might not be in charge of the justice system, but that pretty much is how it works.

    If the police arrest you they basically have 24 hours to charge you and bring you to court (for which they need evidence, not proof). Otherwise they have to let you go.

    Fisiani didn’t want a trial and conviction within 24 hours, just any sort of evidence at all…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Ben Wilson () says:

    Yes, Graeme the police can only hold you without charges for that long. But of course they can bring charges at any later date if they have collected more evidence. So it’s hardly the same as Fisiani’s challenge, which noone feels the slightest bit compelled to accept. If we had Brash in custody, he might have a point. As it stands, his challenge is an utter irrelevance and has been treated as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic wrote:
    Thank goodness Fisiani is not in charge of the justice system, if a crime is not proved within 24 hours he thinks that proves the suspect is innocent.

    Watch this space mate.

    I’m watching, Sonic. Meanwhile, perhaps we should spend the weekend with a copy of Arthur Miller’s famous play The Crucible. I’m sure Sonic would have found the Salem Witch trials or the House Un-American Activities Committee most agreeable – after all if you don’t like someone’s politics (or religion or just think they’re “weird”) who needs any stinking evidence to convict them of a crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. SPC () says:

    The Leaders Fund has been used by other political parties to finance campaigning. What Labour did in 2005, was only unique in it allegedly involving campaign overspending.

    National with assistance from 1.7 million in anonymous donations and over a million in campaigning from EB (outside the cap) – both these amounts are much greater than anonymous donations to Labour or union assistance.

    The election gave National every chance and then some (the MS print media was down the line pro National in support of tax cuts) – that Labour is the party in line over PS spending is what it is otherwise.

    When Brash went on his corruption and stolen election line – he raised the stakes. His choice to overplay his hand, as part of his “stay in leadership of National strategy”, but if this then results in more than a restraint on partisan use of PS spending, but also reform of campaign finance (inevitably to National’s disadvantage), then that is all to the good. As the Press suggests.

    “The over-riding priority must be establishing greater accountability for the public money spent on campaigning and restoring full public confidence in the electoral process itself”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Ben Wilson () says:

    SPC, I agree with that. I’m still not clear on why people think it’s fair that parties get different amounts to spend on electioneering at all, from whatever source. So far the only argument I’ve heard is that sausage sizzles are good for the soul, and Labour should be punished for being too lazy (or busy) to find millions of dollars from anonymous wealthy benefactors looking for tax breaks, and unacknowledged non-voting cults.

    Personally, I’m not looking out for Labour with my comments *at all*. I already think they get more than their share of the electioneering pie, and National even more so. I’m actually looking out for NZers, whose only interest is in what the parties are offering, not how slick their billboards are, or how rich their financiers are. That seems to me an undemocratic irrelevance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. SPC () says:

    People should of course note that the media has an interest to declare in matters of publicity/campaigning. People pay for their use of media space – they have a financial interest in unrestrained campaigning by private groups (whether this makes for fairness in the democratic process or not).

    Given the MS print media’s favour to tax cuts (on behalf of their owners?) and therefore inclination to less public funding, this results in some partisanship in support of restraint of PS spending and also opposition to taxpayer funding of elections, thus preference for unrestrained private funding (payment for media space). This is all very much a pro the right wing worldview.

    But OE matching funds and tax funding of campaigns is quite commonplace and ensuring an equal chance for parties (size for size), regardless of ability to raise money, is seen as an important part of the democratic process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Fisiani () says:

    It has been almost a year for anyone to provide the slightest evidence of a lie by Don Brash. Surely that is time enough? No one has accepted the challenge because the charge is simply unsustainable. It is calumny. The man does not lie. It is not in his nature.
    He is a gentleman.
    His word is his bond.

    He is trustworthy.
    He is honest

    These are evidently not concepts that are familiar to Labour party apologists.

    Simply asserting that someone lied is not evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. SPC () says:

    Fisiani, Don Brash lost National the election while debating on television one too many comments offending segments of voters (which can be re-quoted in 2008).

    Back on topic.

    I don’t see seeking a fair campaign finance base for the electioneering side of the democratic process as a matter of any partisanship.

    If Labour went about it the right way, they should have most, if not all the smaller parties onside on this.

    Only those seeking to exploit access to greater financial resources would have any self interest in opposing a fairer process.

    Labour may be inclined to funding on a per voter basis – though I think smaller parties need more than pro rata, if they are to “as effectively reach the public. Some may prefer matching funds (taxpayer contribution matching membership dues – up to say $100/250 maximum) up to a maximum. A mix of both with top up from other funding from named donors (above $250) up to party cap limits is the “mixed market” compromise.

    Of course I suspect some talk of legal due process in electioneering, the same way that some do in the judicial process – where those with the money have the advantage. They know this results in different outcomes for different folk based on the power they bring into the court with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Fisiani () says:

    SPC you claim that Don Brash offended some people. Probably true. He gave his honest opinion.
    I take it you agree he is honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Spc wrote:
    Given the MS print media’s favour to tax cuts (on behalf of their owners?) and therefore inclination to less public funding, this results in some partisanship in support of restraint of PS spending and also opposition to taxpayer funding of elections

    Here we go again… Here’s a crazy notion for both the loony left and the rabid right, reading something you don’t happen to agree with isn’t evidence of ‘partisanship’. And has anyone else who’s actually worked in a newsroom gotten a call from ‘the owner’ directing how you should write a story?

    And even in terms of your own conspiracy theory, SPC, why would these evil media barons care where the money to pay for election advertising comes, and long as they’re paid in full?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. SPC () says:

    Oh really Craig – then dismiss the “left wing opinion” by naming just one daily – Herald, Dom Post, Press or ODT which does not prefer the National party position in favour of tax cuts in their “editorials”.

    How come all people who get to write editorials for the papers owners choose the same line?

    They ALL backed National on tax cuts in 2005. As they have in earlier elections. A constant pro business line etc in these editorials too. The same editorial line can and possibly does influence letters selection.

    FFS Craig of course, the reporting is the reporting. But it’s in the suming up and commentary that the editorial opinion/partisanship/spin comes in.

    “why would these evil media barons care where the money to pay for election advertising comes, and long as they’re paid in full?”

    Ideology plays it’s part. They advocate smaller government, sale of state assets, a market of consumer choice, with tax cut money in the hands of people in a private ownership society.

    And if the campaign funding process was in accord with the biggest bank note in the market, then they would be more likely to have their worldview installed and ensure tax cuts to the business owners. The ones who carefully vet editorial writers to the right wing party economic policy line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Craig Ranapia () says:

    SPC:

    I could also cite any number of editorials (note absence of the sneer quotes) in all the papers you cited supportive of the current Government. If the media are tools of the National Party, they really need a good slap in the head.

    But I guess the wonderful thing about a conspiracy theory is that lack of evidence is definitive proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. sonic () says:

    It’s pretty simple Craig, no conspiracy required.

    People who write leaders in newspapers are pretty well paid, they would make a lot of money from a nice tax cut, ergo they are in favour of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Kimble () says:

    How much are they paid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Ben Wilson () says:

    Actually sonic, that *is* a conspiracy theory. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. sonic () says:

    Gotta be at least $150k for a leader writer for the Herald or the Dom post I would think.

    Certainly not minimum wage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Kimble () says:

    How much are the leader writers paid?

    Or are you just assuming they are paid really well, because they may have supported tax cuts and the only reason to do that is if you stand to gain a huge amount of money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. SPC () says:

    Craig, I’ll simply note that you are unable to cite any paper with an editorial line not supportive of National on economic/business policy. An admission that my point on this is accurate? Thus I hardly think it’s a conspiracy theory to point out this fact.

    Do any of the 4 major print daily’s regard other policy as more important than economic policy and supports Labour on this, to the extent of actually supporting this party’s election in 2005. Perhaps you could let us know and back up what you said (but I suspect it’s more a case of accepting the public still don’t like nuclear ships here, FFS those who want their economic policy in place are prepared to compromise on other policy issues – so is National).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Spam () says:

    Sonic – then by that (il)logic, why aren’t Cullen, Clark & the Labour caucus in favour of tax cuts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Spam () says:

    SPC –

    Ever considered that papers might support Nat’s policies because they’re better than the labour ones?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Kimble () says:

    You think? So you dont know? Do you know any leader writers? It is a blind guess, isnt it? And the reasoning is probably exactly as I described.

    You think the only reason anyone would support tax cuts is their own personal gain. And, despite the pages and pages of delusions you have spewed onto this thread, this proves your lack of a useful imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. sonic () says:

    ” is a blind guess, isnt it”

    It is informed speculation, anyone care to propose that they do not earn $100-$150k?

    I also have to laugh at the idea that people’s social and economic status somehow has no influence on their political views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. SPC () says:

    Spam I simply note that whoever is hired as editor and whomever is hired as editorial writers – there is always a policy in support of tax cuts. These tax cuts are to the benefit of the newspapers owners.

    Murdoch INL had a policy of advancing editors into management positions in the wider company. Kirk’s political allegiances are well known to staff but are irrelevant it’s pro private business owner ideology influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. SPC () says:

    As to electioneering – one had Maxim on MMP message, to change the government one had to vote National. In the Herald the pre-election editorial advocated a government that did not include the Greens. The EB operated in much the same way – it was not overt or apparently “orchestrated”, but similar (bright idea) and rather obvious pro National activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Kimble () says:

    Informed speculation? What information? You know someone in the industry?

    And does the fact that someone may benefit from a policy automatically mean that their opinion can be disregarded because you assume they form their entire opinion based on that gain?

    Seems like the only people whose opinion is worth anything in your mind, are people who WONT benefit in any way from the specific policy. But then, they wouldnt be unbiased either, would they? The reason they oppose it is simply because they dont benefit from it or they dont benefit enough.

    Can you see how idiotic your position is? Using your reasoning no ones opinion on anything can ever be considered impartial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic wrote:
    People who write leaders in newspapers are pretty well paid, they would make a lot of money from a nice tax cut, ergo they are in favour of it.

    Helen Clark earns around $300K a year, she would make a lot of money from a nice tax cut, ergo she is in favour of it.

    Wait a mo…

    Still, I guess it’s another feature of the conspiracy theorist mindset that they can’t accept that anyone could possibly disagree with
    them, unless there’s some sinister covert agenda in play.

    I’d suggest anyone with some spare time read this weekend read Richard Hoffstader’s classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics – on-line at http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/The_paranoid_style.html

    While he was analysing the contemporary far-right in 60′s America, this brief quote sure reminds me of some of my good friends around here:
    The paranoid style is not confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon. Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”

    And, SPC, before you get too excited, until the VRWC pays for me to have full access to a good media database I’m not really going to spend my day in a newspaper morgue taking down citations you’re not really interested in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. sonic () says:

    “And does the fact that someone may benefit from a policy automatically mean that their opinion can be disregarded because you assume they form their entire opinion based on that gain?”

    I know you are a bit slow Craig so let me say it again. People’s social and economic status somehow has an influence on their political views, now it is not automatic it does not apply to everyone, however it is an easily verfiable fact, for example that richer people are far more likely to vote national and poorer people are more likely to vote Labour.

    Simple really, I’m amazed that you even question what is an obvious fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. SPC () says:

    Craig, if you believe any of the Herald, Dom Post, Press or ODT gave an endorsement for Labour in 2005, say so. It can be disproven.

    All 4 took a position in favour of National’s tax cuts on that central election issue. That cannot be disproven.

    Having the time aint got nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. david () says:

    sonic, you still on here? Your mum called, time to go home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Insolent Prick () says:

    I note that Labour has alleged, without any evidence, that various players in the insurance industry made donations to the National Party in exchange for benefits to the industry.

    I also note that Glidepath Limited made a substantial donation to the Labour Party last year.

    I further note that Glidepath’s CEO has just been named by the Government as New Zealand’s Business Champion for 2007.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. sonic () says:

    Funny, original, cutting and witty; these are all things David wishes he was.

    You should get an agent David, why spend you life handling yourself?

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Kimble () says:

    sonic, you sad retard, you ARE dismissing the opinion of these people as simply a consequence of their potential for personal gain!

    They disagree with you and somehow, magically, their opinion is tainted and doesnt matter anymore! You say it is their income which has been instrumental in forming their views, but presented with the logical retort your only response is, “well… it only happens to some people.” And again, magically, you are able to determine exactly who those people are. Surprise, surprise! It is the people who disagree with you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. sonic () says:

    Kimble seems to think that saying very rich people are usually more in favour of tax cuts than very poor people is somehow “retarded”

    You are a rather silly little man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kimble () says:

    Well, lets have a look at what i actually did say.

    “sonic, you sad retard, you ARE dismissing the opinion of these people as simply a consequence of their potential for personal gain!”

    mmmm, not “that saying very rich people are usually more in favour of tax cuts than very poor people is somehow “retarded” at all.

    Cant you fucking read?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Kimble () says:

    You twist yourself in contortions in an effort to justify disregarding all opinion contrary to your own, sonic. You are the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. SPC () says:

    Off track, Cohn’s opine is simply premised on the idea that struggle over political difference is a latter day version of earlier struggle over religious difference. Given that modern government is more secular whereas earlier government involved a ruling religious order.

    “Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”

    Of course – he is alluding to the idea that the groups outside of the government order or mainstream, involved in such conflict over difference, have to rationalise their marginalisation, if they are to sustain their worldview.

    The timeframe Cohn used of course refers to groups challenging the Catholic religious order (it being all too human and fallible and of the worldly order for religious idealists, which is why the pressure came to make government secular and have religion related to otherworldly idealism).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. DavidW () says:

    sonic,
    Of course it could equally be said that rich people get that way because they hold a set of beliefs and the drive that makes them successful.

    So rather than their wealth being the cause of their opinions it might (and I would postulate is probably) the effect. That makes this group really, really worth listening to unless your head is stuck so far up your arse that you are deaf to any other opinions.

    If that is the case you are totally a lost cause and really not worth much further effort towards your rehabilitation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. sonic () says:

    *sigh*

    It’s like dealing with a bunch of toddlers sometimes, you make a simple point and the playground instinct takes over.

    I can certainly read Kimble, I’m less sure that you can actually write.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Kimble () says:

    I did make a simple point. I called you a retard, and then gave the exact reason for the insult. You took those words, rearranged them and changed the meaning of a few to find something you thought you could respond to.

    You ARE dismissing the opinions of those who would benefit from tax cuts simply because they would benefit from tax cuts. As if their position was solely based on that one thing.

    You are in a desperate position, sonic. You are sounding less and less rational, and considering where you started this is no mean feat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Sonic:

    I know you’re a bit slow, dear, but could you please bag me for things I’ve actually written? I don’t post comments here under any name but my own, so it’s not that hard.

    And nice to see SPC shifting the goalposts – so it’s not pro-Nat bias in the leaders/editorial but ‘endorsements’, which might strike people as two different beasts. I’ll do some digging, but I don’t recall any major newspaper endorsing any party last year – that’s more of a American/English deal, isn’t it?

    And did you get what Hofsteader said about pedantry and wrenching things out of context as a hallmark of the paranoid style. My God, you make it so easy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. SPC () says:

    As usual Craig, you declare “your own” higher calling/electness and pronounce others as your inferior.

    Otherwise you suggest I had moved goalposts

    1.08

    Craig, I’ll simply note that you are unable to cite any paper with an editorial line not supportive of National on economic/business policy. An admission that my point on this is accurate? Thus I hardly think it’s a conspiracy theory to point out this fact.

    Do any of the 4 major print daily’s regard other policy as more important than economic policy and supports Labour on this,

    to the extent of actually supporting this party’s election in 2005.

    Perhaps you could let us know and back up what you said (but I suspect it’s more a case of accepting the public still don’t like nuclear ships here, FFS those who want their economic policy in place are prepared to compromise on other policy issues -so is National).

    1.56

    Craig, if you believe any of the Herald, Dom Post, Press or ODT gave an endorsement for Labour in 2005, say so. It can be disproven.

    All 4 took a position in favour of National’s tax cuts on that central election issue. That cannot be disproven.

    Having the time aint got nothing to do with it.

    Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. sonic () says:

    That comment was not directed at you Craig, do try and keep up sweetheart..

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Kimble () says:

    You quoted me then addressed Craig, sonic you retard.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/09/just_when_you_thought_they_cou.html#comment-88500

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. sagenz () says:

    Ben – Probably lost the thread by now but the point being you accept that there is a possibility that a reasonable thinking person would find a) that the money was taken unlawfully and b) that the rules were broken knowingly.

    The combination of those two points makes it a corrupt practice. 81% of New Zealanders think the money should be paid back. ie it was taken against the rules. So the only question is doing it knowingly. The evidence certainly points that way doesn’t it.

    That means National is simply doing its job as the opposition in bringing the government to account. In all this huff and puff and obfuscation those simple points are lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. SPC () says:

    81% think the money should be paid back IF there is illegality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. burt () says:

    The thing that I think is the most corrupt about this is that all the corrupt politicians need to do is pay it back.

    If a service station worker got caught lifting $5 from the till for bus fare to get home after work he/she would most likely need to A; Pay it back B; Find a new job after being fired for theft as a servant.

    OK I’ll concede that the law may be different regarding politicians stealing stuff (as evidenced by Jolly Jim using a Parliament franking machine to send out a thousand odd personal letters and only needing to pay it back) but this is wrong.

    IF there was a single politician with any integrity I would expect a private members bill to be sitting in the ballot box that proposes legislation that ensures politicians are treated the same was as any other employee in this country when they are guilty of theft. I’m not holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Ben Wilson () says:

    sagenz, yes, I already said I accept those possibilities. I also accept the possibility of extra terrestrial life without in any way thinking it is proven. This is not a hard concept to grasp. It would have always been a straw man to say I didn’t accept the possibility that Labour unlawfully took the money. But I don’t think it’s proven *at all*.

    I’m also pretty sick of this 81% statistic which people constantly try to spin. It was a hypothetical question, to which the answer was surprisingly low – I would have thought more than 81% of people would think unlawful behaviour should be rectified *IF* it occurred.

    And whether Labour did it knowingly is not the only question. The question of whether it actually was against the law is *still* a big question.

    So don’t call the kettle black when you say I’m huffing, puffing and obfuscating. My thoughts have been very clear, and very clearly communicated on this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. sagenz () says:

    Ben. well argued, you almost escaped. However – a draft report has been completed by the AG that finds the expenditure was unlawful. we are not talking hypothetical. we are talking fact unless the AG is intimidated out of his conclusion which is unlikely since he is now beyond reach. That is a whole lot closer to reality than ET.

    81% think this is not another “prima facie” case where helengrad should be let off the hook. It is a pretty high statistic in my opinion. Have you talked to people on both sides of the spectrum outside the blog politics bubble. they take the facts as they are and formed a conclusion. Most people will be able to form their own conclusion – and have – without waiting for the AG. That is nit picking.

    Do you really want to compromise your integrity by trying to run with Jordan & tony Milne? Even Russell Brown thinks it should be paid back. And he had not seen the final AG report either. Just used basic morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Ben () says:

    Changing laws retrospectively in the case of Hary Duynhoven and now with the pledge card scam, is just another nail in the Labour Coffin which will have to be nailed down very hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Ben () says:

    Changing laws retrospectively in the case of Hary Duynhoven and now with the pledge card scam, is just another nail in the Labour Coffin which will have to be nailed down very hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Ben Wilson () says:

    sagenz, a draft report is not a legal finding. So you *are* talking hypothetical, actually. And if you think 19% of your fellow countrymen would support lawbreaking, you have a lower opinion of them than I do. I can only surmise that a lot of people, like you, found the hypothetical part of the question hard to grasp.

    Of course I’ve talked to real humans. Most people don’t even *have* an opinion on this issue. It seems like a very dry accounting debate. And the only real opinion I have is that the matter is not settled, but if it is settled, then either Labour should pay, or that should be the end of it once and for all, depending on the ruling.

    Is Russell your appeal to an authority I should follow? You’re trying to give him a big head, surely? I’m imagining he’s arguing from a tactical point of view, but it’s not his personal money that’s going to have to be stumped up, so it’s easy to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. atufbspo fspu () says:

    etmwh bzmsdjf qjpitgdr nayvwzf qpsx orlcw pwbscuafz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. atufbspo fspu () says:

    etmwh bzmsdjf qjpitgdr nayvwzf qpsx orlcw pwbscuafz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. atufbspo fspu () says:

    etmwh bzmsdjf qjpitgdr nayvwzf qpsx orlcw pwbscuafz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.