The great scam
It is looking hopeful that Labour’s plan for taxpayer funding of political parties is dead for now, but as sure as the sun rises in the East, they will try again.
Now they tried to do a nice little snow job this time. They tried to tie in the unpopular policy of taxpayer funding with the popular clampdown on anonymous and trust donations. They claimed that the reduction in funding from such a clampdown would make taxpayer funding essential.
Sadly so many people took this assertion as fact. But it is a myth. In the tables below, I examine how much funding the various parties would have gained since MMP came in, under Labour’s proposed taxpayer funding formula.
Then I look at how many anonymous and trust donations there have been since 1996, and hence calculate the potential net loss or gain for each party.
This is how much each party would have received since the 1996 election, based on Labour’s proposal of an annual $2 a vote up to 20% of the vote and $1 per vote from 20% to 30%.
Note that nice Graham Capill and his party would have received over $1 million by now. Brian Tamaki would have $85,000 for new bishop’s robes, the Legalise Cannabis Party $450,000 for a series of bloody good parties and oh yes Labour would have raked in $12.5 million.
But how much money would each party have lost from tightened rules on anonymous and trust donations?
Now this is a conservative analysis in that it assumes every single dollar of anonymous and trust donations would disappear. In reality many would probably still occur, and just be disclosed. To counter that we do not yet know donation levels for post 2005.
So what does this tell us? That if we apply this proposed taxpayer funding policy retrospectively, then taxpayers would have been forced to contribute $40.5 million to political parties, just to make up for $6.0 million of foregone private donations.
This was an attempted great swindle. Labour would have gained (over four elections) $12.5 million to replace $1.8 million of lost donations. Think of all the pledge cards they could fund with that!
People may want to reflect on the selfishness of National and NZ First (and ACT and maybe United Future) in rejecting taxpayer funding even though they would have benefited massively also.
The losers would be the rank and file party members who would no longer be needed by a political party to remain viable. Plus the taxpayer who would have forked out $40.5 million against their will.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:13 am
You haven’t taken into account the reduction in the disclosure threshold from $10,000 to $5,000 (which would be impossible to do without hacking their accounts, I’m sure).
If every donation the Labour Party receives is either anonymised or $10,000 then they’d potentially lose a lot more than just their anonymous donations – everyone who donates to the maximum non-disclosable might donate $5000 less…
The number they’ve come up with is still a massive rort, of course – they might try to pretend it’s the Australian scheme, but the Australian scheme of $2 per vote results in the taxpayer picking up about 20% of the cost of a party campaign – with the broadcast allocation the taxpayer already covers 30% of a New Zealand campaign!
And with Labour’s scheme (with the big two getting $1.14m each year – or $3.42m over an electoral cycle) they’re actually asking the taxpayer to cough up 140% of the cost of an election campaign ($2.4m at the next election).
April 16th, 2007 at 8:13 am
David,
Interesting analysis, however I don’t believe that Labour ever made the claim that anonymous donations had been rife in the past. Instead it was an issue that they had singled out as important in 2005 and potentially more important in coming elections. Look at National’s anonymous donations. If the stats above are correct, we know that between one half and two thirds of their anonymous donations ($1.7 million) were generated for the 2005 election, indicating that such a practice is increasing.
Whatever happens, I hope the parties settle on a way of acheiving full and meaningful disclosure.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Yes Charlie Tan we would hate to see the opportunity of “unholy alliances ” .
Meaningful disclosure or closure ?
April 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Graeme – as you say impossible to know what effect that has. But it may be fairly minor as unless one donates $30,000 over three years you can avoid disclosure still by donating a bit each year. Plus I suspect many would still donate at their normal level and just be named.
Worst case for Labour is probably around what National loses which is a small fraction of what they gain.
You correctly note the funding is not just for an election campaign – it is full funding of the entire activities of a party, and the money does not have to be used on a campaign. It could be used to hire a fundraiser to maximise donations from corporates
In theory the above is not a case against state funding pre se- it is a case against Labour’s incredibly greedy proposal.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Charlie,
Yet more lies from the left.
Labour’s problem with 2005 is that National received far more money than Labour did, for no reason other than that many more people were committed to supporting National’s cause than Labour. Labour is also pissed off that it can’t raise the $800,000 it owes the taxpayer, and is severely damaged for the next campaign.
Pay back the fucking money your party stole at the last election. Then perhaps the public will see you have a degree of integrity when talking about election funding.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:41 am
“Labour’s problem with 2005 is that National received far more money than Labour did, for no reason other than that many more people were committed to supporting National’s cause than Labour.”
By these many more, do you mean the six people that donated around 30 percent of the campaign funds?
“Pay back the fucking money your party stole at the last election.”
Labour is.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Silly me, it was six “sources”, wasn’t it.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Ms Tan – When can the public expect Labour to pay back the money they stole from the tax -payer , as $800,000 is such a large amount !!
April 16th, 2007 at 8:47 am
“Labour is”. Well when exactly?
Also how do you know those Trusts comprise only one person and not a group of like minded Labour haters? (there are a few)
April 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
‘Also how do you know those Trusts comprise only one person and not a group of like minded Labour haters? (there are a few)’
CC – Come on!, Unless it is a mysterious few ’super rich’ backers trying to get hold of the democratic process Charlies whole ideology and,in fact reason for being, is shot to shit.
So it must be true.
You see?
April 16th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Charlie,
You have again shown your ignorance with your claim that National received 30% of its income from six sources. Do you actually know what National’s income is?
National has over 25,000 members. Five times more than Labour at the last election, and Labour has lost fairly significant numbers of members since last election.
Now, Labour has an opportunity to increase its membership, and its funding base: all it has to do is listen to what its membership wants, start allowing greater input from membership, not allow the unions to dictate Labour Party policy, and come up with fresh ideas to grow the party base. A far more honest thing to do than come up with bullshit excuses to raid the taxpayer of yet more public money.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ms Tan -sorry didn’t quite catch the date the stolen money is to be paid back ?
Can you endeavour to engage in rational debate rather than diabolical rhetoric as theft is a crime !
April 16th, 2007 at 9:27 am
David, difficult to analyse those figures properly without a) a Source and B) a definition of “anonymous and trust donations”
Can you clarify?
Thanks
S
April 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
forty million dollars since 1996? At four million a year, that seems cheap for better democracy.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Not to threadjack but why hasnt Burton been beat to death over the following statement?
“I ask the National Party: what have they got to fear from a fair, open and transparent electoral system?”
In context of trying to jack up a rort from behind closed doors which is not exactly fair,open or transparent is Burton the most stupid serving MP or am I missing something?
The whole thing smacks of nothing to see here move on people or are we meant to get caught up playing spot the conspiracy theory?
GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY YOU B@STARDS
ps DPF can you block Sonics IP address and sell his details to Nigerian Scammers?
April 16th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Toms – it would be if it did lead to better democracy. The whole point is that it doesn’t – it leads to political parties becoming separated from their grass roots, to free speech being stifled, to people relying on the media for their information, and to Labour being advantaged through special deals via the unions. I guess some might see that as better democracy.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Poor old sonic, desperately trying to turn back the tsunami.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Sorry to ask a question guys, interesting that Adolf and Neil get so upset when people request clarification.
Facts now part of the vast left-wing conspiracy?
April 16th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Sonic – it all comes from Elections NZ. The amount they would have got was calculated by me applying Labour’s formula to the official election results recorded by the Chief Electoral Officer.
The donation figures come from the official returns to the Electoral Commission, and surprise/surprise include any donation that was marked anonymous or as being from a trust. I have been liberal in my interpretation and included donations made through law firms also.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
[comments deleted by DPF as unnecessarily offensive]
April 16th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Thanks David, I’ll have a proper look later.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Neil, I would block d4j before I blocked Sonic.
Sonic annoys me with his inability to listen, his dogmatic ignorance all the facts, and his posting of Labour spin. Unfortunately, being in favour of free speech I have to support his right to waste my time.
D4J I often agree with, but his posts are usually gratuitously offensive, and have no discernible logic in them other than that he doesn’t like something. I reckon many of his posts are outside DPFs posting policy, and from a personal viewpoint would rather not having some of his posts around so all the lefties can point to him and ask if my views align with his – kind of like having the EBs support you in an election campaign really.
But hey, I have nothing against a bit of sonic bashing, so I am all in favour of selling his details to the Nigerians.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Damn. Make that “his dogmatic ignoring of all the facts”. Preview is my friend….
April 16th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hi Paul L “But hey, I have nothing against a bit of sonic bashing, so I am all in favour of selling his details to the Nigerians.”
They aleady have it mate .
April 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Sonic, although I was being flippant I felt DPF’s post was about what I’d expect to see even for allowing for a bit of right spin (no offence DPF but righties spin to the right, and lefties to the left…)
Short of getting off my bum and doing the research myself an have no reason to doubt the figures as presented.
I would be interested to see the same research presented from an opposing view point.
At the end of the day the Labour party were told not to do something, did it anyway and what we have now is an undignified scramble as they attempt to extract themselves from a tricky situation.
IP, National on the surface may have more registered members than Labour but I think if you’re in a union why would you join Labour again?
April 16th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi Neil, I was not trying to cast doubt on the post, just looking for clarification on the source.
Usual procedure where I come from, I know that a glimpse of my nickname makes some people start frothing at the mouth, however for the life of me I cannot see what is wrong for asking for clarification.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Whilst it would seem the Socialists have given up on the great taxpayer con those of us who believe in democracy must remain ever vigilant. We must now insist on full disclosure and transperancey so we can determine the cost to the taxpayer of large donations.Dont be fooled Those who pay the piper call the tune.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
They only have 49 votes. National has 48. If John Key cannot stop this rort in its tracks he does not deserve to be the Leader of the opposition.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:44 am
gd
‘Those who pay the piper call the tune’
This is nearly always half-quoted.
As a bagpipe player of 35 years I can inform you that it is:
‘Those who pay the piper call the tune. Give him a penny to play or a shilling to go away.’
April 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
and of course national will take the moral/political high ground..
will campaign vigourously against this hand-out plan..
(they’ve been very quiet ’till now..eh..?.
they must be running a sorta ‘muted’-anti-funding-campaign…)
and of course..in keeping with their high moral stance on this..
national won’t accept this ‘tainted money/funding..eh..?
(..look..!…over there..!….
a herd of flying pigs..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
phil,
At present National does not even have to mount a campaign, public opinion is doing all the running for them.
The last time I experienced anything like the level of public discontent I see at the moment was back in late 1979/early 1980 in the UK.
It became known as the winter of discontent, and we look to be shaping up for something like that here.
I’m sure I don’t need to tell you what came after that winter.
Labour are acting really strangely. At the moment they put up an idea, not directly as policy, but as a sort of testing the waters press release.
It then gets blown out of the water by public opinion.
S59, the mortgage surcharge, public funding for political parties.
National is not having to do anything at all, except stay out of trouble. Labour are busy running round throwing up silly legislation, annoying the electorate and achieving nothing, appart from looking sinister and devious, but also weak, vaccilating. And that is REALLY not a good look.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Phoool -talk about flying pigs -didn’t the silly green’s spokesperson say that it was a “tainted process”??
April 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
You can all stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. Looks as though Labour has given up on it. The Maoris told them to bugger off.
Bit of a bugger , eh sonic? Where will they get the money now to pay back the $860k and fund their next load of election lies?
There’s only one thing for it. They’ll have to rig Lotto.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Interesting, isn’t it, that for three of those elections the two leading parties would have been either within cooee of one another (1996) or equal in terms of public funding (1999 and 2005).
What a fair system! No wonder 75 percent of the world’s democracies have instituted something similar.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Well Adolf, since I’ve always said I’m against state-funding of political parties you can just imagine how devestated I am that, er, it is not going to happen.
You really do have a disfunctional relationship with the facts don’t you old chap?
April 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
oh !..is that what national is doing..?
interesting tactics for an oppposition party..eh..?
say nothing…
and keep your (ineptly performing in that forum) leader out of parliament..
what is it…?
up to twelve questions now/yet..?..is he..?
or is it just a matter of keeping the mouth shut…?
and the hand out..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Phil,
I guess that, since Labour seem so intent on engineering their own destruction, the safest and wisest option is sometimes to just let them do it.
A ruthless person might try to intervene and kill them off now. Though that carries with it the danger of some injury.
A really ruthless person, who is also patient, will wait until the self inflicted damage is done, and then move in to finish the job thoroughly.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
It’s just a matter of watching Labour keep their mouth open, and foot firmly within. Do you really think Key needs to help them?
April 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Zen,
I think a lot of people are shaking their heads at the moment, as if they have just woken up, and asking themselves if Labour have suddenly turned into a bunch of incompetent nut jobs, or if they have been like that all the time, and no-one noticed.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
thanks swiftman for filling in the missing piece. However I very much doubt the donors pay for the parties to go away. Rather its to do their bidding. And if the donors are doing so out of the goodness of their heart and with no malice aforethought then there wont be a problem with full and frank disclosure.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Charlie Tan
Your support for Labour’s plan has been rebutted by me and others before-each time with no substantive response so here we go for the third time. Democracies that impliment tax payer funding of political parties do so in a bi-partisan manner (eg the US’s McCain Feingold). The convention for decades in NZ has been multi-party support (including Nat and Lab) or truly independent commissions of inquiry (eg the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform)- that Commission ultimately led to not 1 but 2 referenda on the subject of implimenting PR. Other contentious issues have become the subject of either snap elections or the issue is deferred and put to the people at the next General Election. Labour proposed NONE of these conventions preferring to secretly craft some slender majority ignoring the major opposition party and pass legislation that would blatantly screw the scrum in their favour (eg the Union exemption). It is no wonder their plans are foundering on the rocks of public approbrium.
D4J
I have to echo the sentiment of others on this blog who often will take a similar view to yours concerning the issues of the day but cringe at the gratuitous insults you hurl at those on the left. One of the things that separates posters on the right side of the blogosphere in the US from posters on the left is the near absence of these types of ad hominem attacks and foul language. By indulging in both you do your cause a disservice. I sympathise with the fact that you have been treated harshly by the sisterhood and their minions but if argue your case with facts, logic and reason and I feel you will garner more respect.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“One of the things that separates posters on the right side of the blogosphere in the US from posters on the left is the near absence of these types of ad hominem attacks and foul language”
Er is that some other right side of blogland which none of the rest of us has access too?
April 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Sonic
I am referring to the US and I am comparing mainstream blog sites on each side not the far left or far right nutters. When you examine how people from the right argue on sites like Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Captains Quarters, Hugh Hewitt and Red State you do not see nearly the same level of foul language, profanity, really nasty personal attacks as you see from posters arguing from the left on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MyDD, Glen Greenwald etc. I cant speak for NZ as I do not frequent enough of either side to form an opinion
April 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Jesus sonic, just like your puppet masters you just have no clue on when to keep the lips closed. KIA has just made some comment , trying to help lift the general demeanor of the comments here, and you just cold not help yourself. When you get a bit older you will learn tat sometimes it is just a little smarter to say nothing.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
And I should get some spelling lessons (my excuse is this is my third language)
April 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I’ve stopped trying to read Phil Whore.
I can’t understand what the f#c! he’s going on about and it hurts my eyes.
Really.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Kiwi in America, no offence but if you think LGF et al have no “really nasty personal attacks” you must be reading a different web from the rest of us.
Still this is off topic as vanzylnz points out, so who exactly my “puppet masters” are will have to wait for another day.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
kiwi in USA – I thank you for those words of wisdom and I will try and take heed in the future.
sonic = you are insane .
April 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I disagree dad4justice .
Sonic is stupid.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
THEATRE!
April 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
whew..!..such clever/erudite bon mots from swifty..eh..?
and..they cut like a knife..
obviously one of our (underutilised) intellectuals/national treasures..
that swifty..
wot with his ‘hurting’ eyes..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
April 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
phil u,
does it ever become embarassing that vanzylnz has superior 3rd language skills to those you display for your first?
April 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
who..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I bet you say that word “who” everytime you look in your cracked mirror phoool.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Labour’s Whips have often out-smarted National in this term, don’t be surprised if this proposal goes through at 1.30 am one session.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
How come in 1996 and 2005 National and Labour spent the same amount down to the last dollar
April 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Breaking down the graphs for both Labour and National, supplied by David and except for the possible mistake (or could that be inconveinent truth) shown in 99 & 05, what do they tell us.
Labour National
1996 2,995,892 3,108,539
1999 3,098,241 3,098,241 *
2002 3,047,426 2,494,900
2005 3,413,444 3,413,444 *
Total 12,555,002 12,151,123
Total 97/08 Anon/TrustDon Nett Gain
Labour 12,555,002 1,754,324 10,800,678
National 12,115,123 3,223,657 8,891,466
Screw all actually, no more than i would expect for the two major parties.
What does disturb me more is the Anon donations to all political parties.
As i believe of the Police complaints Authority, it’s more about perception of independence in the PCA and that the political parties a being bought by “big business” “unions” “special interest groups” or however else you care to think about.
While i don’t have a particular problem with either state funding or the status quo, i do have a problem with anonamous donations from all special interest groups and the smokescreen DPF is putting up as the National Party lacky makes for a good old laugh.
Anonamous donations of any kind, should not be legal, as i said earlier it’s all about perception and the perception smells of corruption.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
The garulous bug eyed gargoyle will have great need of a spew bag as she clings to the stern rail of a racing yaght and contemplates the enormity of the mistake she made when she told the Maoris to f**k off and went off to commune with Shrek the sheep, leaving John Tamihere to face the music. Utu is a wonderful thing and Tamihere made sure of it with Investigate. Now the Maori Party just gave it to her is spades. All $20 mil worth.
This whole Labour Shambles is turning out to be extraordianrilly funny. Reminds me of the time the Dumbest Premiere in Australia did like a dinner the Smartest Prime Minister.
Calrk is being made to look like te tiko o te wahine porangi.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
If you think this is a scam, I have just heard the most outrageous proposal from Judith Tizard on 3 News.
At least we now know what she does…fucking nothing.
That artists (and their estates) should get a clip of the ticket every time their art is re-sold.
JUDITH when an artist sells his art, he has SOLD IT.
Judith, you are a pampered rich commie.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
adolf..adolf..adolf..
english is pissed because national were left out of the carve-up/lolly-scramble..
this proposal/funding scam will be back..
under the guise of ‘consensus’..(trans…’in lolly-scramble’..)
do you really adolf..in your wildest dreams..
think national won’t be part of that ‘consensus’..?
and that small parties won’t be able to be bribed/persuaded..?
and btw..whatever happens..you seem to have forgotten this was a lolly-scramble by labour..
but it was also utu/a kick in nationals’ financial/fundraising gonads by/from labour..
that ‘utu’ part is still going ahead..eh..?
and should ’sail through’ now..eh..?
(gee..!..here’s a thought adolf..
labour just couldn’t have been being rat-cunning clever..?…
could they..?.
with that funding smoke-screen.?
.to guarantee the successful passage of the ‘utu’-plan/part/component..?..whoar..!..)
anyway..all speculation to one side..
whatever way you slice it..
national are either still screwed..and/or complicit…eh..?
complicated business..this politics..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Ignore
April 16th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
The swiftman – “JUDITH when an artist sells his art, he has SOLD IT.”
And it does not matter whether supreme lemon face leader signed the fraudulent painting .
Phool ease up on main lining smack !
April 16th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I am very worried about your severe addiction smack phoool, as your psychosis is getting out of control .
April 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
interesting..d4j…
how you seem to think you can make the most outragous accusations against whoever you like/opposes you..
yet the recent example of accusations/allegations against you..
had you screaming in pain/rage..and calling to dpf for help..
w.t.f..!..eh..?
(aside from the utter cruelty/sheer nastiness of using such a sneer against a heroin addict clean for over 15 years..
it’s like water off a ducks back..but still..
and it all just goes to show..that once again..
you confirm for all and sundry..
that you really are just a bag of faecal matter….
aren’t you d4j..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Sorry I can’t understand such frothing from a drugged up nutbar . I wish I could understand, but you know, pop goes the weasel .
April 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Phoool lie “had you screaming in pain/rage..and calling to dpf for help..”
Take your splenetic crap and shove it wimp – we can’t help it is was bad methadone today !
April 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Goodbye the real d4j is leaving this blog and I will not be responsible for any futher comments as dad4justice .
You dirty low life bastards !!!
Phil… hug?
April 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
State funding as proposed is capped at 30% of the vote. In 1999 and 2005 both National and Labour got over 30%.
John Dalley misses the point. I have not advocated keeping large anonymous donations. In fact there is bipartisan support for ending these. What I have shown is that the loss of revenue for them is no justification for state funding on the level proposed by Labour.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hey you 7.49 slimebucket imposter. Get out of my space you dirtbag trapeeze artist!
April 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Imagine some duffer giving $11450 to his lawyer with the instructions;
“Take out your $450 fee and give the balance to the Labour Party, but if you disclose my name you will be breaching a confidence and I will be proceeding to the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.”
The lawyer dutifully forwards the $11,000 to the Labour Party and after the cheque is banked they ask the name of the donor. Client confidentiality replies the lawyer; no say.
In those circumstances I would give Ivory Coast a better chance of winning the Rugby World Cup than the Labour Party returning those funds to the lawyer’s trust account.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
DPF. Not suggesting your are for anon donations, just saying that like PCA the perception for both can have the potential for corrupt practices.
It is also the reason i think the PCA should be independent of the police may be part of a Public Prosecutors type office.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
DPF. Not suggesting your are for anon donations, just saying that like PCA the perception for both can have the potential for corrupt practices.
It is also the reason i think the PCA should be independent of the police may be part of a Public Prosecutors type office.