Labour’s assault on the taxpayer
October 30th, 2006 at 8:32 am by David FarrarRevelations that Labour are not $800,000 in debt but are in fact $1.4 million in debt, means that Labour will later this term try to change the law to force taxpayers to fund Labour and other parties.
They have already put in place a temporary law which allows them to fund their pledge card from their parliamentary budget (the law runs until end of 2007). However this is not enough for them, so their conference has voted for full taxpayer funding.
They also voted for “constraints” on third party advertising. This may turn out to be the most serious challenge to freedom of speech in recent times.
Related posts:
- Trotter admits taxpayer funding of parties needed so Labour can (ironically) pay back the taxpayer
- Labour’s taxpayer funded campaign
- Treating Labour like a taxpayer
- Greens employing eight taxpayer funded staff to collect petition signatures
October 30th, 2006 at 9:11 am
This is truly shocking. According to IP, they have the assets to pay all their debts – but rather than do that they want to force taxpayers to fund their spending.
The elctorate at large needs to come out clearly and say NO to Labour’s plans – so loudly that no other party would dare to support them in this.
Listen up Labour – the answer is NO. You cannot steal, legalise the stealing, then help yourself to more!!!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:13 am
This has nothing to do with the good of New Zealand or its people and everything to do with buying power..
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:25 am
I’m even more convinced now that these people are a threat to our democracy. They have crossed some Rubicon in their thinking that would restrain most decent New Zealanders.
It makes my referendum petition (http://thepetition.typepad.com/thepetition/2006/10/paper_petition.html) all the more timely. I’m going hard on this one.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:28 am
National and its supporters in the wider community should make clear that they will ignore any new laws that prevent third party campaigning or otherwise hinder free speech.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am
It used to be that the only people who could get involved in politics were men (not women) of means. George Washington was not paid for his political work. Now the president of the US gets $$$ and life annuity.
The same goes for political parties. It used to be that they had to fund themselves. Now, in democracies the world over, tax payer funded political parties are being considered. This is actually more democratic because it provides a supposed level playing field relatively free of monied third party interests.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:56 am
It’s an outrage to do this BEFORE the next election, and if it is based on previous party votes it advantages the incumbent.
In other words it is Labour saying:
- fuck any more new parties (Alliance, Green, Maori, ACT) they got no votes last time so no votes next time;
- fuck any parties that get more money donated voluntarily than Labour;
- fuck the voting public, you ungrateful sods will have to pay for us – we’re a victim of our success in being so popular and competent.
ALL of the small parties should oppose this, which should stop it happening. However, Peters and Dunne still have their noses in the troughs of this government like the little piggies they are.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Part of democracy if finding support for your policies. If you cannot find enough support to stand candidates and communicate your policy – then why the hell should people who don’t support you have to stump up with the cash?
I support the National party both financially and actively because I truly believe they have the best chance of making NZ a better place.
I respect other people’s right to support the party they believe will make NZ a better place be it Labour, NZFirst, United, Maori or even Progressive. If anyone wants to start a new party then they have to find like-minded people to support them, or fail.
The taxpayer should not be forced to pay towards supporting a party they are oppossed to – or even a party they support – through their taxes. It’s called freedom.
The same goes for free speech – Cullen says the EBs told lies about them in their pamphlets – this is blatant spin. They told the truth but he doesn’t want third parties having the right to speak their mind at election time. What rot.
The answer is NO to curtailing free speech.
The answer is NO to taxpayer funded political parties.
Go spend your time, HC and MC, on cutting taxes and getting people off welfare.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:30 am
We spoke out against our politiacal masters and got punitive damages in return. Thats how our wonderful government repays us – why did anyone think it would be otherwise. I hope this littile rogering the’ve given us will helt wake a few more people up.
We can all imagine what would happen if this was Austrailia or France. I think it would involve gridlock and hefty doses of smoke bombs and rotting manure.
But here a petition will do. Blair, how can we help?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:03 am
So–this is what tyranny smells like….
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Pretty rank isn’t it.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Poor National, worried you will not be able to use fake third parties to spend millions more than your electoral spending allowance?
What is the point of being the big business party if you cannot buy an election or two?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Kent Parker said: This is actually more democratic because it provides a supposed level playing field
Remind me again of how level the playing field is when the incumbent Govt can change laws to retain their grip on power?
There are a couple of key sources of power. By secured position, or by attributed commercial influence. The former is seen in politics, the latter in business. Labour is keen to legislate against anyone using financial clout to shine light (sunlight even?!?) on their corrupt clinging to power.
While is might be true to suggest that a level playing field isn’t best achieved when money can influence a democratic outcome, it’s also true that abuse of executive authority is similarly anti-democratic.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:21 am
I believe sonic has discovered that great Yiddish concept “chutzpah”.
Porcupine – First off I need $500 to file the question with the Clerk of the House, some of which I can stump up myself, but if others can pledge me some of that amount I would be most grateful (y’see sonic, on the right we don’t steal other people’s money, we ask nicely and hope).
But far more importantly, I need people signing up on my website http://www.thepetition.co.nz. The Clerk is going to take three months to approve the petition, and when he does, I want to have thousands of people I can just email a PDF to straight away. I want every office in the country to have a copy the minute he signs off on it.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:22 am
hey Sonic, great to see you back. Hope you were kept busy running the eft-POS machine at the back of the conference. And 1.4m?!? looks like you guys may need to double charge a few members’ credit cards
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Blair – perhaps put your Bank a/c number on the petition website. I’ll hapilly drop a few dollars in
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Kent Parker
“… it provides a supposed level playing field …”
What BS idea is it that there must be an artificially levelled playing field.
There can never be a level playing field and why would you want one umless you support every crackpot minority’s “right” to have a voice far larger than their numbers or support would otherwise allow?
This really makes my blood boil. Elections are all about who can gather sufficient support from the population at large to make decisions on behalf of that population. Anything else is an abomination and corruption of democracy.
Look around you folks at the corruption we have in Government and tell me with a straight face that MMP is “democracy in action” In reality it has encouraged the pursuit of power at any price – it is just that the population ends up paying the price.
Say NO to taxpayer funding of electioneering and of political parties in general.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Blair,
Agree with Andrew. Put a bank acct up & I’ll be one willing to contribute.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
If only Labour had shadowy religious cults kicking in a few dollars eh Andrew?
As it happens I’m against tax funded political parties and anonymous donations of over $1000. Get rid of those and both parties should start on a level playing field.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:48 am
What a joke. Labour accused National of being fiscally irresponsible in promising tax cuts – “there’s no money available”, “services would be cut”, “National would squander the surpluses”,
but it turns about that the real people who have been reckless with spending, running up deficits and owing money for their shallow conceited purposes is…. Labour.
Now, explain why we ought to believe that Labour should be trusted with another term when they can’t even be trusted to run their own affairs?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Excellent sonic! I trust you’ll sign my petition then! ;o)
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Taxpayer funding of elections will not be fair. Labour has (upuntil the next election) the vast resources of each of the ministerial resources at their complete disposal. So while on the face of it each party will have say $1m contributed by the taxpayer, the incumbant government has several millions additional funding by way of Ministerial vote – or is this issue goingto be addressed to ensure the playing field is completely level.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:52 am
OMG – it appears that the hedgehog has a view that can be almost acceptable to the VRWC. Bookmark this one for posterity.
BTW sonic, what is your “One big thing”?
Vote:see:
http://www.jimcollins.com/lab/hedgehog/
cheers
October 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Labours got so many shadowy cults you can see them growing out their arses. After all these precious people cemented power in a witch hunt.
And what a load of old 19th century wank “the big business” party. Oh yeah I forgot you people still think the users on this planet are fat bald big businessmen with smokestacks in the background. Open your eyes and see who the political aristocracy is in this country and you’ll see that labour is swimming in funds – after all its been “redistributed” to them from us hard working New Zealanders.
Crawl out into the sunshine for a little while and look at who own control the capital in this country and it sure as hell aint hard working NZers.
BTW minimum wage for rubbish collectors just went up $800K + $20K clothing allowance. At least they do a useful public service.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:59 am
If you add no to anonymous donations I’d be happy to Blair.
Porcy, thats right there is no such thing as big business, and rubbish collectors get “$800k” a year.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Andrew, Peter, I am going to set up a bank account for this soon, email me in the meantime – blairmul@woosh.co.nz
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
We have anonymous donations for the same reason we have anonymous votes sonic.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Of course sonic is back, its a week day during working hours for public servants.
More propaganda on our dime.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Sonic said: If only Labour had shadowy religious cults kicking in a few dollars eh Andrew
True true. Guess Labour doesn’t need that though as it has legions of union goons (funded by their members’ subs) drumming up support for Labour. Hmmmm, I wonder if the value of that efforts counts an ‘anonymous donations’
Glad we agree on not using taxpayer dollars to fund political parties. I’m right behind having the source of party donations well known. If ‘Bollocks Trust Inc’ donates money to ACT then we all have a right to know!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Even not being a labourite I believe it is fair that garbage collectors get paid more that pdf pushing parasites. I’m being honest – I really do – they do more for society. Come on give me the argument against – no one over on your precious labour fact free zone has been able to. Anf I’ll make that donation to help labour out of the cactus if you can justify it logically.
Not aimed directly at sonic who does seem to think a bit occasionally before they pontificate. Pity the overpaid noddy who wrote Helens speech couldnt have had some neurons up there.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Not the same thing at all Blair, you may have noticed that we all get the same number of votes, however a big businesss can donate millions to a political campaign.
As for Murray, mate you are getting totally paranoid now. I certainly wold be happy if anyone wants to pay me for blogging here, but so far no luck.
Most of my time is spent on my own site anyway, and it’s not even about NZ politics.
Mind you I suppose it is a comfort to Murray, every time he gets shown to be a fool he can at least fantasise that it is not because he is an idiot, oh no, it’s a vast, taxpayer funded conspiracy to make him look bad.
Still love you though Murray!
xx
S
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
“Blair – perhaps put your Bank a/c number on the petition website. I’ll hapilly drop a few dollars in’
count me in.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Blair – count me in also!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Sonic and others, I don’t know whether I can do this. I tried but I am failing. There is not a lot of big business in this country – successive governments have seen to that.
There are a few big business heavies that need to be reigned in and Labour has proven itself totally incapable of dealing to them (they know who they are and they aint Telecom or anyone else you lefties are thinking about).
But basically we are a sleepy little backwater, miles from anywhere, about the size of an average city that cannot get its affairs in order. Our solution is to cycle money through our great benevolent benefactor so fast that none of us get a look in edgewise, unless you are one of the parasites up their arses. Think, breath into a paper bag, you know this to be true. While they are dealing with our money they siphon a large amount of to use against us and create a political aristocracy because they do, genuinely and sincerely think they were born to rule. It’s a human trait, a proportion of the population actually believe this!
So there are large numbers of people making large amounts of money out of the system and guess what – they have cheque books too an, person oh person they give till it don’t hurt because there’s always more where that came from. Their not bald business types, they’re the people we watch on TV, let homicidal maniacs out on bail, sit on committees drinking chardonnay and don’t see when you go to the hospital because they’ve got doctors and nurses to do that work for them thank you very much.
So please, come on you guys, take the red tablet and unplug yourselves from the matrix (Kate I think you’d be happier taking the bloooo tablet and staying plugged in) and look around at whats going on.
BTW I got a bit of flack so I’d like to apologise to all those charities that do a marvellous job around the country. Of course I wasn’t talking about you. when I said political aristocracy/charitable trust axis those guys know exactly who I’m talking about.
To bring this debate back to wasting taxpayers money I’m still wondering if that animal homeopathy course runs to massaging porcupines?
porc
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Porcupine, sorry mate but if you think NZ does not have big businessmen who remain the dominent power in our economy I would suggest you are not looking at reality.
As for thinking they are “born to rule” I would suggest that attitude is far more common on the National party wing of politics. Look at how they still refuse to accept the Labour Government as legitimate.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
sonic
Seek professional help – please.
“Look at how they still refuse to accept the Labour Government as legitimate.”
That is because it is not legitimate, unless you count them as legitimate because they passed retrospective laws so that they could be legitimate.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Well we had the Business Round Table virtually running this country from 1984 to 1990 (anyone who doesn’t know this needs to read up on the history), and we very nearly had it again in 2005 – you may recall Dianne Forman’s no Brash no cash line. oh and Brash was a long time member of the business round table -which, incidentally Rodger Kerr (the chairman of NZBRT) had advised him to keep quite, and promised that he would also keep quite.
“In an email from BRT executive director Roger Kerr titled “Tool of the Business Roundtable” Kerr offered advice such as: “you’ve been handling the criticisms of your alleged ‘extreme’ right wing views very well” and “next there will be talk about ‘having views like the Business Roundtable’. Someone may even discover you were a member. I won’t be helping them – we’ve been lying low as you may have noticed”
After discussion with Foreman, Brash gave a speech to the National caucus in which he linked his victory with continued financial support for the party from big business: “As you and I both know, the Party is currently very short of money, with no obvious willingness on the part of those who could do so to write out big cheques… I believe that attracting that money would be substantially easier with me as leader.”
That prediction has been borne out by the size of National’s current election war chest. At the same time the other pro-business party, Act, has resorted to selling memorabilia online to fund its campaign: a far cry from the last election when Act outspent every other party.”
http://www.epmu.org.nz/SITE_Default/news/union_news/2005_08_31_Brash.asp
It strikes me as rather ironical that National supporters on this blog will insist that preventing the buying government is
undemocratic.
Andrew:
Yes, if you read the link provided in the heading you will see that union donations will also be curtailed
And DavidW shows his authoritarian streak once again with this little cracker:
“What BS idea is it that there must be an artificially levelled playing field.”
Sorry David but we left behind John Stewart Mill’s idea, that only the wealthy should have real power in politics, back in the 19th century. Maybe one day you can join us here in the 21st?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
It amazes me every time I hear people saying the National Party get’s it’s funding from “Big Business”.
Most of the coprorates that have done political donations in the past have given to both Labour and National.
But the vast majority of National’s funding comes from it’s membership.
Every electorate has to pay levies to the Region and every Region has to pay levies to HQ. This money comes mostly out of membership subs that are collected by unpaid volunteer branch chairmen drumming up support in their areas.
Every electorate organisation has to raise it’s own operating funds, and has to raise their own 20k warchest to fight the electorate campaign.
The rest of the money comes from raffles, stalls, fundraisers etc.
The notion that the National Party has some vast network of large $$ supporters who are unknown to anyone is completely absurd. National Party officials and stalwarts could only dream and fantasise about this.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Sorry to hit a nerve. I’m not for bad self interest big business any more than I am for lefties who “just want to destroy aging male power bases” (which never actually existed turkeys; and yes we know what you talk about in your policy thinktanks and it aint got anything to do with the good of the country)
So here’s one for labour that could equally apply to the other political parties:
I’ve been meaning to thank you for finally acknowledging that families could do with a bit of help just before the last election when you knew you were going to loose. [Now that my kids are too old to benefit from it of course]. Took you politicos 20 years to realise what was self evident to the rest of us. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind passing some RETROSPECTIVE legislation to give us some back pay eh? Thanks a lot! I see you guys are for the workers.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Battler:
Every electorate organisation has to raise it’s own operating funds, and has to raise their own 20k war chest to fight the electorate campaign.
The rest of the money comes from raffles, stalls, fundraisers etc.
So what you’re saying is that National party soccer mums bake millions of cakes, and siphon the $1.8 million in proceeds through trust funds. And that’s where National’s election funding for 2005 came from? Well done battler, you’ve got me there.
Actually, the only reason National didn’t fund its election through PS this time is because they didn’t need to. This time around they had Don who attracted big business dollars like a 100 tonne heap of dung attracts flies on a hot summers day. Conversely in the 2002 campaign poor we Willy couldn’t attract any NZBRT funding away from Mr Hide – So National plundered parliamentary services like everyone else.
Get used to it fellas, we’re finally getting a democracy that can’t be bought by big business, and this is something that any believer in democracy should be cheering.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Ironic really – they plunder the nation of any funds not nailed down, and call it a prudent taxation strategy.
Labour don’t have a friggin clue when it comes to keeping within a budget. Yet they want brainless Kiwi’s to vote for them as a responsible Govt! These twats are making it up as they go along!
No wonder they decided to double dip into the tax payers coffers, their cupboards were empty so why not help them selves to the pool of cash they’d plundered.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Cowbod Ronnie said: Get used to it fellas, we’re finally getting a democracy that can’t be bought by big business, and this is something that any believer in democracy should be cheering
You’re right to decry manipulation of democracy by way of financial muscle, although there are plenty of folks who will argue the toss about whether that has happed or not. I might reserve my cheering when we’re rid of a government who used their executive privilege to retain power. That was a manifestly undemocratic action. From my post above…
There are a couple of key sources of power. By secured position, or by attributed commercial influence. The former is seen in politics, the latter in business. Labour is keen to legislate against anyone using financial clout to shine light (sunlight even?!?) on their corrupt clinging to power. While is might be true to suggest that a level playing field isn’t best achieved when money can influence a democratic outcome, it’s also true that abuse of executive authority is similarly anti-democratic
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Cowboy
Continue with your Utopian dream and watch the country go down the gurgler in the process. By the time you wake up to the reality it may be too late and I for one wouldn’t want to risk it.
If they had an Olympic Event of jumping to conclusions, you would be a contender. Far from being Authoritarian, I was suggesting that the party that can garner most support should obtain the mandate without a mechanism that interferes with that. I for one don’t want a situation whereby policies of any kind become those of a Government just because they are a price that must be paid one vote that gives a minority government wielding power.
Unless you are telling me that you would be in favour of Government funding being provided on the basis of audited party membership figures as at a fixed date each year. I might be willing to conced that as a basis of fairness if funding was a given (which it is not). What I believe in absolutely is that there should be constraints on the role of Government in society. If you don’t then you had better not go to sleep in the saddle Cowboy Ronnie, you might wake up to some rather unpleasant experiences out on the range.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Cowboy Ronnie….
“Get used to it fellas, we’re finally getting a democracy that can’t be bought by big business…”
No, big business was out-bid by Labour using stolen tax payer money. Something some of think is wrong.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
“that the party that can garner most support should obtain the mandate without a mechanism that interferes with that”
If it is in the open fine. If National get a million dollars from the insurance industry as a result of their policies on ACC we should all know that before the election.
Or is openess and transparency all right for the unions but not for the Rich?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
OK, Cowboy or whatever, you’ve got the platform. You don’t want big business interfering in your farcical notion of democracy where you use public money to character assassinate your political enemies, I can understand that.
You think this cause is so important that you will cheat and use public money to hold on to political power. I get that bit.
You then implement this policy by taxing the only big financial base we have – hard working New Zealanders – to within an inch of their lives, so that they have nothing to prevent a corporate takeover and then get in bed with global big (snout in the trough) industries because that’s the only way you can keep the country afloat – that’s the bit I don’t get – you disenfranchise the very people who could help you.
So justify that to the workers of NZ.
Excuse me for asking sir, but I smell a politician.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
“You then implement this policy by taxing the only big financial base we have – hard working New Zealanders – to within an inch of their lives, so that they have nothing to prevent a corporate takeover and then get in bed with global big (snout in the trough) industries because that’s the only way you can keep the country afloat”
Any chance of getting that repeated in English?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
sonic
Vote:do you know something about the insurance industry that the rest of us don’t? That red herring went rotten and was disposed of months ago.
If all you have is innuendo and unsubstantiated scaremongering go somewhere else for your kicks.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Sonic wrote:
If it is in the open fine. If National get a million dollars from the insurance industry as a result of their policies on ACC we should all know that before the election.
Well, at least you’re admitting that any donation was *AS A RESULT OF* their policies; unlike herr Clark who smeared that the policy was as a result of a donation.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Why do you shag us middle NZers rotten when your target is big business baby?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Oops, hit a nerve it seems.
I was using a hypothetical example, due to our present laws we do not know who it was that donated millions of dollars to the National party at the last election, and therefore we can make no judgement if it was the insurance industry, the international arms trade or Afghan heroin dealers.
Yet many of the people here, who scream and moan about Labour ‘buying’ the election jump like the proverbial scalded kitty when you suggest an end to large anonymous donations?
What have National got to hide?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
“So what you’re saying is that National party soccer mums bake millions of cakes, and siphon the $1.8 million in proceeds through trust funds. And that’s where National’s election funding for 2005 came from? Well done battler, you’ve got me there.”
It’s called having built up over decades the largest membership and the broadest based political party in the country.
I don’t have official NZNP membership figures, but let’s say that each electorate (and there are 66 electorates) had say 300 financial members or close supporters/followers (and some elctorates probably have a lot more than this).
To raise $2 million over a three year election cycle would only require a $33.67 annual subscription from each member/supporter.
That’s before taking into account any election year warchest appeal, conference profits, raffles, cocktail meet the MP functions etc etc, and before even thinking about doing the rounds of business supporters.
It might come as a surprise Cowboy ronnie, but some organisations are actually able to support themselves based on their merits and gathering broad based support, rather than raiding the taxpayers kitty.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Battler, nice try but we all know that 92% of National’s spending last election came from those good old anonymous donors.
I ask again, what do they have to hide?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Sonic, can you please disclose which candidates/parties you have donated to? and the amounts?
After all, if you want others to, then should go first.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Fine, my personal total donations to any NZ political party-$0.00
I’ve already said however that only individual donations of more than $1000 need be disclosed, same as in most countries.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Has anyone else noted the ironoy of the fact that the Labour party, surrounded as they are by the stench of corruption, theft and dishonesty chose Rotorua of all places for a conference.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
sonic
just because money is channeled through a trust does not mean it all came from one source or even a few sources.
there could be many many reasons why people want to channel their money through a trust.
this government in particular is well known for the fact that it cut’s loose 3rd party suppliers/contractors as well as ‘independent’ board members of various departments and agencies who are not prepared to tow the Labour Government line.
With Government spending fast approaching 50% of GDP, small business owners could do themselves out of contracts if it becomes known that they are aiding Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition party instead of the Labour Party.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
So we have to have anonymous donations as the poor rich people are all worried about the wrath of Helen?
Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Government contracts are not given out at the whim of Helen Clark or the Labour party, there are procedures in place and you would hear the squeels of outrage from outer space if some company thought they had been denied a juicy contract because their MD supported National.
The only possible reason for the secrecy is that someone, somewhere has something they wish to conceal. The question is what and why.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
sonic
the real question is what does the Labour Party have to conceal?
Why is it that they are so afraid to take their manifesto and platform out to the public and ask for financial support?
Why is that instead of asking people to voluntarily support their party political organisation they have to force the money off the public through taxation to fund their non-government related political activities?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Not even a nice try Battler.
Why do you wish to keep the source of National’s funding secret from New Zealand’s voters?
After all we are not talking about a few dollars here or there, we are talking about 92% of National’s funding.
What have National got to hide?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Sonic,
Do you actually read comments fully before replying to them?
It’s not National hiding the donations, it’s the donors themselves choosing to channel the donations through a Trust.
Unlike Labour, most of the National Party’s supporters are productive members of society.
Sonic, something like 95% of businesses in NZ employ less than 6 staff.
Those businesses do something that welfare bludgers and unionists wouldn’t know about. It’s called having to tender for contracts and acutally do work to get paid.
This Labour Government is increasing the Government % of GDP spending by the minute. The Prime Minister who is in charge of the Government is also the Leader of the LABOUR Party.
Have you not noticed the vitriol that Helen spews out towards anyone who is a political opponent of hers?
If I was a small business owner with a contract to supply some government agency, or if I was a director or board member of some government board/authority/commission/department, in the current political climate I would probably not want it widely known that I was donating any sum of money to the National Party.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
God almighty sonic, even that horse has been flogged to death. If you can’t see that the Trusts were a convenient mechanism to consolidate large numbers of donations and to offer anonymity to those who wish to keep their political views to themselves (unlike most of us here) then you are one of the following: exceedingly stupid, out of touch with the commercial and legal realities of the world around you or being deliberately obstruse.
What would you suggest a party do with an anonymous donation from someone who just thinks that their policies are worth supporting – return it to sender?
It is really funny to watch the left wriggle about trying to find out things which are of no concern to them or else trying to deny everyone else the benefit of something that they are incapable of getting for themselves (except by illegal and devious means.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
“It’s not National hiding the donations, it’s the donors themselves …Unlike Labour, most of the National Party’s supporters are productive members of society.”
How do you know, they could be drug dealing terrorist pedophiles for all the NZ public is being told.
Indeed that raises another question, who checks on the source of the funds? who makes sure the money is not the proceeds of crimnal activity?
I think we should be told.
“Flogging a dead horse, from the people who are still going on about the pledge card? laughable.
I ask again, why do National supporters get upset when New Zealanders enquire about the source of their funding.
What are they trying to conceal?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Oh look it gets better
“It is really funny to watch the left wriggle about trying to find out things which are of no concern to them”
Where you picked up 2 million bucks in secret donations is ‘none of anyone’s business’
Hilarious!
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
listen carefully again sonic,
anonymous means anonymous.
Can’t tell what you don’t know.
capiche
The only thing that really upsets me is having to try and say something simply enough that even you can understand. and again and again and again.
You must actually be Trevor Mallard to be this thick
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Relax sonic, National are not in a position to pass retrospective legislation so all political donations from the last 17 years are sealed to never be inspected again. Labour did that, so the party you support is to blame for there being no ability to dig it out and look at it.
But you seem to think it’s OK to have secret tax payer funding, but not secret voluntary funding.. You are a funny man. Keep taking the lithium.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
OOOps sorry sonic it must be go home time for you. seeya
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
“How do you know, they could be drug dealing terrorist pedophiles for all the NZ public is being told.”
Like Dover Samuels you mean?
“Indeed that raises another question, who checks on the source of the funds? who makes sure the money is not the proceeds of crimnal activity?”
Ummmm, how about the Trust administrator in the lawyers office who has to keep bank account records for 7 years and be ready for an IRD audit at any time?
“Flogging a dead horse, from the people who are still going on about the pledge card? laughable.
I ask again, why do National supporters get upset when New Zealanders enquire about the source of their funding.”
I don’t get upset. It’s quite a straightforward matter. As has been outlined above, 1. Some people would be running businesses or be members of boards etc and not wish their political position to be known, and others simply consider their political views to be private.
I think the Left are the ones that get more upset than anyone else because they don’t have broad based support and they have to steal money from the taxpayer to fund their non-government political activities, and use millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money promoting “Working for Families” and “Interst Free Student Loans” which are almost as good as party political broadcasts for the Labour Party.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
must take sonic 15 minutes to pack his little lunchbox and get to the 5:00pm bus
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Andrew, you say:
“There are a couple of key sources of power. By secured position, or by attributed commercial influence. The former is seen in politics, the latter in business. Labour is keen to legislate against anyone using financial clout to shine light (sunlight even?!?) on their corrupt clinging to power.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but commercial power is relatively free of democracy. A Henry Ford or Bill Gates can do whatever they like (within the law) with their money and they can pass that power (the money part of it anyway) to their offspring (in the same manner as kings and queens of old).
Only in public government does the concept of democracy apply, in which leaders are voted in, have to be relatively transparent, have to reveal conflicts of interest, income, have to endure public scrutiny of their morals and misdeeds. None of that applies to a Henry Ford or Bill Gates.
Democratically voted public government in general exerts its power in quite a different realm to commercial organisations. While govt is able to curb the activites of commerce it deals largely in education, health, justice, power supply, transport and areas not considered suitable for commerce.
One would have to ask why a commerical interest would want to influence govt (eg the EB’s) and one would have to wonder just how ‘democratic’ it is to allow it to happen.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
“One would have to ask why a commerical interest would want to influence govt (eg the EB’s) and one would have to wonder just how ‘democratic’ it is to allow it to happen.”
OK, but I think a bigger question that that is;
One would have to ask why a Govt would want to influence the public against the EB’s and one would have to wonder just how ‘democratic’ it is to allow it to happen.
I can’t wait for the church (mainstream church that is the basis of Labour’s values and the cornerstone of Helen & Peter’s marriage) to critisise the Govt…. Imagine Labour attacking the Anglican church and calling them a weird and dangerous sect….
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
“listen carefully again sonic,
anonymous means anonymous.
Can’t tell what you don’t know. ”
Sonic gets it, what you’re saying is like a parent saying, “Just because” to a child asking a genuine question, it’s not a worthy answer. If McD’s, Microsoft, and BP oil anonymously fund 50% of Nationals budget, I want to know about it. It’s about transparency.
While I agree that labour has handled this issue appaulingly, the right, in the interest of milking it for all it’s worth, is ignoring the real issue. Labour will not get away with this again, HC is not stupid enough to think that by passing legislation she has absolved herself from the wrath of the public. In 10 years time, the changes to how parties are funded will be the issue that remains.
Taxpayer funded parties… is a stupid idea, unworkable. But allowing large anonymous donations is equally stupid. Otherwise you get idiots who are pushed through the system on their ability to suck up, you get GWB.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Kent,
The govornment exerts its infulence on commercial organisations. So it is natural for the same organisation to have the desire to influence the process by which the govornment is elected. It is a type of balance, and is democratic in nature. The greater the resource base that any entity or organisation controls, the greater the potential for any govornment to exercise influence over that entity. To take away the ability of an entity to lobby to protect its position upsets the balance.
To suggest that no organisation should have no influence on govornment especially when, in the case of business they fund a significant portion of the economy as a whole, and the mechanism of govornment in particular, beggars belief.
An election should be fought on the policies advocated by a party, not upon who funds the party (and thus influences what policies are advocated). Labour’s unwillingness/inability to do this sugests that they are bereft of any policy of their own.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Kent – my point is that the democratic process is necessarily dependent on voters and voters are always influenced. The key question is what types of influence are acceptable and what types are now.
We all know that direct bribes and threats are decidedly third-world and we must protect democracy from these. We also know that laying out clear policy objectives, addressing voter concerns and working hard to represent one’s constituency are highly admirable and underpin a good democracy.
The problem is what to do with everything in between – there’s quite a lot of width on that continuum. When does a policy offer become a bribe? When does a political donation suggest policy manipulation? What government actions represent an abuse of executive power in pursuit of re-election?
I’m all for checks and balances here. One of the more difficult (impossible?) balances to apply is limiting lobbying effort by non-Party entities because to do so would be to limit freedom of speech. And as we all know, limiting freedom of speech an early warning sign that democracy is being choked.
We can not and must not allow anything that limits the right of NZers to make known their views about the kind of country they want to live in. There is absolutely 100% certainly that such views will include sentiment for or against the governments performance.
My primary gripe is that the current government has demonstrated such disgraceful contempt for the public they are supposed to serve that they can not be trusted to give effect to any checks and balances.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
oops, “The key question is what types of influence are acceptable and what types are not.”
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I agree with both posts, Andrew and Peter S.
My suggestion was that direct financial influence is questionable (such as the EBs). Just what were they hoping the National Party would do if they got in power that would justify such expenditure.
There are many means apart from using money by which to influence politics and as the EBs have shown expenditure of money is often fruitless. By the same token the Labour party over spending is a storm in a teacup and the pledge card may have had nil effect (especially given that it has that termially dishonest picture of H1 on it). We don’t know for sure.
Huge political influence can be exerted at little cost through pressure groups such as The Sensible Sentencing trust, which is partially responsible for our increase in prison population. A politician’s stature can rise or fall over night as a result of what is printed about them in the media. In that respect money does not equal political influence. Money can p4oduce an effective organisation, but does not guarantee political power.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Kent said: Just what [EBs] were hoping the National Party would do…
The EBs – or more correctly the 5 men concerned who were also business owners, fathers and wearers of knit jerseys – were after was absolutely guaranteed if National were elected: To not have a Labour government.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Hey thats a good point from Kent about how money doesn’t always equate with political infuence. You’ve got to be saying what the public wants and Sensible Senencing Trust is sure doing that (92% of them at the last referendum).
BTW they have a target of 500K members by the next election so please join up.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
“My suggestion was that direct financial influence is questionable (such as the EBs). Just what were they hoping the National Party would do if they got in power that would justify such expenditure.”
Maybe they are worried about just what they know the Labour Party has been doing and will continue to do:
1. Increase taxes.
2. Zone schools to control which schools people have send their children to. Take crown control over Teacher Salaries so schools can set their own pay rates. Remove bulk funding so schools can’t make their own decisions. Favour only state run schools, even though parents who send their children to private schools are taxpayers and miss out on their fair share of the funding pie. Centrally control the curriculum instead of allowing charter schools to set their own.
3. Remove charitable status from charities that dare to critizise the government.
4. Push more and more mothers back into the workforce early and make them send their babies to factory style daycare through tax incentive system.
5. Destroy the strike capabilities of our air force.
6. Continue to hoard over 60,000 houses in crown control, and use our taxes to increase government ownership and control over the housing stock.
7. Legalize prostitution, pushing young girls into the sex trade.
and on and on
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Hey that’s a good point from Kent about how money doesn’t always equate with political influence. You’ve got to be saying what the public wants as well and Sensible Sentencing Trust is sure doing that (92% of them at the last referendum).
BTW they have a target of 500K members by the next election so please join up.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
“The govornment exerts its infulence on commercial organisations. So it is natural for the same organisation to have the desire to influence the process by which the govornment is elected”
The major difference , I would suggest, would be that the government cannot usually act anonymously.
Fine, business has a right to be heard, and since they own the media and have a number of influential organisations speaking on their behalf, finding out the views of big business is rarely a problem.
If National got 10%-20% of it’s funds via blind trusts then it would not be an issue. However 92% is a different matter.
I’d like to thank David, Blair and the numerous others have have managed to open up the vexed question of party funding. A good, thourough look at the whole issue may well be in order, and since we now now that the the “Trust administrator in the lawyers office who has to keep bank account records for 7 years” perhaps it may be tme to open the books?
Which is best do you think?
“What has National got to hide?”
or
“Open the books?”
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Sure, lets open the books …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNION CITY BLUES
The break-in, the emails, the political slush fund
The story of how a ‘meltdown’ in a major trade union has raised allegations of Labour Government interference, and massive election spending. IAN WISHART has the exclusive report
It was after dark when the key twisted in the lock at the Auckland headquarters of the Service and Food Workers Union, and three shadows flitted through the doorway. Grant Sutton could feel the tightening in his chest as the adrenalin punch kicked in and, for a moment, allowed himself a wry smile at the irony of it – the national president of a major trade union having to break in to his own headquarters to get information. At issue, although he didn’t realize the enormity of it at the time: nearly $240,000 of members’ funds allegedly siphoned off to help Labour win the last general election; and of course the reason he was actually there himself – a tip-off that a new Labour MP was trying to subvert the democratic processes of the SFWU by allegedly interfering in the election of new union officials.
Sutton, a salt of the earth kind of guy whose day job kept him grounded at Auckland International Airport, had been elected national president of the SFWU last November, head of a union covering some of New Zealand’s poorest-paid workers.
But his election coincided with a bout of political intrigue inside his union, the like of which is rarely seen in public.
At the centre of the spider’s web, newly-elected Labour MP Darien Fenton who – up until October last – had been both the National Secretary and Northern Regional Secretary of the SFWU, working both positions from her desk in the Auckland (continued…)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think a little opening of the books might be quite interesting
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Remember David when you trumpted the ‘donations for peerages ‘ issue in the UK. Of course the news then was about UK labour. Notice you have been quite now that your Tory mates have come under investigation for excatly the same thing ( yes the UK opposition leader can nominate people for peerages).
Vote:National has happily lapped all the extra funding from the taxpayer, even manipulating the system by ‘pooling’ all their money as leaders fund. When only a portion is meant for that purpose
October 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Oh, and on the subject of anonymity, if we must have anonymous donations then let’s go the whole hog: Voting booths with webcams, on-line real-time voting stats including gender, race, electorate, IRD income summarizations etc. Let’s get the whole thing out into the open. No point in allowing any privacy of political inclination before, during or after an election.
The anonymity issue is smokescreen bollocks from the aft deck of the Titanic. New deck chair layout anyone?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
“Fine, business has a right to be heard, and since they own the media ”
Who was it that owns TVNZ again?
Oh, which rich business person was it that just took over Radio New Zealand?
Who was it that had a $15 million budget to spend promoting “Working for Families” ?
Where did that money come from for those letters to sate house tenants in the run up to the election?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Another very good point. For arguments sake suppose we considered only government funded media and government funded social/economic resarch (with its inevitable pro labour bias) how much should the other parties get to balance up the books – $1B?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
sonic has had you guys hooked and wriggling all dammed day and not one of you can answer his simple question: where did that 92% of your secret funding come from, and what agenda did it purchase?
The fact is that none of you actually know do you? Not one of the right-wingers in here CAN actually answer that question, not one of you CAN give us a transparent assurance that it really was just lots of mums and dads generously pitching in their bona-fide donations, NOR would you know if the money came from a criminal enterprise, an extremist religious cult, or a major industry player wanting some favourable tax treatment in the next Budget….you just do not know.
Surely you are just a little uncomfortable with this …no?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Poor battler , still misses the ‘strike’ component of the airforce .
Korea – airforce not needed
malaysia emergency – borrowed planes from RAF
Vietnam – not needed
1st Guld war – not needed
Bosnia not needed
Timor not needed
Afghanistan not needed.
lets bring back the Tank Corps , The Coastal artillery, the Light horse regiments. Lets not change anything that has run out of its use by date even if it was 50 years ago.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
“sonic has had you guys hooked and wriggling all dammed day and not one of you can answer his simple question: where did that 92% of your secret funding come from, and what agenda did it purchase?”
I know where Labour’s funding came from – Me, through theft. And it purchased an agenda to tax me even more so that Labour can be state funded and not have to raise their own funds for their political activities.
As for the National Party funding, If you have allegations of ‘secret funding’ to ‘purchase an agenda’, I suggest you go to the police and lay corruption charges.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Sonic
I recall a DPF post claiming Labour had around 800K in anonymous donations in 2002.
WHAT HAVE LABOUR GOT TO HIDE?
Furthermore, the next time Cullen says either of the following:
1) National could not run the country because they cannot even manage GST, or
2) We cannot waste surpluses as we need some for a rainy day;
think of Labour overspending on their campaign by 600K and have a little chuckle.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
“and not one of you can answer his simple question: where did that 92% of your secret funding come from, and what agenda did it purchase?”"
100% of the funds channeled through Trusts that donated to the National Party came from people who oppose the direction this corrupt Labour government is taking New Zealand, and support the agenda manifested by the National Party in the election campaign, and layed out for all to see on the National Party website.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Thing is RedRag, where did 92% of Labour’s funding come from, and what agenda did it purchase?
The same logic applies for your favour political party too.
& also, you’d be kidding yourself if you think Labour don’t give favourable tax treatment – Fairfax anyone.
The fact is, people & organizations can donate money to any political party they want, that’s why there are spending caps. Labour not only broke the spending cap, but did it with mums & dad’s money. All you arguments are nullified by this horrendous crime. Quite simply Labour stole the election.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Can’t answer the question can you battler? At least you KNOW the source of Labour’s funding, and you KNOW what it was spent on…a pledge card that transparently committed Labour to a set of specific policies, and you got the all the information you needed to determine whether you wanted to vote for it or not.
Now where did National get their funding from again? You just don’t know do you?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
This Labour Government has also given special tax treatment to the screen production industry in order to create more photo op’s for Helen
Plus it is moving legislation to create unfavourable tax status for charitable organisations that dare to voice an opinion that doesn’t go along with the Central Committee.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
RedRag conveniently ignores my question, where did 92% of Labour’s funding come from, & what policies did it buy? I’m beating you don’t know.
Also, I can’t believe you’re trying to argue that stolen money is some how better than honest donations. Think you need a reality check mate.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Sonic can’t tell the difference between Economic power…which you get by creating wealth and serving others who reward you by giving you their money, and political power which is force and violates peoples rights by threats and fear.
Big business is powerless to do anything…unless helped by the only entity that can wield a gun on their behalf….big government! Restrict and downsize the the role of the State and no one can force anyone to do anything…
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
RedRag on the pledge card:
“and you got the all the information you needed to determine whether you wanted to vote for it or not.”
In 1999 the pledge card said it was paid for by Labour party supporters when it was not. This makes anything on the pledge cards not worth a tin of beans.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
“Can’t answer the question can you battler? At least you KNOW the source of Labour’s funding, and you KNOW what it was spent on…a pledge card that transparently committed Labour to a set of specific policies, and you got the all the information you needed to determine whether you wanted to vote for it or not.
Now where did National get their funding from again? You just don’t know do you?”
The question you are asking about the National Party’s funding would be akin to me asking you to name every NET Taxpayer who had money stolen off them by Heather Simpson to pay for Labours electioneering propoganda, and to name every member of a Union that donated money to Labour.
As for Labour’s pledge card, where on any of Labours pledge cards have been:
1. Disbanding the strike wing of our air force.
2. Committing New Zealand to a costly Kyoto Protocol that will cost taxpayers over $500,000,000 that the USA and Australia don’t agree to and that is based on disputed science.
3. Installing underfloor heating for prisoners.
4. Buying Gaming consols for prisoners.
5. Reducing the benefit stand down to 2 weeks.
6. Removing the charitable tax status to organisations that dare to speak out against the Labour Government.
7. Making Winston Peters Minister of Foreign Affairs, when before the election Winston said he wouldn’t accept the Baubles of Office.
8. Giving the greens taxpayer funding and a spokespersonship as though they had a cabinet minister, without actually giving them a cabinet post, in order to buy the greens abstaining votes and placate Peter Dunne who said he wouldn’t work the greens in cabinet.
9. Spending $500,000,000 plus of taxpayers money re-capitalising a failed airline.
10. Spending $200,000,000 of taxpayers money bailing out a rail system that was raped by fraudulent accounting of repairs as capital expenditure.
11. Allowing state house tenants to live in houses valued over a million dollars while there is a waiting list of 11,000
12. Increasing health spending but reducing the number of operations performed and culling the waiting list to hide it.
13. Violating the property rights of Telecom and devaluing New Zealanders share investments.
14. Dictating to schools what food they can and can’t sell in tuck shops.
and there are more things they have done that they didn’t ‘pledge’ to do, that people would have reconsidered their votes if they knew.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Still no answer, just evasions…where did the $1.8m of secret funding come from? All the rest is wriggling and squealing..
As for your question NX, do some elementary homework, the answer is here:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
I’m not at all comfortable with the aprox 33% total of anon donations that Labour picked up…but at least there is no one anon Labour donor much more than 5% of the total…but where the hell did that $1.2m from just ONE National party owned trust come from? That alone is 2/3rds of all the National donations.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Helen of Troy [Tory?] had a face that could launch 1000 ships.
Helen of Labour has a face that… that…. we’ll it’s not her face really
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Still no answer, just evasions…where did the $1.8m of secret funding come from? All the rest is wriggling and squealing..”
The only wriggling and squealing is Helen trying to wriggle out of a political tight spot and Heather squealing that it’s not her fault.
As for the $1.8m, it came from National Party members and supporters voluntarily giving their money to support National in campaigning to make the public aware of it’s policy platform.
How are you coming along with that list of Taxpayers and Union Members who have been funding the Labour Party?
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Also,
Why were these things missing from the pledge card:
1. Labour proposes to move legislation to validate years of theft.
2. Labour proposes to fund itself through taxpayer funding in future.
3. Labour proposes to put a Drunk Driver in charge of ACC.
4. Labour proposes to put a Bully Boy in charge of the Ministry of Social Development.
5. Labour proposes to put someone who took advantage of an underage girl for sex in charge of Maori Affairs.
6. Labour proposes to nominate a candidate for Mangere who makes appeals to the immigration Minister for applicants outside his electorate and in return for work at below minimum wage.
7. Labour proposes to put in a Minister of Conservation who over rules the environment court.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Wow.. look at all those anonymous donations. And the 1.2M came from the The Waitemata Trust. Who know where they got their income from, probably law abiding tax paying citizens of companies.
It’s nice seeing all those unions dig in to support Labour. Where did their money come from? I guess it came from a pile of union members, many of whom probably didn’t vote labour. That’s rich isn’t it?!? Have to belong, have to pay, have to listen to shameless promotion of labour from union goons using your money
Anonymous bollocks smokescreen. Labour have proved themselves disgraceful, dishonest and spiteful. NZ has had enough.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
>>Disbanding the strike wing of our air force.>Committing New Zealand to a costly Kyoto Protocol… > Installing underfloor heating for prisoners.>Buying Gaming consols for prisoners.>Reducing the benefit stand down to 2 weeks.>Removing the charitable tax status to organisations that dare to speak out against the Labour Government.>Giving the greens taxpayer funding and a spokespersonship as though they had a cabinet minister >>Spending $500,000,000 plus of taxpayers money re-capitalising a failed airline.>>Spending $200,000,000 of taxpayers money bailing out a rail system that was raped by fraudulent accounting of repairs as capital expenditure.>>Allowing state house tenants to live in houses valued over a million dollars while there is a waiting list of 11,000>>Increasing health spending but reducing the number of operations performed and culling the waiting list to hide it.>>Violating the property rights of Telecom and devaluing New Zealanders share investments.>Dictating to schools what food they can and can’t sell in tuck shops.<
There is no “obesity epidemic” in your world is there? I take it you haven’t ever seen the results of Diabetes Type II? And kids….well they should be allowed to do anything they damm well please eh?
Not a great score out of 100 battler….
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
oops, “…citizens or companies.” [blush]
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
>>As for the $1.8m, it came from National Party members and supporters voluntarily giving their money to support National in campaigning to make the public aware of it’s policy platform.<
How do YOU know that? You are just making an assertion that is completely unsupported, BECAUSE all it says is “Waitemata Trust”.
You have NO IDEA where the cash came from and yet you have just claimed that you do. There is spin, there is wriggle and evasion…but you buster have just been dinged in another flat-out lie.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
RedRag said: The EB’s are a bunch of noxious, grotesquely hypocritical petty tyrants
Mate, you’ve obviously been drinking the party vitriolic kool-aide from a yard glass. How about meeting a few EBs, sharing a meal and chatting with them like a half-decent human.
I think you’ll find that they are hardworking, honest and reliable citizens. They pay tax and don’t stress the justice system. Sure you won’t agree on a whole bunch of things, but you can be sure that none of them will stoop as low as you just have
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
“>>Disbanding the strike wing of our air force.
Still missing it eh? Such a shame we can’t be taking our vaunted place alongside NATO in Afghanistan eh?”
It’s called DEFENCE. It’s like INSURANCE.
“>>Committing New Zealand to a costly Kyoto Protocol…
You have so LOST that argument that…climate change denial is the new rabies.”
No. Climate change is a theory like “The Population Bomb”, “The Next Ice Age”, “Y2K” etc, and will be gently brushed under the carpet in a decade or two when the “greenies” find another cause to try and use to transfer wealth from democratic developed nations to communist dictatorship thirld world nations.
“>> Installing underfloor heating for prisoners.
In large building like a prison, it is cheaper to install, cheaper to run and immune to damage. Keeping prisoners housed in humane conditions also cuts their medical bills. Now we all know that you would probably prefer all prisoners to be chained in medieval dungeons like Mt Eden…but this IS the 21st century and we have moved on from public floggings, amputations and gouging out eyes you know.”
What’s wrong with a blanket and some slippers? It’s prison not a hotel.
“>>Buying Gaming consols for prisoners.
So fricken what. This is the END of the world?”
No, calm down. It’s prison, not daycare.
“>>Reducing the benefit stand down to 2 weeks.
And with unemployment at a record 3.6% low…again who cares?”
Shifting people on to the sickness benefit doesn’t fool everyone. And it wasn’t on the pledge card. So voters didn’t have all the information required to make their choice at election time.
:>>Removing the charitable tax status to organisations that dare to speak out against the Labour Government.
The EB’s are a bunch of noxious, grotesquely hypocritical petty tyrants who have exploited various tax and labour law dodges to make their senior leaders very rich men indeed. Still I can see why this works in your mind where wealth = worth.”
Like the LABOUR MP for Mangere?
“>>Giving the greens taxpayer funding and a spokespersonship as though they had a cabinet minister
Still hurting that HC can make MMP work and you guys haven’t figured it out after ..how many years is it now?”
Again, No. Simply pointing out that Helen is using my money to give Cabinet level funding to a political party that abstains to prop up Labour, in order to placate poodle Dunne who said he would never work with the greens in cabinet, and pointing out that Winston said one thing before an election and did the complete reverse afterwards, and Helen used this to cling to power.
“>>>Spending $500,000,000 plus of taxpayers money re-capitalising a failed airline.
An airline vital to the health of our single largest export industry ”
Again, No. Monopoly providers propped up by subsidy are generally not vital to the health of exporters.
“and one that was raped by a bunch of private honcho mates that the Nats flicked it off to. ”
It was a Labour government that sold Air NZ.
“>>>Spending $200,000,000 of taxpayers money bailing out a rail system that was raped by fraudulent accounting of repairs as capital expenditure.
Ditto above.”
It was a Labour Government that sold NZ Rail.
“>>>Allowing state house tenants to live in houses valued over a million dollars while there is a waiting list of 11,000
The houses are worth sod all …it it the value of the land that they are sitting on that has escalated under them. You should be pleased that your govt has invested so wisely.”
No. The Government hasn’t invested wisely. It has used the RMA to block development of Land for housing, and is keeping people tenants in their own country by hoarding 60,000 houses.
“>>>Increasing health spending but reducing the number of operations performed and culling the waiting list to hide it.
Flat out lie. The number of procedures and outcomes has INCREASED… but the demand has increased faster, and the costs of meeting that demand has increased faster still.”
Let’s see the figures.
“>>>Violating the property rights of Telecom and devaluing New Zealanders share investments.
Loose some did you? You bet on a share price backed by a transient monopoly position in the market and came unstuck? Tough…share prices are no more “property rights” than TAB tickets.”
No, I didn’t own any Telecom shares, but I defend the rights of other shareholders.
Shares represent paid up capital that has been invested in a business with the intention of doing something productive to produce a return.
You wouldn’t know about that, being of communist tendancy.
TAB tickets are pure gamble.
“>>Dictating to schools what food they can and can’t sell in tuck shops.
There is no “obesity epidemic” in your world is there? I take it you haven’t ever seen the results of Diabetes Type II? And kids….well they should be allowed to do anything they damm well please eh?”
No. I don’t need the government to use my money to dictate to me what I should eat.
“Not a great score out of 100 battler….”
Exactly – you’re sitting on zero right now, try harder next time.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
New TV add.
If you drink then drive your a bloody ACC Minister.
RedRag in his infinite wisdom and profound ability to reason said;
“Still no answer, just evasions…where did the $1.8m of secret funding come from? All the rest is wriggling and squealing.”
Well, yeah, just who was it. Ummm, it wasn’t me , they didn’t steal my contribution to the running of this country to win the election and they don’t have a history of corruption and fraud. I know this because I can be sure the money didn’t come from the Labour party. But please, explain what your point is RedRag, why is it so important who donated the money ? It was not illegal, and if it was Labour would have also fixed that since they had anon donations as well.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Now I’m really confused. So could I have a straight answer on this. If I, as a private citizen, wanted to campaign against some talliwhacker in my electorate and spent $100K doing it, could I get the other parties into trouble for spending too much on their campaigns?
TIA, Porc
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
“>>As for the $1.8m, it came from National Party members and supporters voluntarily giving their money to support National in campaigning to make the public aware of it’s policy platform.
How do YOU know that? You are just making an assertion that is completely unsupported, BECAUSE all it says is “Waitemata Trust”.
You have NO IDEA where the cash came from and yet you have just claimed that you do. There is spin, there is wriggle and evasion…but you buster have just been dinged in another flat-out lie.”
I do have an idea of where the cash came from because I know how the National Party operates.
The money chaneled through those means comes from National Party members and/or supporters who for a variety of reasons already outlined at length do not wish to attach their names directly to their contributions.
If you are making an allegation that the National Party is accepting funding in return for policies or votes on legislation, then you are suggesting political corruption, and I suggest you either make a formal complaint to the Police and any other relevant authority.
If you are not prepared to do that, then National Party members would be in a good position to commence Defamation proceedings against you.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Andrew…take OFF the very deep rose coloured specs. Read what your own Nick Smith has written about them. Read what ex-members who have had their lives and families shattered by the cruel practice of “banning”, and who still grieve decades latter, have said about them.
Whatever they choose to lawfully do in private is their own business….but they chose to step into the public arena is an exceedingly controversial and high profile manner during the 2005 election. In doing so their belief’s and behaviour’s are open to public scrutiny.
And consider also the long and sordid record of socially conservative, middle aged males, in positions of ecumenical power, who have been caught in gross abuses of that power…eg the Capil/Foley syndrome. The EB’s have it written all over them; sweet as pie to your face, and likely sick to the core in private. Still if you want to generously give them the benefit of the doubt…I can only call it brave of you.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Labour is demonstrably corrput. Period. RedRag et al can scratch and spit bile all they like (and they appear to have no other tools at their disposal) but nothing will change this fact.
Labour have plumbed new depths of ethical depravity.. and keep sinking lower. Smart labour supporters are finding life-jackets. The rest must prefer to chance the water.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
redRag – No rose-coloured specs. I know a few EB’s. Nice honest folks. Work hard. Pay taxes. Have some odd views. But then again so do model railway enthusiasts.
Your spite and hatred speaks for itself. Sorry mate… those words were yours and the judgement you passed was vitroloic, second-hand and – frankly – disgraceful
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I thought corporal punishment was illegal but labour whipped dem sorry kiwi asses good der boy, for daring to question their authority. Those kiwis wont be able to sit down till the next election. Lets see how many more “constraints” we get on our democracy before the next election. Buts lets also see how many kiwis remember their whipping!
bye bye labour…
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Regarding Strike force capability.
Our airforce planes were/are obsolete. The most effective replacement are the 8 NH90 choppers that have been ordered for 3-4 billion from somewhere in Europe for us to acquire over the next decade or so. National agreed 100% with this purchase.
The most sensible solution for the air force is to combine with Oz and base it over there, which is essentially what has happened, the NH90′s being similar to the Ozzies.
Helicopters are as effective as strike planes for many situations and are a whole lot more versatile.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1940451&C=airwar
You might find that most of the things that are criticised about this govt. have had a lot of thought put into them and have been enacted for good reason, whether or not you agree with it.
As for getting rid of the govt for getting rid of it’s sake, you have to replace it with something, and there is yet to be anything worth replacing it with (using the 2005 election as a guide). If National had come up to the mark, regardless of election expenditure on either side, then they would have become govt. National not getting in has little to do with election expenditure and a lot to do with how the respective parties (leaders) presented themselves in televised debates, and how candidates presented themselves to electorates etc etc.
Continuing to harp on about a stolen election 12 months after the event is simply sour grapes. There is nothing in the behaviour of either main party at this stage that would indicate a change in govt anytime soon, so you may as well re-fasten your seat belts and enjoy the rest of the ride.
However, come 2008, different story…
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Memo from: Phil Goff
Memo to: Labour Back bench MP’s
Subject: BBQ
Colleagues,
You are welcome to join me at my place for a BBQ.
As you know Heather and Helen are racing around trying to flog the memberships credit cards to repay the money they stole to promote their agenda of interest free student loans and the like.
Let’s let these two kitchen warmers take the media and public heat while we plan our next opposition strategy.
BYO Meat and Wine, I’ll do the salads.
Phil.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
“Continuing to harp on about a stolen election 12 months after the event is simply sour grapes. ”
It’s about honesty and integrity, and I will remind people of these things at any opportunity.
Labour is only governing with a one seat majority.
And this has been achieved through:
1. Using taxpayers money to fund their campaign.
2. Exceeding their spending limit.
3. Giving Winston Peters the Baubles of Office that he promised the electorate before the election he wouldn’t accept.
4. Peter Dunne propping a Labour/Greens arrangement that is akin to a Cabinet post in all but name, despite his statement prior to the election that he wouldn’t work with the Greens.
5. The vote in the house of an MP who has been involved in majorly unethical activity around immigration matters.
Looks pretty shaky and dishonest to me.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
>>The money chaneled through those means comes from National Party members and/or supporters who for a variety of reasons already outlined at length do not wish to attach their names directly to their contributions.>It’s called DEFENCE. It’s like INSURANCE.>No. Climate change is a theory like “The Population Bomb”, “The Next Ice Age”, “Y2K” etc, and will be gently brushed under the carpet in a decade or two when the “greenies” find another cause to try and use to transfer wealth from democratic developed nations to communist dictatorship thirld world nations.>>Shifting people on to the sickness benefit doesn’t fool everyone.>>It was a Labour government that sold Air NZ.http://www.treasury.govt.nz/assetsales/
>>>Shares represent paid up capital that has been invested in a business with the intention of doing something productive to produce a return.>>No. I don’t need the government to use my money to dictate to me what I should eat.<
You are welcome as an adult to eat, drink, smoke and poison yourself into total oblivion. Don’t worry there will be a public health system there to patch you up. In the meantime, give the kids a break.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
RedRag: 0
battler: 0
** Game Over **
(but i learned quite a bit about both of you this evening – thanks!)
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Andrew,
Grow up
>>I know a few EB’s. Nice honest folks. Work hard. Pay taxes. Have some odd views. <
Being a “nice honest” looking folk to your face is easy. Monsters almost never look like ugly monsters, they are usually found in the guise of ordinary-looking people, that when later on their real actions are exposed, everyone who knew them is shocked and surprised.
And of course the average rank and file EB member is most likely a “nice honest hard-working” person, but the senior leadership who wield almost absolute power over them are a different story altogether.
And yes those “odd views”….many of them reveal the kind of deep reality disconnect that IS classic cult behaviour. Predatory leaderships impose these irrational beliefs on their members, not because any of them make sense, but because once someone accepts one of these absurdities, it creates a barrier to questioning any other matter of doctrine, demands or impositions the leadership might choose to make. We are ALL tribal in our thinking to some degree, but there is a boundary between being sanely loyal to a cause, and having that loyalty overtly peverted into blind obedience.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
“>>The money chaneled through those means comes from National Party members and/or supporters who for a variety of reasons already outlined at length do not wish to attach their names directly to their contributions.
92% of National Party members are gutless wonders who are either too cowardly to put their name to their money? ”
Who said it is 92% of National Party members using the Trust system?
Is the Labour Party too cowardly and gutless to directly ask people to support it’s Party Political Organisation that it has to do it covertly through Unions and Theft from Taxpayers and then back date legislation to cover it up?
“Or too ashamed to publically identified as National Party supporters? That really has to be quite a sad situation for you.”
The sad situation is that Helen Clark and her followers are too unethical to treat people fairly who are supporters of other political parties yet are on boards or have Government contracts etc.
“>>It’s called DEFENCE. It’s like INSURANCE.
Oh dear. Defense against who? Tasmania? The simple fact was that a tiny strike airforce was never of ANY realisitic use against ANY credible military threat. ”
Ok, you can be the first up to defend us if anyone comes near.
We are surrounded by AIR and WATER. Instead of gearing our defences to the U.N.’s needs we should be gearing them to the protection of New Zealand.
“>>No. Climate change is a theory like “The Population Bomb”, “The Next Ice Age”, “Y2K” etc, and will be gently brushed under the carpet in a decade or two when the “greenies” find another cause to try and use to transfer wealth from democratic developed nations to communist dictatorship thirld world nations.
Again…you loose. But keep up the quaint flow of dated non-sequitors. But just for practice:
1 The Population Bomb is more or less with us now…”
No. The entire world’s population could fit inside the state of Texas with every family having enough space to raise their own food, and no humans in the rest of the world.
Switch off the dramatic TV imagery of highly populated cities that cover only 2% of the world’s area and take a look at reality.
“2. The “Next Ice Age” was only ever mooted by a small minority of qualified people.”
Just like “Climate Change/Global Warming”
“3. Y2K WAS a real problem for those industries who relied upon computers to process money. In fact computers only generally need to know the time when handling money. The banking, insurance industries as a REAL problem, tossed truckloads of cash at it…and fixed it. The media however made the mistake of believing a handful of uninformed people who extended the issue to real-time applications like power and water…when everyone involved in those industries always KNEW that Y2k would never affect them. But by then the media wasn’t in the mood to listen….”
Just like the media isn’t in the mood to listen to the fact that it is water vapour from the vast oceans that influences climate and the CO2 emmissions coming from 2% of the earth’s surface area are not going to make a blind bit of difference in the long run climate scene.
“>>>Shifting people on to the sickness benefit doesn’t fool everyone.
Tried getting a sickness benefit? It ain’t as easy as middle-class folklore would have it. And of course an aging population would have nothing to do with either in your mind I guess.”
I don’t come from a traditional middle class background. I originated in the working class. Age doesn’t have to = sick.
“>>>It was a Labour government that sold Air NZ.
That was the ACT Party in drag. Labour only in name. The policy was pure extremist right wing…so much so that subsequent National govts could barely stomach the pace.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/assetsales/“
It was a Labour Government.
And ACT have recently come out saying they would support Labour.
National are the only Party in Parliament who will NOT prop up Labour.
“>>>Shares represent paid up capital that has been invested in a business with the intention of doing something productive to produce a return.
Bollocks…share are ONLY worth what the market believes they are worth, not a single red cent more or less. If you think otherwise, try getting a bank to lend you money using shares in their OWN bank as collateral.”
And the reason the market believes they are worth something is because of a combination of their Asset Backing and future income potential in a viable business.
Not a lottery on the outcome of a horse race or a sports match.
“>>>No. I don’t need the government to use my money to dictate to me what I should eat.
You are welcome as an adult to eat, drink, smoke and poison yourself into total oblivion. Don’t worry there will be a public health system there to patch you up. In the meantime, give the kids a break.”
I don’t smoke. I eat healthy and I only drink moderatly never to the point of drunkeness.
You and the Government need to give kids a break and stop dictating their food to them.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
RedRag – Ah, so you’ve met some of these monsters?!? Excellent, because the ones I’ve met were strangely normal. I know some pretty normal politicians too, but have yet to meet their “senior leadership who wield almost absolute power”. They must be monsters as well eh?
I repeat my assertion that your spite and hatred speaks for itself. The judgement you passed was vitriolic, second-hand and – frankly – disgraceful.
The next time you get the opportunity to meet with and/or dialog with an EB (or any other minority) you will have a choice: To spit bile across the road and keep walking, or cross the road to learn first-hand if there is any merit in what you’ve been told. Based on this exchange I think I know which of those options you’ll choose.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
>>>Ok, you can be the first up to defend us if anyone comes near.>>No. The entire world’s population could fit inside the state of Texas with every family having enough space to raise their own food, and no humans in the rest of the world.>> The “Next Ice Age” was only ever mooted by a small minority of qualified people.” Just like “Climate Change/Global Warming”.
Again proven utterly WRONG at every turn. AGW is now as widely accepted as gravity and evolution.
>>>Just like the media isn’t in the mood to listen to the fact that it is water vapour from the vast oceans that influences climate and the CO2 emmissions coming from 2% of the earth’s surface area are not going to make a blind bit of difference in the long run climate scene.>>I don’t come from a traditional middle class background. I originated in the working class. Age doesn’t have to = sick.<
And sometimes it does. It is one thing to be pushing paper or keyboards at 65, quite another to be on a building site or beef chain. The fact is that medical science keeps many of us alive for many years longer than we might lived in our grandparents era…but not always in full possession our youthful fitness or facilities.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
RedRag. Since when has it been illegal to donate money to political parties? Fuckwit.
There is nothing more evil about the EB than there is with the Ratana Church, Mormons or any other minority religious group, not that I care for relgion.
Labour are thieving, corrupt liars supported by wacko’s like youself. You are welcome to each other.
Climate cahnge is a mere theory worthy of nothing more than mere interest on our part. Helen Clark makes the issue as sexy as she is herself. She does “see dead people” in her spare time.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Andrew
You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
They do not know what they speak about, they just repeat it. Their loyalty to such corruption also speaks for itself.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Andrew,
You are simply denying the obvious. It may surprise you what I know about the EB’s, but if I stated them as unsupported facts I would get moderated off the thread. These are things I have be aware of for more than a decade, long before their latest escapade. unfortunately I am not willing to reveal the facts as I know them to protect innocent third parties…and myself.
However I have made the gist of what I know clear enough. Simply go away and google on what is in the public domain. What remains hidden is far worse….
And battler,
If you think most kids are able to make sensible food choices for themselves, either you haven’t had children yourself…or you choose to remain unaware of how some “food” companies deliberately use sugar, salt and fats to create and maintain markets PURELY for their own profit. If the total damage these junk foods cause became apparent in a week or two, then there would be hesitation to instantly ban them as deadly poisons. But because they work their deadly harm over decades…we cheerfully pretend there is nothing going on here except the sacred profit principle.
Vote:October 30th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
>>>Climate cahnge is a mere theory worthy of nothing more than mere interest on our part.<
Same old failed denial technique used by creationsist to excuse their own willful ignorance. For how many years have they continued to describe evolution as “just a theory”…even long after modern genetics triumphantly declared Darwin to be completely vindicated?
He are the facts. The VAST majority of qualified researchers in the field support the reality of AGW. As you might fully expect in such a young science, there are still many areas of new research, new data, new insights and plenty of controversies. Just as there was during all the decades between the “Origon of the Species” and the final confirmation of evolution by geneticists just a matter of years ago.
The ONLY places where there is denial of AGW is in the non-science popular media where non peer-reviewed articles written by pseudo-science outfits, funded by oil companies who deliberately spread mis-leading uncertainties and doubts…and on right wing blog sites like this, where die-hard worshippers at capitalism’s monstrous altar will never admit that they were deceived.
And you think the EB’s have a few “odd beliefs”.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:50 am
Oh and just to put this silly arguement to rest:
>>>The money chaneled through those means comes from National Party members and/or supporters who for a variety of reasons already outlined at length do not wish to attach their names directly to their contributions.>>Which donations must be disclosed in a return?
Gifts to a registered political party in the forms of:
* money, or
* goods or services paid for by others (but not a donor’s own labour), or
* the total discount value on goods or services sold to a party at 90% or less of market value,
where the total value from an individual donor within the calendar year is more than $10,000 (including GST) and regardless of whether given as a single donation, two or more smaller donations, in a mix of forms, or through different party officials or sub-groups. Donations to an electorate candidate disclosed in the candidate’s election expense return are not included. s.214F. s.210.http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_disclosure_overview.html
1. There is NO requirement to report donations under $10k. There is NO requirement to “amalgamate” them in any manner. No need for privacy or secrecy, no need for a “trust”.
2. If someone wants to privately donate over $10k they can do exactly what every other party does…make it anonmynous. No need for privacy or secrecy, no need for a “trust”.
3. Even if none of the above applied, there is still no need to have SIX of the sodding things!!! All that would do is add costs and inefficiencies for no gain whatsoever.
There is no rational purpose for these trusts other than to hide massive single source donations.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:02 am
And to anticipate the obvious:
4. Any Party Official who signs these returns committs a serious offence if they knowingly assign a >$10k donation as “anomynous” when in fact they do know the source. But by laundering the donation through a trust fund, then the source becomes that trust, and the official can technically sign off on that fact…while personally remaining untainted by any incriminating knowledge of where the trust gained it’s funds from.
When looked at in this light the real purpose of these Trusts becomes apparent…they are an essential mechanism to protect senior Party Official’s from the threat of prosecution under the Electoral Act.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:44 am
redRag – “unsupported facts” are just that, and in a forum like this you should be brave enough to stand by your bigotry by declaring it based in opinion. either that or keep quiet.
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom, and over the course of last evenings discussion you have demonstrated to me plenty of evidence of one, and a profound lack of the the other.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:07 am
Andrew,
“Unsupported assertions” are a legion in this place, but at least I am being up-front that with the passing of years, and the nature of what I discovered, and the lack of permission I have from the actual people most affected…I cannot say more than I have implied.
But TVNZ seem to have a story with more legs than my one:
>>A woman who fled the Exclusive Brethren church says she is aware of multiple cases of child sex abuse, which were covered up by the religious sect.
Phillipa, who prefers not to give her family name, says the acts took place over several decades and the victims were mainly teenage boys.
She is now prepared to co-operate with any police investigation.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/848347<
Dated today. Good enough for you? Am I so lacking in wisdom now?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:40 am
Still no sign that National Party supporters care about where 92% of their money comes from.
Open the books!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:52 am
RedRag – we’re not going to agree on much. Is your vitriolic hatred justified by citing an obviously horrible case like this? As for your wisdom, let the readers decide.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Cowboy Ronnie: “Get used to it fellas, we’re finally getting a democracy that can’t be bought by big business, and this is something that any believer in democracy should be cheering.”
You’re right. We’re getting a democracy where the ruling junta buys itself back into power. Is this something we *should* be cheering for?
I am amazed though that you would defend the odious actions of the New Zealand Labour party by pointing your finger at somebody else.
Why not try to tackle the real and pressing problem of Labour thieving money from the tax-payer to fund their election campaign and then changing legislation to make this legal?
Are you not worried yet, son?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am
The “Ruling Junta”
Truly the shark has been jumped.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:26 am
Foxes being shot. Sharks being jumped. Next Sonic will be telling us that Lemmings have flown or Sloths have been taxidermied
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:35 am
Sorry if you do not understand modern speech Andrew, I’ll try and stick to little words that you can follow.
x
S
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:59 am
“Open the books!”
Let’s open the Treasury books and read of all the waste and theft inflicted on NZ by this rabid Far Left phoney-green urban chardonnay socialist elite government.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:19 am
See Sonic, that is what I consider to be mindless triviality. A bit like drooling in your Corn Flakes. You pick one phrase out of it and make that the focus of your incredible intellect …
And completely miss the bloody point.
Oh well.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:06 am
You’re right, redrag. If the Exclusive Bretheren covered-up sexual abuse, then they deserve to be ostracised, just like the Catholic Church. In fact, I fully expect Helen Clark to come out and smear the catholic church, calling them a “wacky-cult”.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:12 am
Spam – A hyena never attacks a whole strong herd. It picks off the small and supposedly weak to taunt, wear down and eventually devour. But occasionally they don’t get lucky. Occasionally the hyena becomes the victim.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
The point being, that this is a can of worms that National is desperate not to have opened Spitty?
Open the books.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
To: All Counter-Rightwing Blog Staff
From: Spin Central – Helengrad
Date 31-Oct-2006 09:00am
Subject: Daily Tactics
Our strategists believe that the public have a morbid fear of big business. To feed this fear, and to bolster our flagging public support, we have decided to start suggesting to the public at large that National is somehow accepting money in return for policy.
We want the nation to cry out for an ‘opening of the books’ on party political funding. God forbid that this should actually happen! Can you imagine the outcry if our Unions were forced to disclose to their members how their subs were spent. And we have a raft of anonymous donations that we never want exposed to public scrutiny — ever!
This said, beating the drums a bit might help divert attention from many of the real issues that those patsy right wing bloggers seem unwilling to let go.
Sonic will take the lead while the rest keep a measured distance. We don’t want our co-ordinated efforts exposed as such.
Our glorious leader has expressed personal interest in this activity… so get to it.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Oh dear Andrew, the vast conspiracy meme?
You really are scared of this issue it seems.
xxx
S
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Let me put it to you simply, Sonic. What we’ll do is use some substitutions for the current scenario, then you can tell me what your reaction would be.
The National Party misappropriates $800,000 of public funds to pay for what is deemed to be electioneering material.
When they are rapped over the knuckles for that, instead of taking their mistake with good grace – they rush a change onto the lawbooks to legitimise their act.
What would your reaction be in this case? I strongly suspect it would not be “But Labour did something similar in … blah”
Would it?
So how is this any different? If you cannot face criticism of something that is patently and transparently wrong, even if it is something that you love to bits, how can you expect to grow, or expect to be anything other than blind?
These actions by Labour is wrong, fundamentally wrong. No matter how good the party itself might be, or how noble some of their actions might be. This is wrong.
Blind support gets you … well. To the kind of place you are in now. You’re looking silly, to me at least.
Anyway, wear your blinkers if it makes you comfortable. Me, as a loyal ACT supporter, I’ll keep on questioning everything that all parties do, ACT included.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Spitty, don’t know if you have been keeping up but Labour is paying that money back. I’m happy they are and I’m pleased it is settled.
However since the whole vital subject of party funding has been raised why is it a problem to ask where does National get it’s funds from?
Why do you all get so hysterical whenever it gets mentioned?
Methinks the right does protest too much!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:44 pm
What makes you think it is settled sonic?
Knowingly and deliberately breaking the law is still morally and ethically wrong however you might want to spin it. Having the power to change the law to prevent it being challenged in the courts of the land does not make it right.
On anonymous donations. You show us the Labour Parties list of anonymous donors and I will support a request to show you the Nats.
BTW the only single significant donation that is known about at the last election went to Labour. Please advise the policies that were bought with that one. Has it encouraged the Government to push harder on a FTA with China to Mr Owen’s advantage (and in the process caused a more lucrative FTA with USA to be jeopardised or put on the back burner)? Gee, without that Labour would have been $1.9 mill down the tubes.
Also a bit rich for you sonic to be concerned about donations when you claim to make none. You obviously have no political commitment and therefore your opinions are worthless. Especially when you were at the screaming forefront of claiming the EB’s had no right to be politically involved when they don’t vote.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Sonic said: Anyway while we are on the subject of taxation, does anyone know if donations to “trusts” are tax deductible?
No idea but, I’m sure a tax specialist could offer advice on this. The wording of your question suggests an assumption that everything should be taxed, and therefore anything that does not generate income for the state business is somehow subsidised by it. Facinating.
You appear to only have one type of bullet today Sonic. You’ve fired it so many times that it’s well worn out. Get a new one.
As for anyone attempting to change the subject, I’d venture that we have learned from the master – you!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Apologies folks – my post above was destined for another thread. Please ignore.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Pay for your own tax advice sonic.
If you don’t know the answer to that one you have just most of what limited credibility you might have.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Last post should have been:
Pay for your own tax advice sonic.
If you don’t know the answer to that one you have just lost most of what limited credibility you might have had.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Sonic,
It is not settled. Labour broke the rules, and got caught. Paying the money back does not regate the breach of the rules. It is a patently silly as the ridiculous posturing of the NZ Rugby League Boss. The rules were broken, Grand parent does not mean Great Grand Parent. Pledge Card is electioneering. Full stop. Points deducted. Get over it.
Except Labour is changing the rules after the game is played. Not acceptable.
The only one that protesteth too much is you and yours. This pathetic smoke screen of “funding transparency” is exactly that, a smoke screen, to try to divert attention away from the real issues.
The use of trusts is legal. Full stop. Get over it. If someone wants to fund a political party, and not be subject to the types of rabid and vitriolic personal attacks that Labour specialise in, then that is their right, enshrined in law. Get over that too. Each party is judged on their election promises, and either benefits or pays at election time. That is what we have elections for. The anonymity gives the same protection and for the same reasons the anonymous vote is there for. Are you advocating publicising of voting too?
If you must know where a party gets its money from for your vote, fine, vote for one that publishes all its finances. For most people it is a non issue. It is only an issue for those who try to make it one. Sonic’s own “peak oil” platform.
Given the choice of concentrating on the issue of a party that steals tax payer money & then legislates its self out of trouble, showing total moral bankrupcy, and one that gets money from legal methods, but which chooses to not publiscise the source, most people would rather legislation be passed to stop the illegal rather than the legal.
If you can show me that the Left has cleaned up the cess pool that is their method of funding, and persuade Helen & Co. to make a public admission of guilt, along with an apology & a promise of rule following and legislate a method of transparency whereby the public can check on this, and hold them to account, then, and only then will you have legitimate basis for moralising on National & ACT’s fund raising.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“The use of trusts is legal. Full stop. Get over it.”
This is politics not law.
What is National trying to hide?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Who do you vote for Sonic?
What is your real name?
What agenda are YOU trying to hide?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Sonic said: This is politics not law.
How true. Only the most powerful politicians appear to be above the law. The rest including you, me, other individuals, EBs, companies, trusts, societies and my grandmothers’ bridge club are subject to it. Once we can have the law-evading politicians re-join the rest of us the concept of common law will once again be a reality.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Revelations that Labour are not $800,000 in debt but are in fact $1.4 million in debt, means that Labour will later this term try to change the law to force taxpayers to fund Labour and other parties.
Here’s a thought. How can the average kiwi be expected to save money when the Labour party can’t even balance its’ books. And to top if off, when you manage to put a few bucks in the bank, they tax the interest. And I don’t dare start on the triple tax we pay for petrol. Is Labour going to pay interest on the $ they owe, or more simply, are they even going to pay it back?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Revelations that Labour are not $800,000 in debt but are in fact $1.4 million in debt, means that Labour will later this term try to change the law to force taxpayers to fund Labour and other parties.
Here’s a thought. How can the average kiwi be expected to save money when the Labour party can’t even balance its’ books. And to top if off, when you manage to put a few bucks in the bank, they tax the interest. And I don’t dare start on the triple tax we pay for petrol. Is Labour going to pay interest on the $ they owe, or more simply, are they even going to pay it back?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Regardless of all the crap that has been said, Labour BROKE THE LAW with its overspending. The left can justify it all they like by denigrating the EB, but we all know it’s a smokescreen. Now they want state funding of elections.Next they will say that elections cost too much and just stay there. Remind you of anything?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:27 pm
That’s why they’ve been running down defence force personnel numbers.
Once they bed in state funding and no elections, even a military led coup will be out of the question.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:53 pm
This news is very distirbing. State funding of political parties should be opposed in the most strongest way possible. it is an assualt on fair elections as the government controls the fun ding so cangive itself more money than the opposition (Liar-bour will seize this oppportunity straight away, their record shows their love of corrupt government). The third party restrictions represent an assualt on freedom of speech. Helen clark would be honest is she were to burn a copy of Bill of Rights.
Vote: