Help us pick a name
In the United States they have this quaint habit of calling their bills any name they like such as the Patriot Act or the Can Spam Act. This is part of the wider political battle over labelling (Estate Tax called a Death Tax). In NZ we saw the Section 59 bill almost universally called the anti-smacking bill (including by Sue Bradford by press release when she launched it).
Well a group of us think the benignly named Electoral Financing Bill needs a name that better describes it. But we can’t decide amongst ourselves, so I want your help in suggesting names, and/or indicating which names you most like. I might then even run a poll of say five finalists to pick the preferred name.
Suggested names to date are:
- The Gag My Critics Bill
- The Block the Knockers Bill
- The Muzzle My Enemies Bill
- The Freedom From Expression Bill
- The Criticism Prevention Bill
- The Alternative Opinion Prevention Bill
- The Election Theft No.2 Bill
- The Helengrad Gag
- Helen’s Gag
- Helen’s Muzzle
- The Red Muzzle
- The Red Gag
- The Shut Down Dissent Bill
- The Shut Down Democracy Bill
- The Labour Party Corruption Validation Bill
- The Labour Party Preservation Bill
- The Freedom from Criticism Bill
- The Helen Clark Preservation Bill
- The Helen Clark PM for Life Bill
- The Democratic Rights Amendment Bill
- The Anti-Democracy Bill
- The Democracy Amendment Bill
- The Stamp Out Democracy Bill
- The Death of Democracy Bill
- The Frankly Fijian Bill
- Entrench the Goverment Bill
- No Power to the People Bill
- Bill of Rights Amendment Bill
None of these names are endorsed at this stage. As I said let’s try and get views on the best, and then have a poll to select the best name. Something not too extreme, but that gets the point across.
To save time, nothing which mentions Mugabe or has any German connotations. Yes the Bill is a massive attack on free speech, but no it isn’t the end of civilisation as we know it!
July 25th, 2007 at 9:04 am
The Suppression of Electoral Expression Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:18 am
The anti free speech bill.
Of course this tells a little porkie because it makes it sound like we have free speech now. If we truely wanted free speech we would get rid of all laws governing free speech around alection time including spending caps and the rule against anonymity. The anyone could say anything as long as it was not slanderous or libelous. Thats free speech!
July 25th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Validation (Parliamentary Corruption) Bill No 2
July 25th, 2007 at 9:26 am
The ‘Dear Leader’s Public Relations Expenditure Bill’
July 25th, 2007 at 9:27 am
The Tui Brewery Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:27 am
The “There goes National’s chance of buying the election Act”?
July 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
The Banana Republic Perpetuity Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Three More Years Bill
The entire thing is a fucking shame. So much could have been achieved, but they seem to have sold out completely. Shame on the government.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:32 am
“The Last Person to Leave Turn the Lights Out Bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“One Bill to rule them all, One Bill to find them,
One Bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”
July 25th, 2007 at 9:36 am
And all because Clark wants to have a 4th term so she can say she lasted longer than her nemesis that everyone loved to hate in the 70s pot parties.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“Young Peoples Emigration Act”
Sadly this is not a frivolous name..
July 25th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“The government perpetual electoral fund bill”
“the GovernmentSaver bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hey Catwoman, Good comment. Perhaps as the last Tax Payer to leave goes, the lights will just go off anyway..
cheers db..
July 25th, 2007 at 9:48 am
1. Hugo Chavez’ bill
2. Freedom from Irrelevant Criticism bill.
3. Criticism welcome in Australia bill.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Ode to Helen to be sung to the tune “I am woman” by Helen Reddy (the song H1 and H2 go to sleep listening to each night)
Yes I am dumb
But its ignorance born of (other people’s) pain
Yes you’ve paid the price
But look how much I’ve gained
I was strong,
I was invincible
I am Helen
I am Helen, here me roar
In numbers getting small enough to ignore
And I know too little to go back and pretend
that I’m still and embryo
with not very far to go
until my electors boot me out the door
July 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
The “bye bye brethren bill”?
Oh and welcome back sonic – it’s been too long!
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
My vote would be for, “The Freedom From Expression Bill” – except that it may be too clever for its own good. The penny may never drop for too many people.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The Electorate Finessing Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
1984 Bill
George Orwell 1984 Bill
Ministry of Truth Bill
I can’t believe it’s not Censorship Bill
I’m from the Government and I am here to help Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
“1. Hugo Chavez’ bill”
Chavez has shut down the media station that supported a coup against his government – he left that station running for over 5 years. Now what do you suppose the US government would have done to a TV station that had supported a coup against it? Do you reckon it make use of the “patriot” act?
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The Electorate Fleecing Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am
What the Nats should do is just campaign that if they are elected, then any third party who spends more than $60k, but is still registered and follows other standard terms, will have their overspend (made illegal by this bill), retrospectively validated.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:58 am
National have already said they are outraged by the bill and will radically alter it if they get in by increasing the spending cap to $65K
[DPF: Ha ha ha - very good]
July 25th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Your error is to equate ‘freedom’ with the right of the wealthy and powerful to spend unlimited amounts of money drowning out the voices of those who don’t have money and power. That’s not democracy, it’s plutocracy, and it’s exactly what National stands for.
[DPF: Red Herring as usual. I have constantly said I support there being a limit, just not for an entier year and at such a massively low level.]
July 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
The “Stop Anyone But Politicians and their Cronies Speaking Bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 10:20 am
BTW my money is on National ending up supporting 90% of it, with the 10% traded off only in order to appear different.
Politicians love eliminating the chance for anyone to challenge them.
[DPF: Willie while I wouldn't go that far, let me say that a National Govt would probably benefit far more in being able to restrict lobby groups from spending money criticising them than would Labour. This bill will protect any incumbent Govt]
July 25th, 2007 at 10:21 am
What amuses me is that no one has yet pointed out the bleeding obvious That is The pollies shouldnt be setting the rules around this area. Why Well is that quaint old custom called CONFLICT OF INTEREST If I have to spell it out then I will cause in NZ there doesnt seem to be any grasp of the issues. We should have a panel of 3 retired High Court Judges who receive submissions from the pollies and the citizens and who then make a ruling.
Otherwise we have the situation of the alcoholics deciding how much booze they should be allowed.
These bastards cant be trusted to make a non self interested decision.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
The Kiwiblog hysteria bill.
[DPF: Tell me Andrew - have you read the Bill? Not browsed it, but read it?]
July 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Labour’s Shaft The Electorate Pill – or L STEP (1).
L STEP 2,3 etc can soon follow merrily along as per party plan if wooly #1 gets successfully pulled over sheeples.
Left STEP, might STEP, theft STEP, fright STEP, overSTEP right into Facist goose step.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Vote Labour.
It saves having to think for yourself, work for a living or having to deal with those pesky elections every three years.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I like the “anti-democracy bill” . It’s short , catchy and very very accurate.
Also like David B’s ‘youong persons immigration bill’ but it’s a bit too wordy and subtle to catch on. Accurate though.
And Tane, Sonic, Roger…this bill is not about left versus right. It is about right versus wrong. This bill is just plain wrong. Supporting it screws your credibility and makes you look ridiculous.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Sonic: Welcome back – how was your SE Asian trip?
July 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
“The Kiwiblog hysteria bill.”
you may be prepared to throw away any semblence of democracy, but this is one subject where my sense of humour goes out the window. I am pissed. After all the rhetoric from all parties about wanting to tidy things up, they go and make it worse.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Makes me sick.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“how was your SE Asian trip”
er, imaginary?
July 25th, 2007 at 10:38 am
The Broomstick Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
The “where did my plutocracy go? Bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am
The “Socialist Republic of Aotearoa Entrenchment – 2007″ Bill.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am
The Politician Protection Bill
or
The Incumbent Protection Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
How about..
EFB The Electoral Fiddling Bill
Oh that’s right – Labour used that once last election
July 25th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Anonymous Donations (Still) Welcome Here Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
The “We Won, You Lost – Eat This” Bill.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am
The Panty Slut Boy Apologists’ Entrenchment Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“The Kiwiblog hysteria bill.”
So it would belong to a series of bills that numbers in the dozens, perhaps hundreds
July 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Sorry Roger: 0/10
Showing no originality, plagiarised from AB (see above).
Resubmit
July 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I like:
The Criticism Prevention Bill – Sounds official!
The Corruption Validation Bill – No need to mention Labour, everyone will know they are behind this!
The Anti-Democracy Bill – Tells it like it is!
July 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am
The Rodgered Gnome Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am
MD – I was commenting on AB’s suggestion -haha – Dough!
July 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am
roger n – given your post on this topic yesterday, (even I can’t support this, or words to that effect) I know you are just taking the piss.
Have fun.
and don’t be too hard on Missus Davis for misinterpreting of your last post.
“So it would belong to a series of bills that numbers in the dozens, perhaps hundreds”……very good.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I wonder what sonic, Roger Nome, etc would say if it was National in government proposing this bill? Would they be all for it?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:30 am
CraigM – of course it’s more complicated than that. I really can’t abide Labour’s hypocrisy with regard to their maintaining anonymous donations. This just shows me how deeply entrenched the power of the ultra-rich is in New Zealand politics – when the main party of the left is unwilling and/or unable to get rid of the clandestine political influence of a few wealthy individuals – something the vast majority of the public would support – this really pisses me off.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I wonder what Bevan etc would say if it was National in government proposing this bill? Would they be all for it?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Definitely The Helengrad Gag
Get it out in the MSM David. Make it stick.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:39 am
So Phillip John, are you saying that just because I am (hypothetically) a millionaire, I can vote 1000 times at the next election?
Or are you saying that I (hypothetically) have undue influence over politicians?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:44 am
…. carrying on from the last message …..
However, I really can’t see anything wrong with rest of the bill. The $60, 000 limit will mean that access to the public platform will be more evenly spread amongst the socio-economic groups. Thus we will have a more diverse range of views being presented, with more grass-roots political action used to get political points across – i.e. protests, public meetings etc. All of these things are very healthy for our democracy.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
“I wonder what Bevan etc would say if it was National in government proposing this bill? Would they be all for it?”
for myself the answer is a big NO. To re-state; it’s not a left or right issue, it’s right or wrong issue.
Nice job of avoiding answering the question tho.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
SMM – WTF? Are you trying to make a point?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“However, I really can’t see anything wrong with rest of the bill.”
I’m having a deja vu moment. Not going to repeat yesterdays posts, but ffs, roger.
if you can’t see the imbalance that this bill would cause in favour of the government of the day, over any opposition, then you really are a lost cause.
I truly hope you grade those uni papers on the quality of their work, rather than on the political slant of the content.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Roger nome…..
Could you please explain how it is fair for the incumbent party to spend unlimited taxpayer dollars on PR campaigns to advertise key government policies in election year, while passing laws to limit the resources available to those who wish to adequately respond?
This Government has shown itself to be fast and loose with the public purse in efforts to regain power. Now they wish to limit the response to this information precisely when the public when the public should be MORE informed, IE election year.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:59 am
The lefty losers cry babies bill.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Roger Nome/PJ,
No, not making a point.
Just asking you for some examples of how I can vote more than once, just because (hypotheically) I have more money than the average sheep.
(not including the EB, as that most likely worked against the Nats, plus they were a collective and not one person).
July 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“I wonder what Bevan etc would say if it was National in government proposing this bill? Would they be all for it?”
CraigM hit the nail on the head. Nice to see you are back though with your trade mark side stepping. Damn even Campese would be proud
July 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The Labour-Government-For-Life-And-Move-On Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The Bilk the Public Purse Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The Helen-Is-Supreme-Leader-of-Everything-and-Everyone-So-Fuck-You Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
SMM – Your question is nonsensical.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I think National supporters should look at the mote in their own eye here, it was Don Brash’s antics with the EB’s in the last election that necessitated this legislation. It hopefully will be tightened up during select committe stage, but after the “parallel campaign” in the last election, we do need legislation to ensure political parties do not use using third parties to try and get around election law.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Roger nome…..
waiting…………………………………………..
July 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Will groups will now just register themselves as political parties to get around the third party campaign rules, so they can raise money as members and start an election campaign?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
As I understand it the government will be able to inform the public about how legislation that they have already passed (or will pass before the election) is likely to effect them. In the case of things like kiwi-saver, this is very important, so that people may make the most of the opportunities that the legislation provides. This is quite different from having “unlimited amounts of money to promote future policy”, which is what National party shills seem to be frothing forth.
[DPF: Oh yes it is really important to spend $15 million on TV ads showing how happy the kids are with their Ipods thanks to working for families. A programme only available to 300,000 households and which could have been done by 10% of the cost but far better by targeted direct mail. But of course that would not reach the other 80% of voters]
July 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
oh – that last comment was for “slightlyrighty”, of course
July 25th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Mr. Nome/Mr. John,
My question simplified:
If you had a million dollars plus, how would you go about unduly influencing politics in NZ? Humour me please.
This, in reference to your post (most probably out of context to honest):
“This just shows me how deeply entrenched the power of the ultra-rich is in New Zealand politics”
July 25th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
The ‘Trust Us – We speak the truth” Bill
They must have been reading up on how Bush and the Neo-cons are removing freedoms in the US.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
So roger, as I understand this, the government of the day can manage an expensive roll out of policies so as to keep it’s profile high in the media, but if other organisations chose to negatively comment on these policies, such commentaries will be subject to a different set of standards?
July 25th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I like “The Anti-Democracy Bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Free Speech (Abolition) Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Appropriate (Parliamentary Corruotion Validation) Bill
July 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
sonic, gnome, Tan, et al
Please explain for me (in words of one syllable please ‘cos I am a little bit thick) just what damage the EB’s did with their astute analysis and critique of the Green’s policies that justifies a unilateral rehash of the Electoral Act.
Lose the “big money” bogey as well as I for one have never, ever (and I’ll warrant I have experienced many more elections in NZ than any of you) seen a shred of evidence that policies have ever been distorted beyond a party’s declared position as the result of major donations.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
DPF -
If the Bill is geninuely seriously flawed, and I havne’t had the time to look at it in sufficent detail to see if it is, then why are you bothering to event false arguemtns against, such as the argument that departmental advertising equates to Labour party political advertising
- as I’ve said time and again, departments should advertise their servies so the public knows they havve the right to access those services, and that advertising may not promote voting for any party for instituting that policy (it can’t be helped that when made aware there are services they have the right to access and they think are good,, peopel might want to vote for the party that institutued them) – if departmental advertising does promote a poltical party, that is a matter for the auditor-general.
There is no need for departmental advertising to be banned during the period of restrictions on electioneering spending, nor a need to reduce that period so rich parties have more opportunity to spend money to somehow counteract apoltical departmental advertising.
[DPF: Sam I have not said that govt advertising is equal to party advertising, but that it does have an influence. And it is already a convention such advertising not take place during the period just before an election. So it is already accepted to be undesirable. But the bigger issue is not govt advertising. It is the right of people to spend money criticising a policy. It is horrendous to supress that right for an entire year. Not the right to attack a party, but the right to attack an policy. Seriously that is nuts stuff and you shiuld be fighting it]
July 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Money obviously has an impact on election outcomes, if it did not, parties and other groups would not spend it on electioneering, and they would not try to circumvent spending restrictions with the kind of activities seen as the last eleciton, revealed by the Hollow Men and the A-G’s report.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“what damage the EB’s did with their astute analysis and critique of the Green’s policies that justifies a unilateral rehash of the Electoral Act.”
It’s not a matter of what damage they did (you do not aquit an attempted murderer becuase he did not succeed.0The issue was that a major political party leader conspired with a third party in a calculated attempt to bypass our election laws.
Hence the need for this legislation.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Roger Nome: yes, be very careful not to cross me – or I’ll send my husband around to give you a good sorting! Mark my words, 10 minutes in a cubicle with him and you’ll wish your mother had christened you with a different moniker.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“It’s not a matter of what damage they did (you do not aquit an attempted murderer becuase he did not succeed.0The issue was that a major political party leader conspired with a third party in a calculated attempt to bypass our election laws.
Hence the need for this legislation.”
..and that is an utter lie. Hence the “need’ for this “legislation’ is nothing but a Chavez style fraud.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Mr Redbaiter, I did not resposnd to your hysterical, repetitive and usually foul mouthed contributions before, I’m planning on taking the same course now.
Please do not waste your time addressig me further.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“The issue was that a major political party leader conspired with a third party in a calculated attempt to bypass our election laws.”
Well done roger, a perfect description of the proven-to-be-illegal Labour pledge card. Hypocrite.
And again, this legislation will cause an imbalance in favour of the incumbent government.
At least have the balls to admit it and say you don’t care. You havent given one single response or comment in 2 days in response to this claim, you just keep spouting your one eyed BS.
Say it outright roger. “This legislation deeply favours the labour government and I don’t care”. At least say it for your own self respect.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
sorry roger…..meant for the sonic. my apologies.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“if departmental advertising does promote a poltical party, that is a matter for the auditor-general”
So Sam, are you referring to this kind of departmental advertising?
Now, should you contact the Auditor-General or should I?
July 25th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
““This legislation deeply favours the labour government”
Why would you say that? was National planning to run another secret campain with the help of a shadowy religious group?
July 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sonic, you are not that dumb. I am assuming you are just out of answers.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Please do not waste your time addressig me further.”
I’ll address you when I feel like it you impotent little weasel.
..as it happens, in the comment you’re whining about, I wasn’t addressing you, I was merely making an observation, and if your educational experience had been focused on the fundamentals rather than indoctrination with archaic leftist/socialist propaganda, you’d have the comprehensive ability to know that.
My observation, in case you missed it, was that your claim was an utter lie, and the justification for this Stalinist style legislation is an utter fraud.
I have always said the left are anti-democratic totalitarian scum, and this Chavez style travesty proves it.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Seamonkey…I hope someone bloody well does. That is sickening.
Come on sonic/roger/sam et all…waiting on your defense of this one.
It’s not theory anymore boys, it is a reality.
Tell us that this kind of advertising using a ministery’s budget is ok.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Did anyone else hear an annoying little whine just there?
July 25th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Sorry Craig, have you go a source on that other than the laughable Whaleoil blog?
No offence but surely a legitimate news outlet must have covered it?
July 25th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Sonic, what you fail to realise is that the EB, whatever you think of them, HAD THE RIGHT TO ACT AS THEY DID!!
They did nothing illegal, they registered with the proper authorities, they informed the National Party what they were about to undertake, they did not lie, cheat or steal in doing so. At all times thay took pains to comply with the law. (unlike labour who stole $800,000, AFTER being told that this was illegal, and who then changed the law to suit themselves!)
The exercised their right and now that right is to be severely curtailed by the very people they criticised.
The conduct of the labour government in this matter is immoral and indefensible.
Honestly sonic, roger et al, at what point will the slow erosion of our rights cause you to take offence?
I quote from Capt Picard, ( not a great work of art nor great philosopher, but the sentiments are apt.)
When the first link of the chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thoughts forbidden, the first freedom denied. It chains us all irreparably. …
Where will it end….overly dramatic? Yes. Relevant? Certainly.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“Roger Nome: yes, be very careful not to cross me – or I’ll send my husband around to give you a good sorting!”
My apologies Mrs Davis, that mocking was uncalled for – it was an easy mistake to make. BTW, you needn’t send your husband over to give me “a good sorting”, i can manage that quite well by myself thank you.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Careful you don’t give yourself cramp in the right forearm when you give yourself a “right sorting” roger
July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Sorry, a “good sorting” was the correct quote
July 25th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“Sorry Craig, have you go a source on that other than the laughable Whaleoil blog?
No offence but surely a legitimate news outlet must have covered it?”
You know where I originally saw the advertisement Sonic? On the Stuff website.
Hmmm, now would you see Fairfax reporting about this sort of thing, when a “client” is paying to have an advert on your companies website?
And do you really think the left-leaning MSM would report on something like this anyway, such as to upset Frau von Clark? Grow a brain Sonic!
July 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“Did anyone else hear an annoying little whine just there?”
I know, sometimes think that I’m starting to lose the plot when I hear that sound – funny that it only happens while I’m reading kiwiblog comment threads.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“When the first link of the chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thoughts forbidden, the first freedom denied. It chains us all irreparably”
Yes, first they came to restrict the power of the plutocrats, and I did nothing …
July 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Roger/Sonic,
At least you are allowed to hear that sound on Kiwiblog.
Try hearing it over at No Right Turn or Tony Milne’s blog or *shudder* Capitalism Bad:Tree Pretty.
Or is that whining sound you hear, yourselves with your fingers in your ears going “LALALALA, I’M NOT LISTENING! LONG LIVE HELEN! LALALALA!!”?
July 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
“They did nothing illegal, they registered with the proper authorities”
Then they came to curtail the clandestine power of the ultra-right wing religious fundamentalists, and still i did nothing ….
July 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
No evidence other than the laughable Whaleoil?
No need to comment.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Poor Sonic, so mentally crippled his only argument here, time after time after time, is that people who oppose socialism/ totalitarianism are “laughable” or insane. That’s what happens to those poor souls indoctrinated with leftist mantras, they completely lose the use of a large part of their functioning brain.
July 25th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I seriously just do not get the left. If this was National proposing this bill they would be screaming blue murder. You’re a strange lot.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
AGJ Dont worry the way things are panning out the Nats will be in Gumint on their own come 09. And then watch sonic et al screaming when we remind them they cant speak out against the new Gumint.Cant wait.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Yes you keep on thinking it is in the bag GD……..
July 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Some employers are not getting good value from their staff today…..
Or are they?
July 25th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
As a Labour supporter, I still agree with much of the outrage expressed over this issue here. And those of you point out that if it was a National govt that had introduced this legislation then us labour supporters would be outraged, you are right.
The approach taken in this legislation is completely wrong, IMO. Instead of extending the period covering electioneering restrictions, what should have been targeted is the trusts that BOTH Labour and National employ to channel funds anonymously. We all know, generally, who donates to these trusts: Big Business and a number of wealthy individuals for National, and unions and a couple of sympathetic wealthy individuals for Labour. The purpose of this legislation is being sold as ensuring the transparency of the democratic process, but doesn’t address this issue any any significant way.
Slightlyrighty said:
“They did nothing illegal, they registered with the proper authorities, they informed the National Party what they were about to undertake, they did not lie, cheat or steal in doing so. At all times thay took pains to comply with the law.”
Um, except for the whole using false addresses on some of the material, which is a breach of electoral law. And yes, they did inform the national party of what they were going to do, which was not illegal. But Brash’s denial of complicity or knowledge, whilst not illegal, was reprehensible. And yes, if the situation was reversed and it was a union or other group covertly campaigning for Labour, i would be equally disgusted and outraged. If you’re going to campaign or promote a particular position with a view to influence voters, it should be mandatory to acknowledge your affiliation.
Thought I should just assure you righties that there are many people who vote labour who are principled and are disgusted with the Govt’s behaviour over the last week.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Roger, It makes me shudder to think that you are an educator in this feild.
My feelings towards the Exclusive Bretheren are not positive, but my feelings towards their right to express themselves as they see fit are unshakeable. They have the right to do so (for now).
When you start refering to them as “ultra-right wing religious fundamentalists”, you lose all credibilty as far as I am concerned. You may well be right, but that does not mitigate the fact that this proposed policy is deeply flawed and favours the incumbent government to the detriment of those who would oppose.
As Voltaire said “I dont agree with what you are saying but I will fight to death your right to say it”.
Labour would say, “He who has the gold, makes the rules”
July 25th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“Um, except for the whole using false addresses on some of the material, which is a breach of electoral law.”
Um..???
Um um um um um ..?????????
FFS, can’t you express yourself without such infantile gibberish??
..and what false addresses? More like false allegations, same old same old Stalinist strategy. You want to send someone to the gulags, just get a few toadies to make false allegations, hold a kangaroo court, and zip, they’re bayoneted into the cattle cars and off to Siberia. God you people are so fucken nauseating. Prove your charge.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
“FFS, can’t you express yourself without such infantile gibberish??
..and what false addresses? More like false allegations, same old same old Stalinist strategy. You want to send someone to the gulags, just get a few toadies to make false allegations, hold a kangaroo court, and zip, they’re bayoneted into the cattle cars and off to Siberia. God you people are so fucken nauseating. Prove your charge.”
And ad hominem attacks aren’t infantile???
As for the Brethren, the Police did find wrongdoing and transgression of the law but didn’t press charges:
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=2345
July 25th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“You want to send someone to the gulags, just get a few toadies to make false allegations, hold a kangaroo court, and zip, they’re bayoneted into the cattle cars and off to Siberia”
You may scoff, happens every day in Ponsonby….
“his only argument here, time after time after time, is that people who oppose socialism/ totalitarianism are “laughable” or insane”
Only you manage both!
July 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“As Voltaire said “I dont agree with what you are saying but I will fight to death your right to say it”.
Absolutely – If they do it in a legal, above board way in a context where they can legally get their point across without using their stupendous wealth to pervert the core principal of democracy (equality of political power). The new bill allows them to do this.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I offer no ad hominem attacks. I would wear that criticism if I had called you a “fucken moron”. (Which I probably should have) But I didn’t. My descriptions of you and your ilk and my expressions of contempt for your actions and your immorality are fair and relevant comment.
Don’t worry, I know well enough its a distinction that is far to intricate for the mangled minds of clod hopping half educated socialists, indoctrinated as you are with the idea that any words that might confront your precious socialist sensibilities can be deemed “offensive”.
..and yep, I looked at your web page and it says this-
“There was a concern that one of the Brethren leaflets had a false address on it. In the overall circumstances of this complaint no further action was required. ”
So where’s your proof Stalinist? You people care not one jot for the means, just like the commies from the old Soviet union, you are prepared to slander and attack and try and falsely prosecute anyone who stands in the way of the power you seek so obsessively.
I repeat. Where’s the proof of your charge? At least you should post the “false address”.
I repeat, it is only your allegation that is false.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“My descriptions of you and your ilk and my expressions of contempt for your actions and your immorality are fair and relevant comment.”
Yep, “fair and balanced” – that’s your motto hey Baiter
July 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“Absolutely – If they do it in a legal, above board way in a context where they can legally get their point across without using their stupendous wealth to pervert the core principal of democracy (equality of political power). The new bill allows them to do this.”
Pleased to see that you oppose this free speech attack bill, Roger Nome. Two full page adds in the NZ Herals 11 months before an election is hardly going to buy an election, yet even that would breech the law if this bill cmes into effect. And if were serious about preventing the rich and powerfull from buying elections, lets apply the new rules to the one group which has far more money and resources than even the richest New Zealanders, the government. Why don’t we rule saying that the government can’t spend $60 000 in election year promoting Working for familes, kiwisaver e.t.c? And also how about removing the union exemption, (organizations communicating with their members) I might actually support the bill if it did these things.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
“Absolutely – If they do it in a legal, above board way in a context where they can legally get their point across without using their stupendous wealth to pervert the core principal of democracy (equality of political power). The new bill allows them to do this.”
Roger,
What many of us have been saying is that the new bill allows the government of the day to use their (actually OUR) stupendous wealth to get their point across via the public service while reducing opposition to a whisper by comparison.
You can say that free speech has not been affected, but what good is free speech when it cannot be heard over a plethora of government announcements telling us how good we all have it?
If the government is so confident of it’s agenda, why this rush to mute opposition to it’s policies?
July 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“I would wear that criticism if I had called you a “fucken moron”. (Which I probably should have) But I didn’t. My descriptions of you and your ilk and my expressions of contempt for your actions and your immorality are fair and relevant comment.
Don’t worry, I know well enough its a distinction that is far to intricate for the mangled minds of clod hopping half educated socialists, indoctrinated as you are with the idea that any words that might confront your precious socialist sensibilities can be deemed “offensive”.”
And now I realise why in the past I have avoided this site like the plague. Let me tell you:
1. I am not a socialist, communist or Stalinist.
2. I am not half educated, unless you count being currently half way through my PhD (part time) as “half educated”, which I doubt you could.
3. I don’t have precious socialist sensibilities (see 1), and if you read my first post, you would see that I actually agree with most of the outrage expressed against this Bill. If anyone’s sensibilities are outraged, surely it’s your extreme right views that I’ve somehow upset simply by saying that I vote Labour.
As for the Brethren issue, there is no explicit statement by the Police that the allegations were false, either. I would read into their statement that the transgression was so minor that it wasn’t worth prosecuting (but they still broke the law), which is also what happened with some members disseminating pamphlets on election day:
“a very small amount of material was distributed. There was insufficient evidence to take the matter any further.”
July 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Nicholas and SR
The government departments (which are in fact different from the party(s) in power) can communicate with the public so that they know what changes in the law have occurred. Not exactly election spending. Secondly, businesses are also allowed to communicate with their members about the election – it’s not just about the unions. And lastly, nobody is forced to join a union, if they don’t like the political affiliations of the union thy are free to discontinue their membership.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“There was insufficient evidence to take the matter any further.”
In other words the cops were quite aware the complaints were petty partisan attempts to attack a political opponent, based on false allegations, nit picking generalities and in the final analysis, just leftist bullshit.
The commies who engineered this “investigation” have behaved just like Stalins cronies used to do in Soviet Russia.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“In other words the cops were quite aware the complaints were petty partisan attempts to attack a political opponent, based on false allegations, nit picking generalities and in the final analysis, just leftist bullshit.”
Not necessarily. THe cops have to decide whether, even when wrong doing is obvious, there is sufficient evidence to convict and whether it’s in the public interest to pursue prosecution.
“The commies who engineered this “investigation” have behaved just like Stalins cronies used to do in Soviet Russia.”
Haha. Comparing the Labour govt to Soviet Russia is like comparing a National government to the regimes of Hitler, Pinochet, Fujimori…
July 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Who cars what the EB did was ‘legal’ or not – it was sneaky, underhanded and most New Zea landers condemn what they did. The point isn’t whether it was illegal, but wither it should be illegal, and of course it should be. Only an extremist like you would disagree with me on this point.
[Actually a Colmar Brunton poll a couple of months ago found very little support for restricting third party activites, even with the EB as an example”
July 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
sonic ;yes Its in the bag old bean
Grant; some of us have also been working hence the deal in replying
JamesL I agree with you I want to know whose bankrolling the bastards Look at the UK cash for peerages scandal. Dont say the same sort of thing couldnt happen here. I want to know if X individual or Y organisation pays Z amount to a party . Only then can I monitor if the pollies repay the fovour. Only a fool would believe these mongrels arent capable of being tempted. I dont trust any of them as far as I could kick their arses. And to those who winge about disclosure Tough cookie. My right to know is greater than your right to corrupt the system.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Mr Redbaiter, I did not resposnd to your hysterical, repetitive and usually foul mouthed contributions before, I’m planning on taking the same course now.”
Typical commie- a lie drops as easily from their mouths as the foam does when they come upon an Exclusive Brethren. (or anyone who strongly opposes their corrupt regime).
I repeat, there is no case against the EBs. Therefore the very justification for the proposed “legislation” is completely false. The left are merely using the EB incident, an event they engineered themselves, to attempt to put the usual commie constraints on freedom of political expression.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Actually Roger, It is my understanding that it’s not businesses that can communicate with staff, it’s business organisations that can communicate with their membership, such as the business round table or various chamber or commerce.
Businesses have employees, not members.
However, these organisations cannot express opinions to the general public if the cost of that is to be over $60000 in an election year.
Anyway you look at it, this is about the government of the day ensuring that it can maintain a high profile through the public service. While the Government Departments are saying “this is what is happening” the underlying and unspoken message from labour would be “this is what we’ve done!”
Electioneering by default. Announcements by the Government department would be seen as an announcement by the governing party.
Now I do not for one moment advocate that departments should be muzzled. But then neither should the opinions and viewpoints of others who may have opinions about these policies, whether in favour or opposed.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
JamesL, he’s just yanking your chain. Don’t go. Most would consider me a rightie fart but I value your opinion – you have many good ones. don’t leave us all alone with……..Ahhhhhhh
July 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“Comparing the Labour govt to Soviet Russia is like comparing a National government to the regimes of Hitler, Pinochet, Fujimori…”
OK, that does it. I’m resorting to ad hominem. Seeing I’ve already been tried and hung for it, what have I got to lose? You’re a fucken dumbarse James, and I’ll tell you why. I did not compare the Labour govt to Soviet Russia. Of course its different, but as the legislation we’re discussing shows so well, its only different because Klark and her acolytes have to suffer the restraints of a democratic system. That’s why they’re always attacking it. (democracy)
What I’m comparing James, is the mindest. The mindset of the people behind this legislation, the mindset of the people who would persecute the Exclusive Brethren, the mindset of those who pursue political power and control over others at any cost, that mindset that infests the left in NZ, is the very same mindset that existed in Soviet Russia during Stalin’s time.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“Who cars what the EB did was ‘legal’ or not – it was sneaky, underhanded and most New Zea landers condemn what they did. The point isn’t whether it was illegal, but wither it should be illegal, and of course it should be. Only an extremist like you would disagree with me on this point.”
The fact that most New Zealanders (according to you )condemn what the EB did should illustrate that this legislation is not necessary! I didn’t hink it was the smartest move either, however most people I know can make up their own mind.
But taking the steps proposed by Labour is several steps too far. This is either an extreme response to an overstated problem, or a calculated move to silence opposition.
Bad government anyway you look at it.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“The government departments (which are in fact different from the party(s) in power) can communicate with the public so that they know what changes in the law have occurred.”
So the fact that the aforementioned “government department communication” linked to the Labour website instead of the Kiwisaver website, doesn’t disturb you??
Read this carefully Roger, think….then type.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Redbaiter, most of the left and right agree on most polices in this country its just that the politicians are self serving and unbelievably arrogant and refuse to sit down and agree to do what is right for the country – thats the problem!
Look – two examples – they both agree with democracy, and they both oppose de-regulation of the electoral system (ie both want spending caps, and are against anonymity). [I happen to disgree with them on both these issues, but there you go...democracy and (some) free speech].
So it doesnt hurt to occasionally be constructive.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
JamesL:
Why waist time debating Master Baiter? No one cares about what he has to say anyway.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“sonic ;yes Its in the bag old bean”
not even close. National will need to get at least 46% of the vote to be sure – of victory. i.e. act is poling at 1-2%, as is UF, and Winston’s a goner. U can keep on dreaming about the Maori Party and Greens jumping on board the blue boat, but we all know deep down that’s not going to happen. Gonna be a close one.
July 25th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Noonegate, speedgate, taito, DBP, validating legislation, neighbourhood brothels, Setchell, antismacking, beneficiaries earning more than low paid workers, hiding unemployment in the public service and sickness benefit, soft on violent crime, compensating criminals, DIC, antifree speech, …
Just why would anyone vote labour?
July 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Did I mention vindictive feminist attacks on the medical profession and the police, government funding of false accusations,….
July 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
[DPF: Tell me Andrew - have you read the Bill? Not browsed it, but read it?]
Nope, sure haven’t. However, calling any bill that aims to reduce election spending an “Anti-Democracy Bill”, “Helengrad Gag” or a “Shut Down Democracy Bill”, is hysteria.
Labour’s pledge card spending wrong, as was the EB funding. Both undermined the democratic process. Do you remember the outrage in 1993 when Christian Heratige, McGillicuddy Serious and Natural Law were given $75,000 worth of TV advertising. Nobody seemed bat an eyelid that both National and Labour were given somewhere around the $600k to $700k worth. Democracy? Hah!! Election spending buys seats. It’s pure and simple.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“However, calling any bill that aims to reduce election spending an “Anti-Democracy Bill”, “Helengrad Gag” or a “Shut Down Democracy Bill”, is hysteria.”
Sorry Andrew, although the labbels are going a little too far, it does show what Labour would do if it had the chance. The Bill is not about reducing election spending, but rather banning people from spending any of their own money (except very small amounts that won’t even cover the cost of two of the most expensive one page advertisements in the New Zealand Herald) on any topic that any other party (including the McGuilicudy serious party) takes a view on, while allowing the government to spend lots of your tax money for their re-election. and anyone who thinks that these “working for families” adds are merely to inform people of government policy, and not help them get re-elected is naive. witness the case of a Kiwisaver promotion being linked to the labour party website. Witness the fact you don’t need to apply for Working for Families to get it, so no need for promotion. witness the recent case at Vic Uni of Young Labour handing out taxpayer funded class timetables for people to put details of their class times in it, with the labour party logo on the front cover (to remind them of who to vote for?) and a list of Labour achievements inside.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
How about “What is the Sound of One Hen Flapping Bill”
July 25th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
So, what will stop a supporter booking a double page spread in a news paper and on selling portions to different organisations to place their own content, “all together with [insert_party_name_here]“. As long as each supporter spends under $60K the whole point of blocking significant impact is lost.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
DPF
IMHO: George just nailed the name contest!
July 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
In a free and open market place where ideas compete to win hearts and minds, everyone deserves a right to be heard. Those that have the necessary intellectual force will triumph.
It is a damning indictment of Labour that they are so bereft of inspiration that they will muzzle dissent by any egregious means. But then the collectivist mindset has never really been able to comprehend the concept of competitive markets.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:25 am
What about the tosser bil.
The Totality Oppresive State Sanctioned Electoral Reforms Bill.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Another vote for “The Anti-Democracy Bill”.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Fact is if any political group has ideas and policies that are in tune with the citizens they will be able to raise the cash to promote these. Why should a citizen have to contribute their cash to promote an idea or policy that is morally and ethically repugnant to them Where is the Human Rights in that pray tell. Thats not freedom Thats complusion of the absolute worst kind.
1. No public funding for politicans.
2. Full disclosure of all funding over $10000 from a single and that means single not playing words source.
3. Penalty for non disclosure by donor and donee 5 years jail.