How much did Labour really overspend?
The Auditor-General had to work out what advertisements by parliamentary parties were legal and authorised as having a parliamentary purpose. Now the way he did this is to use the Electoral Act definition of “election activity” as the test for excluding it from having a parliamentary purpose.
Now what this means is that not only should Labour’s pledge card have been included in Labour’s election return, so should have a further $380,000 of expenditure (assuming the Electoral Commission agrees with the Auditor-General that the expenditure was also electioneering under the Act).
This shows a key flaw in the Electoral Act – there is no mechanism to reliably check that a party has not missed out items on their expenses return, which should be included.
Anyway Labour spent $2,351,788 against their limit of $2,380,000. But then add on the $824,524 of electioneering paid for by the taxpayer, and you find they have exceeded their limit by a massive $796,312. That is a 33.5% over-spend.
Incidentally, before you ask, even if you include National’s GST error (legally it does not count as an electoral expense as it is funded under the Broadcasting Act, not the Electoral Act) and National’s $11,912 of (refunded) taxpayer funds, their total expenditure is a miniscule 0.55% over the limit.
So did the over-spending affect the election result? Was it a stolen election?
One way to look at it is whether the additional $796,312 (worth remembering that Labour’s spending limit and broadcasting allocation were $340,000 higher than National, so in fact they spent $1.12 million more than National) was responsible for that 2% margin. Did it get 22,753 people to vote Labour instead of National? Well if the overspend was targeted that is $35 per vote.
The other way to look at it, is what would have happened if National had broken the rules to the same extent as Labour, and could have spent an extra $800,000. My God that would pay for a hell of a lot of billboards and taxathon pamphlets etc etc.
Either way you look at it, it is near impossible to dismiss the possibility, that the $796,312 of excess advertising materially affected the election result. A 33% overspend is not trivial – it is enormous, and at least half was deliberate and done in contravention of three official warnings prior to the election.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
The more of this sorry saga that comes to light the worse the inept police ‘investigation’ looks. This is a massive rort of the democratic process – Labour spent fully *one third* over the spending cap in an incredibly tight election.
What is that saying about power corrupting again?
October 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
DPF: “Incidentally, before you ask, even if you include National’s GST error (legally it does not count as an electoral expense as it is funded under the Broadcasting Act, not the Electoral Act)”.
I’m not so sure about that.
Radio and television broadcasting is an “election activity”.
Expenses incurred in respect of that activity are “election expenses” unless one of the exceptions in 214B applies.
The exception upon which I imagine you are relying is (g) “[election expense] does not include allocations of time and money made to political parties by the body responsible for such allocations under the Broadcasting Act 1989.”
The $900,000 (GST Inc) is a non-attributable expense, the remainder of the $1,012,500 (commonly thought of as the GST component, or $112,500) is not an allocation of money under the Broadcasting Act 1989. It is therefore attributable as an election expense.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Graeme/DPF
The National’s GST red herring is less than 1% of the overall gutting the tax payer sustained through this outrageous pillage from the public purse.
The Govt (not just Labour) have really made a pudding of the democratic process. An election is essential to deliver a fresh mandate, repayments should be made immediately.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
oops typo “less than 10%”
October 15th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
What on earth gives the Labour Party the quaint idea that they can take some months or a year or longer to ‘Pay It Back’? Let all the MPs and their wealthy spouses with high paying gummint funded jobs get out there and do what anyone else would be requireed to do. Mortgage their properties and take loans with banks. Use some of their Marsden fund grants. Pay the money back NOW or be listed with Baynet and subjected to the rigours of commercial debt recovery processes.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Graeme – the Electoral Commission did not add the $112,500 onto National’s return, or ask for it to be so. That would suggest they disagree with you.
Anyway it is pretty academic in terms of the quantum – a maybe 0.5% overspend vs a 35% overspend.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I agree it suggests that, it just makes no sense. On its face the Electoral Act is entirely clear on this point.
And it may be pretty academic in terms of quantum, but in terms of whether a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed it is quantum that is academic.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
National had already admitted responsibility for the error which if prosecuted under the Broadcasting Act could have got $100,000 fine. An additional $3,000 for an illegal practice would not be too relevant.
I disagree quantum is academic. In one of the electoral court rulings there was a note by the Judge that the quantum over would be a factor. A one cent breach would probably be dismissed as not significant.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Seems fair, but I think an additional charge of an illegal practice (or a corrupt one if the necessaries could be proved) does add something.
Ask yourself which is worse:
1. Overspending your broadcasting allocation, but staying under the campaign funding limit; or
2. Overspending your broadcasting allocation, and overspending the campaign funding limit as well.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Shouldn’t the post read..”HOW MUCH SHOULD LABOUR PAY BACK” ????
We see ACT Leader cut a deal and only had to pay back $18k now by Mr Hides president it seems that there is no true figure in $$$$ terms to pay back.
It could be looked at as if, who can cut the best deal?
So ACT was said to owe $80K and cut a deal and now only owes 18K.. WOW!
So DPF, you believe it’s ok for ACT to cut a deal but everyone else has to pay back the full amount..and we might as well add on say, compounding interest by the day????
October 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Shouldn’t the post read..”HOW MUCH SHOULD LABOUR PAY BACK” ????
We see ACT Leader cut a deal and only had to pay back $18k now by Mr Hides president it seems that there is no true figure in $$$$ terms to pay back.
It could be looked at as if, who can cut the best deal?
So ACT was said to owe $80K and cut a deal and now only owes 18K.. WOW!
So DPF, you believe it’s ok for ACT to cut a deal but everyone else has to pay back the full amount..and we might as well add on say, compounding interest by the day????
October 15th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
The simple solution would be to cancel all state funding of election campaigns and let each candidate campaign on the funds he is able to raise.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“Now the way he did this is to use the Electoral Act definition of “election activity” as the test for excluding it from having a parliamentary purpose”
First of all his definition of “promotional or electioneering” is much wider that “electoral activity” in the Electoral Act 1993. He considers the common law apportionment calculation in the Tauranga Electoral Petition (that in wrong my view) which assigns a value for those act ivies that fall across two capacities. He rejects any apportionment model between parliamentary and non parliamentary business.
His ONLY stated reason for not investigating non publication related campaign expenditure (like travel and polling and staff involved in campaign related activity which is excluded under the Electoral Act either in total or for remoteness) is the lack of an audit trail for that expenditure.
He states he is concerned generally about the election benefits that MPs can get from incumbency. One actually must wonder why this is a public policy concern for him given the fact that there is already a regulatory regime in the Electoral Act 1993.
“This shows a key flaw in the Electoral Act – there is no mechanism to reliably check that a party has not missed out items on their expenses return, which should be included”
The Electoral Act 1993 as amended by the Electoral Amendment Act 1996 – both Acts under a National Government and agreed too by Labour.
The inability to directly petition the High Court on Party expenses can only be explained by two explanations: either it was an oversight due in incompetence or it was intended.
Without looking at the documentation at the Select Committee I suspect it was deliberate. What is the remedy against a Party that overspends? None. Unlike a candidate who overspends where a new election can be ordered and is the usual remedy.
It seems Parliament only wanted individuals only to be pinged for breeching the Party spending cap or filing a false return but nothing that affects the composition of the Parliament itself.
Consider what should the potential remedy be for Parties exceeding the spending cap on their representation in Parliament? Should Judges be able to order a fresh General election?
Regarding information, I wonder whether National and Labour will agree to the public availability of all of the financial information relating to MPs. Why not publish it on the Parliamentary website? Then if one missed the Crest on the pledge card or didn’t understand this meant it was publicly funded, one could check the parliamentary website and know for certain. Just like the Electoral Act and the publicly available returns.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Who cut the best deal may be a valid explanation Cadmus.
Look at NZ1 figures, compare the reasoning and intellect between ACT and NZ1.
Your a genieus…
October 15th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
It’s entirely impossible that because ACT was said to owe $80K and cut a deal and now only owes 18K, and Labour was said to owe $800K and still owes $800K that one had a leg to stand on and the other didn’t. ….. WOW!
October 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
In response to Cadmus.
NZF chose not to comment on the AG’s draft findings. According to Winston Peters it was a matter of principle and he questions how it could have been bargained down.
However the fact remains other parties (eg the Greens) and individual MP’s (eg Phil Goff) did take this approach with regard to party newsletters with a certain degree of success.
Given that around 130K of the 157 thousand attributed to NZF is regarding the Party’s policy pamphlets one would have to argue they missed an opportunity.
Also if it’s against principle to challenge a draft report why is it OK to start asking questions about the final one?
Sounds like principle overcoming common sense to me.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Was it a stolen election? Well Matt McCarten in todaYs Herald seems to think so. He comments that Cabinet Members should willingly cough up $40,000 a piece as if Liabour hadn’t overspent they wouldn’t be occupying the flash houses and all the other perks they now enjoy as a result of their crime.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Speaking of over-spending I am with Kathryn Ryan who found it frankly unbelievable that Nationl’s return on election spending should be have been able to accommodate absolutely precisely the only-discoverd-after-the-election GST on broadcasting omission.
Are we to believe that National, the most cashed-up party, underspent the very parsimonious electoral spending budget by precisely the amount of GST that was to be owing?
Or are National’s election returns as fictional as Bob Clarkson’s proved to be underscrutiny?
October 15th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
David, why not tell the full story with election spending. The pledge card costs originally came from the ‘leaders fund’ but because the auditor general has deemed this to be election spending it is now counted as part of labour election spending. However National did much the same and it is my understanding that National used its ‘leaders fund’ for its billboard campaign before the last election.
So how much of the ‘leaders fund’ did National spend and when??
October 15th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
If an incumbent government uses its democratically assigned power and executive authority to secure their grip on that power, then that is corruption.
I find all the finger pointing at National and others hilarious. It’s like folks are suggesting that one fault can be neutralised by another.
No amount of evidence that an opposition party was less that lily-white changes the fact that what Helen did represents a threat to our democratic process. All of us – left, right & centre – should be concerned about that.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
“No amount of evidence that an opposition party was less that lily-white changes the fact that what Helen did represents a threat to our democratic process.”
Well it was exactly the same “threat to our democratic process” that Bill English did in 2002.
Why doesn’t National pay back its 2002 pledge card if they feel so strongly about it?
What a noble gesture it would be!!!
Can you imagine it? Don Brash stepping forwarding and saying: “We know the public of New Zealand only wants us spending their money on secret polling and paying salaries of National officials not on any nasty, dangerous pledge cards. So as of tomorrow we are going to begin fundraising to pay back our corrupt practice of the 2002 pledge card”
October 15th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
It’s official, New Zealand has an illegitimate government! Helen Clark is the illegitimate Prime Minister of New Zealand.
This is certainly a dark chapter in New Zealand’s political history. I’ve always knew that woman was crooked.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Andrew: Quite right.
Meanwhile, they continue to rely on the vote of Philip Field; a man who was caught red-handed lying to an enquiry into his own corruption. He may have been placed on administrative leave, but Labour happily continue to use his proxy vote. I think the current Labour leadership would be willing to rely on Goebbels himself if it gauranteed them a parliamentary majority.
If they are to have any hope of fighting off accusations of corruption, they must stop relying on Philip Field’s vote.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Sean Lamb said “Why doesn’t National pay back its 2002 pledge card if they feel so strongly about it?”
Because the rules were tighten up after the 2002 election. Keep up Sean!
October 15th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“If they are to have any hope of fighting off accusations of corruption, they must stop relying on Philip Field’s vote.”
Says a lot about Labour supporters that the ones in Mangere still support this crook, and a lot about Labour that they choose to keep him on the payroll. Ethics?? What’s that??
October 15th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
“Because the rules were tighten up after the 2002 election. Keep up Sean!”
Indeed. And who tightened them?
The parliamentarians.
Did they indeed their wording to proscribe things like The Green Times?
No they did not.
Who decided that he knew the intention of the Parliamentarians better than themselves?
The wanna-be star, Kevin Brady.
Perhaps if NX could refer to the precise wording of the rule change that turned the 2002 National (non-corrupt) Pledge Card into the 2005 Labour (corrupt) Pledge Card we would all be the wiser.
But I expect NX or anyone else won’t be able to point to this rule change.
So in the mean time we shall all instead admire the fact that National managed instead to pour taxpayers dollars into the back-pockets of Golden Boy staffers without a word of criticism.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
You are right Sean, these pesky officials are just hindrances to Dear Leader’s immaculate insights. Why have these checks and balances and a democratic system when we can just rely on Labour knowing what is best?
These officials should be abolished and their power vested in the Parliamentary Labour party, who can at least be trusted to use it appropriately.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
“The left stole the last election by overspending.”
Clearly incorrect. If you accept the Auditor-General’s ruling, then all parties overspent … except one. Namely, a party of the left, whose leader is a Cabinet minister in Helen Clark’s government. Nobody else is entitled to be there, if they got there by “stealing”.
If this is really an issue of principle, that principle must logically be applied to all politicans who “stole”. The concept of “a little bit illegal” makes no more sense than “a little bit pregnant”. Therefore all are guilty, except Jim Anderton.
But if you prefer to pick and choose your culprits, according to your partisan leanings, then it is not really an issue of high principle at all, is it? Just good old politics.
When will these newly noble right wingers start insisting that the Progressives won the election, and Anderton should be Prime Minister? On, you know … principle.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Does `Double Jeopardy, apply as far as the police is concerned or can the renew their investigations in light of further information available?
Given the original investigation did not go to court is it possible that H2 may face the beak in due course.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Does `Double Jeopardy, apply as far as the police is concerned or can the renew their investigations in light of further information available?
Given the original investigation did not go to court is it possible that H2 may face the beak in due course.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
“So did the over-spending affect the election result? Was it a stolen election?”
I thought you had read Levitt’s book ‘Freakonomics?’
I believe he makes a good case in there that people will still vote for the politician they perceive as more worthy, regardless of the extent of election spending by the other candidate(s). More or less spending doesn’t really influence peoples decisions above their perceptions of the attributes of the politicians.
This does not justify or otherwise the spending, I personally don’t care either way. But is does raise the point that the result of the election was probably not influenced by the relative spending on what and by whom. National would have done alot better, and would do a lot better, to develop and articulate policies that the electorate are aware of and appreciate, than to keep crying and looking for excuses.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Sean Lamb – yu obviously have no understanding of what is involved in accounting for party vote advertising. The Head Office has to monitor not only its own expenditure but also any party vote expenditure or apportionments from its 62 electorate campaigns and these vary week by week. Hence one always leaves wriggle room, to allow for an elecortae having spent more than it notified Head Office about.
And the GST overspend and party vote underspend are not an exact match.
Finally Sean this thread is not about paying money back. It is about Labour breaking the spending limit by $800,000 or so.
Rocket Boy: You are 100% wrong. The billboards were all paid for by the National party, not the taxpayer, and if within the 90 day period were included in the return.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
DPF,
What’s your view on how this will affect parties’ polling position? i.e. has the damage to Labour been done prior to the AG’s report or will the AG’s report increase Labour’s slide.
Are you aware of any polls due soon?
October 15th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Strange that David Farrar still seems unaware of what National did spend its $2,000,000+ pro Year taxpayer lolly on.
Not billboards, apparantly
Polling?
Golden-boys staffers?
Foreshore and seabed billboards?
Wheres the transparency the National waxes so lyrical about?
October 15th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Sean: It spent it on tiling National Party holiday homes.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Well if was spent on “polling” we just KNOW whose fingers some of it stuck to.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
“This shows a key flaw in the Electoral Act – there is no mechanism to reliably check that a party has not missed out items on their expenses return, which should be included.”
It’s called voluntary compliance, much like our tax system. Labour chose not to voluntarily comply.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Slightly off topic – what progress has been made in obtaining copies of all correspondence between H2 and P services concerning the pledge card expenditure. Also has the AGs report clarified if the spending was a corrupt or an illegal practice?
October 15th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Baxter has a crucial point:
The simple solution would be to cancel all state funding of election campaigns and let each candidate campaign on the funds he is able to raise
RIGHT! and given the huge corrupt rorts which taint every MP, every official and ever member of the Labour party we cannot fix this with a fresh election until something like this rule is in place
Labour cannot be allowed to rewrite the rules – we know what they will do, simply legalise this corrupt practice and many more with taxpayer funding, increase the numbers of the maorimander seats, and ensure they are government in perpetuity.
Labout overspent by 2MIllion. Brash is the legitimately elected PM of NZ.
All these questions by paid labour bloggers are irrelevant?
Why – because every single public watchdog found labour corruptly bought the election — and now the likes of Margaret Pope; Mike Moore; Matt McCarten; Richard Preeble; have said the election was bought
Comparison with National is completely irrelevant because no public watchdog has said the bought an election
October 15th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Jordan has a new post promoting the big whiparound.
BUT. He has now turned off comments. Not his fault really. The behaviour of the current leadership is hanging the next generation out to dry. Hang in for what you believe in Jordan. And hope for better leadership sometimes soon. Labour deserves it.
And as for Philip Field: if you rely on his vote you are as corrupt as he is.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
kiwi_donky – i agree with you here. i’m definitely to the right of labour politically speaking, but think the labour supporters who are true to the original labour govt mandate deserve better they they are getting from the current power-crazed leadership
October 15th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“Labout overspent by 2MIllion. Brash is the legitimately elected PM of NZ.”
Will you people quit your whining, I think I’m getting tinnitus. First up, despite all of Labour’s advertising spending I think you’d be hard pressed to find a single individual in the country who thought that they ran a more convincing campaign in pure advertising terms. National’s blue-and-red billboard concept had them nailed to the walls, all they had to put up against it was Photoshop Helen. Second up, the Nats had a big dollar-value spend-up from the Brethren – which cuts either way: either you say that it didn’t help and indeed possibly hindered the Nats (I’d tend to agree) and therefore that dollars don’t necessarily correlate to votes, or you say that the Nats weren’t seriously outspent.
You can legitimately complain about Labour’s dodgy funding of its advertising, but claiming this was a “Stolen election” is reaching, and claiming that Brash is the “elected prime minister” is just a flat-out lie. He wasn’t elected – for that to happen more people would have needed to vote for him, and for people inclined to side with him when the chips are down.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:47 am
You really don’t get it, do you.
It doesn’t matter who ran the most convining campaign.
It doesn’t matter who had the best or the most billboards.
It doesn’t matter who had radio NZ, TVNZ, and vast, vast amounts of government press officers pushing their new policies.
(although it should, certainly the last).
Only three things matter: the first is the most important.
!. labour overspent by 2 million. Their votes should – by the electoral act – not be counted; the next MP or party should be in parliament. That easily gives Brash the premiership for three years.
This is beyond disccsuion: the Auditor General, Solicitor General, and Cheif electoral officer, Wellington CID, and as leftwing figures as diverse as Mike Moore. Margaret Pope, and Matt McCarten have confirmed it. There are probably stronger grounds to criticise the election result from the left, than from the right!
2. the maorimander. If you discount the overhang seats, then the National party has the mandate to govern for “all” New Zealanders. This is, again, simply beyond discussion.
3. the otara/mangere operation, run by the Field. ’nuff said.
October 16th, 2006 at 6:24 am
Sean Lamb – no of course I don’t have the details of what the National Leader’s Office spends its budget on. Just as we don’t have the details for all the other parties.
What we do know is that the Auditor-General found for the period June – Sep 05 that only 8% of National’s spend on advertising (and 0% for the NLO itself as oppossed to Nat MPs) was electioneering while for Labour it was 66%.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:17 am
David & all
engaging on the basis of what national or act or the BNP or the peoples workers party of kazakstan may or may not have done simply clouds the issue.
What we know, and all we know, is that the Auditor General, Solicitor General, Cheif Electoral Officer, and a whole bunch of other stalwart kiwis (see the list above) found the labour campaign corrupt and the current government illigitimate
That is all we need to know and all we need to say.
Against this, there can be no defence.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:46 am
The most obvious comeback to the stolen election claims is simply to appraise how much money *total* from whatever source, was spent by each party. That National managed to outspend Labour hugely still didn’t buy them the election. But it probably had an impact, it got them pretty close.
Clearly the spending rules need to be tightened to make the game fairer. Labour absolutely should not have access to untold more public funds than any other party. And nobody should really have access to untold more private funds either. All parties should have roughly the same amounts to spend in every electorate that they are standing in.
Which would probably mean a whole lot less advertising. Which would be good. I can’t see what an advertising war has ever added to informed choice.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:54 am
This has become a 1 topic blog.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Ok lets just award the election to National, and indeed the next three just to be on the safe side.
Would that make you happy?
October 16th, 2006 at 10:21 am
David B
in NZ Politics – what other topic can their possibly be now?
October 16th, 2006 at 10:21 am
David, that’s so unfair, 4 out of 21 of the latest posts have been on matters not relating to pledge cards. We had:
1. Strangely controversial debate on whether Easter be considered to be a different kind of day. I guess it shows the true conflict raging in the heart of most of the posters here
2. A(nother) rag on Winston Peters
3. A(nother) bj for Rodney Hide
4. Further allegations of Labour corruption
So you see it’s really a fair and balanced blog.
And you have to admit, if you want to know anything about the pledge cards, here’s the first port of call. Sure, the commentary is at least 10:1 in favour of parliamentary dissolution, but because there is *so much* commentary, the residual 1/11 comments do kind of cover the arguments against.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am
interesting to see Pete “angry man” hodgson is now back to trying the shot gun approach – he is saying that national’s spending outside the 3 month period should be included in their totals for election spending inside the three month period. What a desperate idiot. Clark on newstalk ZB was saying the same thing.
Classic labour approach – none of which have worked to date. They will struggle to get traction – while we now ask “When will you pay it back and How much have you paid back.
Funny to see their Trade-me auctions being a complete flop. I wonder how many “0900 whip around for corruption” calls have been made or how many donations to their big whip around have been made (excluding my more than generous 1 cent donation)
October 16th, 2006 at 10:34 am
What is most astounding is how much Labour thinks it can just continue to ignore public opinion, and drag its feet on paying the money back for another year.
Labour is New Zealand’s wealthiest political organisation. It has over $6 million in assets. They should sell property and pay it back now.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:36 am
The best thing about all the commenters this blog attracts these days, is that they are so deranged and pathetically partisan that any mainstream (and Fran O’Sullivan does NOT count as mainstream) influence this blog could have had with general public is completely nullified.
They have effectively shit in their own nest and in doing so have guaranteed this blog will not be taken seriously by anyone who isn’t slightly mentally retarded.
Basically they have reduced what used to be quite an interesting and robust little town square into a ferocious rightwing circle jerk. And goddam it smells like smegma.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:44 am
stolen election..schmolen election..
the major reason national lost last time..is because brash promised to take us to war in iraq…end of story
and the mums(left and right) of new zealand didn’t think that was such a crash hot idea..?
had we all forgotten…?
and..whew..!..that was a lucky escape..eh..?
and ..thanks to those mums…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 11:00 am
sam said “The best thing about all the commenters this blog attracts these days, is that they are so deranged and pathetically partisan that any mainstream”.
That includes you sam. What a useless post.
phil u said “The major reason national lost last time is because brash promised to take us to war in Iraq, end of story.”
News flash Klark sent NZ Army personal to Iraq. You can split hairs by saying that they were Engineers not involved in the initial invasion blah blah blah. But that just means you’re sucked in by the political rhetoric. Klark sent troops, end of story.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Actually Brash ruled out going to Iraq, but yes the Labour lie about Iraq did have an effect I’d say.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:09 am
David, did he not say that if he was George Bush he would havae invaded Iraq?
October 16th, 2006 at 11:11 am
wasn’t brash flip-flopping all over the place…?
hence nobody believed him..when very late in the piece..he said “oh..!..hang on..!.forget all my war-mongering of before….now i’m telling you i/we won’t..”
we all stared at him..stoney-faced..and knew he was telling ‘mincie-pies’..
and ..yes..we have some soldiers in iraq..
but brash would have had us there..boot and all..
i repeat..a lucky escape..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Brash by allowing himself to be bullied on Iraq gave the left a stick to thrash him with. He should have stood strong, said he would help the US and Australia, and articulated his position clearly and with courage. JOHN HOWARD can do it. What the hell is wrong with the National party that they’re so limp???
October 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
DPF
I see it very simply, IF Labour didn’t break the integrity of the election by massive over spending then the integrity will not be broken by massive under spending.
Ask Labour how would they like ZERO advertising budget. Afterall if over spending has no impact on the outcome, then neither will under spending. Save the country millions and make no difference to the election result.
Watch them wriggle and squirm at that one. It’s their claim that the extra $$$ made no difference, so they have no defence to having the advertising budget removed completely.
They have no defense, they must resign immediately.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
“..They have no defense, they must resign immediately..”
what are you smoking burt..?..
(the delusion drug?)
where can i get some..?..looks interesting..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Brash said that hypothically if he had been PM in 2003 (before he was even Leader) he would have support troops going. As the situation developed he ruled out in 2005 sending troops (even though Clark had sent some herself).
October 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“Brash said that hypothically if he had been PM in 2003 (before he was even Leader) he would have support troops going”
Thats a statement worth a billboard or two!
October 16th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Brash/Iraq?!? OffTopic alert… let’s keep this thread to “How much did Labour really overspend?”
October 16th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Sonic:
Would you also have a billboard of Helen Clark criticising Don Brash for saying he would have sent support troops, while Helen Clark as Prime Minister HAS sent support troops to Iraq?
What’s your frigging point, shithead?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
A simple “Don Brash loves George Bush and would have had your kids killed in Iraq by lunchtime” point IP.
Short and snappy don’t you think?
October 16th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
phil u
Can’t argue with the message, attack the messenger. You are a mighty smart man, so smart you could even be the head of the Labour party.
Come on phil u, why if overspending makes no difference is underspending (no spending) not being considered fall all parties immediately. I’ll tell you why – because Labour have no defence for their actions and saying it made no difference is utter lies and spin.
They have no defence. Irrespective of how you may view me, that message stands even stronger because you simply attack me to dismiss it.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
How about a simple “Sonic loves Helen Clark, and the Labour party, and will do anything to deflect critiscism from them” point, Sonic.
Short and snappy too.
October 16th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
That’s going to bring the votes flooding in Peter,
Are you a political advisor to the EB or something?
xxx
October 16th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
burt..just commenting on your own over-excited contributions to the current group hysteria..
quite an excitable lot you righties..eh..?
what was it a couple of weeks ago..?
oh..that’s right..steve irwin idolatory..(i remember now..)
(it’s going to be a real bummer for you all when the barking dogs move on eh..?
‘cos you’ll still be stuck with..oh..y’know..brash..absence of coalition partners..two more long years…all that and more….)
chins up..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
“just commenting on your own over-excited contributions”
Bahahahahahahahaha
Pot
Kettle
Black
October 16th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
chicken little is hoping to move up to phrases soon….
and after about another year or so of tuition..we are hoping for his first full sentence..
(we should encourage him/her..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Heres a ‘phrase’ for you phule -
Once a phule always a phule.
Hows that..eh..eh…?
By the by hows the blog(media empire)going?
Haven’t seen your stats here for a while..eh..eh.
I’m fairly sure even Bomber gets more hits than you and well…have to say he’d be the top Green blogger cepting the offical propaganda site,wouldn’t you? eh eh
Must be hard..eh..all that work..eh..and old Bomber comes in by stealth…eh..eh.
Ahh well like I said -
Once a phule always a phule.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:51 am
little chicken..little chicken..
whoar.co.nz is not a blog….it is a locally based..locally and internationally focussed daily news-site/source/service…
(it is now 6.45 a.m…and there are 15 stories posted for today..)
so..therefor..i may comment on the ‘talkback’ models of blog…such as here..
but i don’t really consider myself a ‘blogger’..
more just an old fashioned ‘collecter of news’..
hope that clarifies that for you..
little feathered one…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
phule – I’m 6′4 and weigh 116kg – maybe little chicken doesn’t quite cover it.
hope that clarifies that for you..eh
So how much of your dpb will you be donating to the greens to help them pay back the money they stole from the taxpayer? all of it?…eh..eh
Ohhh…must be hard..eh
Pontificating like you do..eh..then…whoa…the party you support are a bunch of thieves too..eh..eh.
Quite hard I’d imagine..eh..eh
chickenlittle(honest hardworking taxpayer)
October 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
does the ‘little’ refer to something else..then..?…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 17th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Yup – The amount of time I’m gonna bother with you.
Bye.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I dont care which party over spent or by deduction who should be in power right now. But what I do know is that the past election was clearly illegal. What that means to me is that the only remedy is an election should be called without delay.
What worries me the most is the fact that the Labour Government has passed retrospective legislation to make itself legal! Now if I ever saw corruption this has to be it!
Incredible is that Winston Peters supported the government in getting this through, the Greens and Maori Party abstained. (As if that keeps their principles intact!) and only National and Act opposed it.
The only hope I have left that our system of govenment is still functional, is that the Governor General will exercise his right of refusal to ratify this retrospective legislation.
This is not a party political issue, the very integrity of our system is at stake here!
Here is the url of a petition to the Governor General. Already there are almost 45,000 signatures. Please go to the url to read and consider adding your signature. If you feel strongly about this, send the url to your friends. http://www.petitiononline.com/nzgg/petition.html
You may have to copy and paste the address into your browser’s address line.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I dont care which party over spent or by deduction who should be in power right now. But what I do know is that the past election was clearly illegal. What that means to me is that the only remedy is an election should be called without delay.
What worries me the most is the fact that the Labour Government has passed retrospective legislation to make itself legal! Now if I ever saw corruption this has to be it!
Incredible is that Winston Peters supported the government in getting this through, the Greens and Maori Party abstained. (As if that keeps their principles intact!) and only National and Act opposed it.
The only hope I have left that our system of govenment is still functional, is that the Governor General will exercise his right of refusal to ratify this retrospective legislation.
This is not a party political issue, the very integrity of our system is at stake here!
Here is the url of a petition to the Governor General. Already there are almost 45,000 signatures. Please go to the url to read and consider adding your signature. If you feel strongly about this, send the url to your friends. http://www.petitiononline.com/nzgg/petition.html
You may have to copy and paste the address into your browser’s address line.
October 28th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I dont care which party over spent or by deduction who should be in power right now. But what I do know is that the past election was clearly illegal. What that means to me is that the only remedy is an election should be called without delay.
What worries me the most is the fact that the Labour Government has passed retrospective legislation to make itself legal! Now if I ever saw corruption this has to be it!
Incredible is that Winston Peters supported the government in getting this through, the Greens and Maori Party abstained. (As if that keeps their principles intact!) and only National and Act opposed it.
The only hope I have left that our system of govenment is still functional, is that the Governor General will exercise his right of refusal to ratify this retrospective legislation.
This is not a party political issue, the very integrity of our system is at stake here!
Here is the url of a petition to the Governor General. Already there are almost 45,000 signatures. Please go to the url to read and consider adding your signature. If you feel strongly about this, send the url to your friends. http://www.petitiononline.com/nzgg/petition.html
You may have to copy and paste the address into your browser’s address line.