Sheer hypocrisy
I said on Tuesday that the failure of the Government clamp down on anonymous and trust donations must be due to one of two possible reasons – either that they were short of money themselves and dropped it voluntarily, or that they couldn’t get the numbers for it.
I commented at the time that I thought it was the latter option and gave Labour the benefit of the doubt that it was not the former, as that would be sheer hypocrisy.
But Helen has confirmed it is the former. NZPA reports:
But Miss Clark today said banning anonymous donations in their current form without providing additional state funding would have led to parties “across the spectrum” struggling for funding.
Every member of the Labour Party should hang their head in shame. For over a year Labour have spent almost every day whining about these secret donations. It has been the centrepiece of their entire electoral reform campaign. National had agreed they should end. But Helen Clark and Labour decided unilaterally to leave it out because Labour would have struggled for funding without such money.
Can one get any more hypocritical?
Labour have about as much moral right to draw up election financing laws as Paris Hilton has to promote abstinence.
Let us look at previous quotes from Helen Clark:
“I think the public wants to know who is funding political parties. They want to know who is pulling strings, if they are pulling strings through funding.” – 6 Dec 2006
”I look forward to the National Party’s support for clamping down on anonymous donations. I understand that in Australia everything over $250 has to be declared. That sounds like a good idea to me.” – 6 Sep 2006
Week in, wek out, Labour MPs have bleated about these donations. They have vowed to get rid of them. They have held them up as the epitome of all that is wrong with the political system. They have all but called them corrupt.
And now we have a price for Labour’s principles. They unilaterally move to remove any clamp down on anonymous donations, because gee whiz we get quite a few of them ourselves, and we’ll be too stretched if we ban them.
Come on, this goes even beyond hypocrisy. How can anyone take anything Labour says or does on electoral finance seriously.
Their Electoral Financing Bill is an abortion. The penalties are still a joke. The restrictions on election year speech are beyond draconian, and they left out the most important part of the whole bill – because Labour needed the secret donations too much.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:02 am
sheer hypocrisy from Labour
Labour’s Electoral Financing Bill is an abortion. It goes even beyond hypocrisy. How can anyone take anything Labour says or does on electoral finance seriously.Week in, week out, Labour MPs have bleated about anonymous donations. They have all but ca…
July 26th, 2007 at 7:30 am
You just have to love these people, what total clowns. Bring on election year and lets kick these swine to the curb.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Calling Selma, Sonic, rogernome
Be interested to hear your take on Clark’s latest backtrack
July 26th, 2007 at 8:00 am
“how can anyone take anything labour says or does on electoral
finance seriously”
There are two or three head in the sand twits out there who will
July 26th, 2007 at 8:01 am
As you all know I argued for a ban on anonymous donations, and of course I’m perturbed that this has no happened.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:36 am
The public service is so large now sometimes the message doesn’t get thru
July 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am
The sad thing is, that about 42% of people have their heads in the sand.
It seems that no matter what this government does, many people will still vote labour, just because of the party name.
To be honest, it is no wonder that Clark treats us all with contempt. She know she can pretty much do whatever she wants and she will still be preferred PM.
It is scary that so many people in this country can be so ignorant, or so easily deceived. I wonder what it would take for these people to say “enough”? Dishonesty hasn’t done it. A screwed up economy hasn’t don’t it. A failing health system hasn’t done it. Vindictive behaviour towards senior public servants hasn’t done it. Outright lies and theft of public money hasn’t done it. Changing the law to fix your little criminal problems hasn’t done it.
One can hope that this latest attempt to steal democracy might do it, but somehow I think the issue is just too complex for many people (ok, many Labour supporters) to grasp. They just seem to believe whatever Helen says, even though she has proven time and again that she is a liar.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:50 am
CraigM
I think the answer to why so many vote labour without thinking is intellectual arrogance. I’m surprised also that labour still has so much support from the unions. Basically labour gets it votes from the well paid intellectuals and the well paid workers with well organised unions, especially in the state sector.
The intellectuals vote labour mindlessly because they have the “big strong manly unions” on their side but also perform a lot of “moral exhibitionism” pretending to care for minorites like gays and Maori, and supposed poor like beneficiaries. So it massages the intellectuals* ego to vote for a party that “cares” for the “underclass”.
*Remeber the saying that goes something like “primary teachers are interested in the children, secondary teachers are interested in the subject and tertiary teacher are interested in themselves”.
Now where is that underclass, its my turn with him.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hmmm.
Now if Keys REALLY wanted to make a name as the party of integrity he’d personally introduce an amendment restricting anonymous donations to $5k per person or group.
If anyone wants to give more than that, okay, but it’s only fair to let the public know who is bankrolling a party that wants to govern.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:10 am
“Can one get any more hypocritical?”
Even Sonic is “perturbed”.. must be serious..
Smirk…
July 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
1. No public funding for political parties
2. Full disclosure of any funding over $10000 from a single source of any kind or any one person.
3. Penalty for non disclosure by donor and donee 5 years jail.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
“It is scary that so many people in this country can be so ignorant, or so easily deceived.”
A big part of the reason is that the mainstream media have betrayed their original ideals, and are today just a gang of lame socialist suckholes. If we had a bit more diversity of opinion there, a bit more intelligence, a bit more breadth of political experience, a bit less kissing of commie arses, the “people” may be more inclined to awaken from their slumbers.
Of course, anyone who does break the mould and come out with some home truths must pay a heavy price. look at the EBs for example, who tried to alert us to the deceit of the left, and now look at what their actions have provoked. They came out and said what the media are too gutless to say, and now we’re looking at a Chavez style government attack on freedom of political expression.
In every country that has gone down to the totalitarian left, the media have been complicit. There is only one way to repair this problem, and that is express your contempt of the media. We must spit on them as contemptuous lap dogs of totalitarian socialism. Attack and defeat the mainstream media, and you undermine a large part of the left’s strategy for complete political domination.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Well, this is one of those rare occasions that I get to agree whole-heartedly with you David. National definitely claims the moral high-ground on this one.
May be Labour should be pushing for public funding to play more of role come election time, so we can get rid of these anon donations.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
How much can you give to charities anonymously? Most of those take a political stance.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:14 am
roger nome You might be happy to see your taxes go to fund a political party whose policies and ideas you find repugnant but I aint . If they cant stand on their own two feet then their ideas arent worth funding. And as for charity donations the same rules should apply Its called transperancey openness disclosure Quaint old traditions that most in NZ have lost sight of. Remember government for the people by the people to the people.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Hypocricy Plus;
Hansard 10 April 2003; Rt Hon Helen Clark told Rt Hon Winstone Peters and the House and the Public of New Zealand that:
‘all or any allegations of corruption would be investigated’
What a “hollow’ statement? Its all been cover-up since then!
July 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Stupid, ridiculous move by Labour. “Across the spectrum” my arse.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
No suprise here, I commented in that previous post that I suspected it was Labour’s self intrest, not bad political management for allowing trust fund donations (see comment 4 here http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/07/anonymous_and_trust_donations_remain_legal.html#comments ). The hypocrisy is breathtaking, but thats what should be expected from Labour. National should publicaly propose the bill be ammended so as to prohibit donations from trusts, unless the names and amounts of all those who put money into the trust are made public, and watch Labour vote it down. I hope if labour votes down such an ammendment it will be on the front pages of every newspaper, and dominate the TV news, so every NZer knows the truth about the bill, its about labour being re-elected, not democracy.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“May be Labour should be pushing for public funding to play more of role come election time”
..another immoral leftist troglodyte calling for more legislative theft. An uneducated soviet style political thug who is well indoctrinated in socialist ideals but so poorly educated he can’t even spell his own pseudonym correctly. Fuck you and your “public funding”. Call it what it is. Compulsory contributions to the support of political parties. Or to be more accurate- outright theft..!!! The same old perversion of democracy that underpins all of the left’s political endeavours.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“so poorly educated he can’t even spell his own pseudonym correctly.”
The spelling was a conscious choice – if you can’t see why I chose it you’re even thicker than I thought.
“roger nome You might be happy to see your taxes go to fund a political party whose policies and ideas you find repugnant but I aint.”
If funding is given proportionate to the vote they received at the previous election then people’s money wouldn’t be going to a party that they found repugnant. In fact it would be going to the party that they voted for in the last election.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
roger nome Still dont like the complusory public funding but how about this Each taxpayer gets to nominate the party or parties they want their fixed percentage of taxes to go to. If they dont nominate then the last election results decide plus a share for any new parties. No other funding allowed Just like the Kiwisaver principle as regards funds managers. So we have no hidden funding all transperant and up front and we get to choose who we support. Your comments?
July 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m surprised also that labour still has so much support from the unions.
There is no reason to be surprised. The unions are one of the biggest powerbases in the Labour Party and always have been. They were just less prominent in the first two terms of Labour, whereas they have taken a higher profile in this term, because Labour needs to call on every level of support it can to get re-elected.
There has been this quite fascinating or disturbing change in Labour since the 2005 election, when all the campaign financing dirty tricks came out. Let us call it the EB factor. The appearance of the EBs with their campaign has been like a red rag to a bull for some of the core groups – the unions and also the Rainbow wing. Since then the unions have been doing more of the dirty work in the party and they really have been in campaign mode ever since.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
This will not go through without a reasonable fight – the government is aiming to take revenue from the papers / billboard companies and printers who probably do well out of the politicing every three years and do not want to be at the mercy of govt. advertising. As everyone knows – “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.”
July 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Taxpayer funding of political parties will never happen. The outcry would make the smacking debate seem like small change and Clark realised she didn’t have the numbers even on a good day downhill with a tail wind.
Political parties are in the marketplace of ideas and must attract customers (voters and/or donors) on the strength of its policies and candidates. Popular parties of any political hue generally find it easy to find donors and parties on the way out struggle. I was a Labour activist during the late 80′s and early 90′s before my gradual conservative shift and know what eroding opinion poll standing does to donations.
Making donations transparent is an excellent goal to strive for in theory until you run up against the very issue that is at the forefront in NZ today – that of the Setchell sacking. In an increasingly politicised public service and one that leans left historically, how does a centre-right voter who is a senior civil servant achieve career advancement if his or her donation to National or ACT is on the public record and is used against him/her? That is the next step on the slippery slope that Clark’s failure to reign in DBP and his underlings in his office has signalled.
The rank hypocrisy of Clark’s stance exceeds all previous hypocritical lows in this administration. Clark squeezed many column inches and probably hours of air time eviscerating National for any slight EB connection and pilloried the EB as the most subversive group that worked the planet and promised meaningful reform only to produce legislation to protect Labour’s own source of anonymous donations and shut down meaningful opposition from 3rd parties in election year. Chavez would be proud.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
* walked the planet
July 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
HERALD EDITORIAL IS “ECONOMIC WITH THE TRUTH”
Just had the chance to catch up with The Herald editorial of this morning.
The way it is written you would be excused if you thought that National have thEIr fingerprints all over the anti-democracy bill. Lots of column inches stating how much more benefit National will get than Labour, from the failure to remove anonymous donations.
I asked this morning how so many NZ’ers could still be fooled by the government. Of course I knew the MSM were partly responsible but this editorial was a shocker. Nowhere does it mention that Labour were responsible for drafting the bill.
I doubt my nice letter to the editor pointing out there error will be published, but I had to say something!
July 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“roger nome Still dont like the complusory public funding but how about this Each taxpayer gets to nominate the party or parties they want their fixed percentage of taxes to go to. If they dont nominate then the last election results decide plus a share for any new parties.”
Yeah, I could go for that scheme – as long as it was a fixed figure per person rather than a % of income – otherwise Act would end up with maybe $100 per vote where as the greens would get maybe $5 per vote – well you get what i mean any way.
Another way to do it would be for parties to receive funding proportionate to their membership numbers, say at a time 6 months before the election. this would force the parties to really get out there and sell there policies rather than simply pandering to a few millionaires, then using their money to spin their policies to the public – ala “the hollow men”.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Roger, please go forth and multiply with your taxpayer funded elections.
…..simply pandering to a few millionaires, …..
What millionaires?
What about the millionaires who donated to Labour? Did you forget them, or where they ‘good’ millionaires who wouldn’t dream of influencing policy?
Mate, I get so sick of your NASCAR politics.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“What millionaires?”
You can start with New Zealand’s favourite banker David Richwhite. If you want a full list go read “the hollow men”.
“What about the millionaires who donated to Labour?”
um, what’s your point? I don’t support millionaires buying any political parties.
“Mate, I get so sick of your NASCAR politics”
?????
July 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
roger nome I thought you would come back on the % of income but I stick to my guns on that one. I concede on one vote per person but if you pay 10 times the tax that I pay then you have earned the right to have 10 times the contribution IMHO. Membership of a party is a red herring. It would only encourage even more corrupt practises with dogs and cats etc being signed up.
We need to keep it simple and use the IRD ( bless them) to manage the process. Id even allow bennies to participate Now hows that for a magnanimous far rightie.
And remember it might even encourage some of those awful theiving capitalist running dogs to decare their hidden income to IRD as this would be the only way to contribute to your favourite party. Now theres another plus for you Socialist supporters.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
By the way CraigM As a NASCAR and all round motorsport supporter I object to your comments to roger nome. The good ole boys down south are fine upstanding gentlemen. They open the doors for ladies an even let n—– ( deleted) attend events these days.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“Id even allow bennies to participate Now hows that for a magnanimous far rightie.”
As if it should be your right to decide who gets rights and who doesn’t – says a lot for the Tory mindset.
“I concede on one vote per person but if you pay 10 times the tax that I pay then you have earned the right to have 10 times the contribution IMHO.”
Shorter GD: The more money you have the more political power you deserve to have. Why don’t we make it so you get one vote for every $10,000 you earn GD?
As I remember this way of thinking was popular amongst the aristocracy of Britain in the 19th century – john stewart mill was it’s prime proponent. Good to see tradition is still alive and well within the National party!
July 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
National party roger nome? What me associate with that left wing rabble? Zoots Sir you are but mistaken. Only white property owning males would have a vote if I had my way.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
mmmm, think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one gd
July 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Humble apologies roger nome but I couldnt resist I have however been described by Socialist supporters as a compassionate Tory in the past. Back to our debate.
Would you go for a compromise with an upper limit on the amount of the indiviuals contribution from their taxes. After all theres plenty of $100K plus Socialist supporters in Wellington. What about a minimum dollar amount per person and a maximum based on say 2 times the average earnings. Now thats got to be fair.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Ok , NASCAR politics goes something like this:
You only ever turn left no matter what
No matter how much you might want to, turning right only creates carnage
You use lots of energy and only ever end up in the same place you started
July 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Well it seems to me that the real reason the Liabour Party may want to maintain secret donations is so that they can avoid disclosing them to the Inland Revenue. I see that an Auckland Branch Treasurer was sacked for refusing to falsify records for the IRD.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
gd I’m afraid that you seem to be a kind of quazi plutocrat, and I’m a democrat, and never the twain shall meet. In a real democracy wealth would be limited as a variable as much as is possible – the essence of democracy political egalitarianism, or equality of political power. I believe in democracy, and so I believe that access to the political platform should be defined by the popularity of your ideas, not your wealth.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
OK CraigM got ya-
So you think I’m an inflexible dogmatist? Well fair enough – I do have fairly fixed ideas, but that’s what happens when you spend 6-7 years studying politics I guess.
You should no that I actually generally dislike the position of the Labor party. However more often than not I dislike the position of the National party more.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
roger nome you got me mate Ive been called a lot of things in my time but never that. I think we can agree that neither of us wants to see deep pockets secretly funding political parties. We differ on the matter of individuals funding according to their earnings. But we agree that indiviuals should be able to nominate where their funding goes. So thats 2 out of 3 I make it we agree on. I wish you political scientists wouldnt complicate matter so much for us simple folk.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
roger, on your website you think labour is right od centre on the political compass. I treid hard to et in the vicinity of Thatcher but all I managed was dead centre, so god knows how you got labour to be right of centre. That shows how far left New Zealand politics is as a whole!
July 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I believe parties should be funded on the basis of the number of candidates they are standing for election. Scrub the list candidates altogether, and fund from State coffers on the above basis, and an absolute cap on funding so that each party putting up a full ticket get exactly the same amount. Those putting lesser candidates get funded proportionally. Funding should never be based on the number of votes cast in previous elections. What people thought about a party’s manifesto last time is no reflection on how they may view the same party today. Thus funding then has less relevance than the political program being advanced. And Democracy.Now would be my choice.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Roger……”You should no that I actually generally dislike the position of the Labor party…….”
I’m surprised by that comment, but happy to take your word for it. I did have you pegged as a die hard socialist, but then I guess Labour are not the only cab on that rank.
re the position of the national party….ditto for me. But I dislike Labour policy and performance a hell of a lot more.
and this one: ” ….and so I believe that access to the political platform should be defined by the popularity of your ideas,….” is a wee gem.
Don’t you just wish it were so. But I doubt we will EVER see those times again.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Fair comments jericho. Inly problem is, what if there were 20 different parties that all had candidates in each electorate? Where does it end? Also, parties like the national front would be getting the same amount of exposure as with the big parties – which I’m sure wouldn’t go down too well.
Also, you would struggle to get public support for this – people would get bitter at the thought of paying money to parties that they didn’t support – even if it is ultimately healthier for our democracy.
Actually I still think that funding based on membership numbers is the way to go. i.e. membership to any political party could be $1 and the government could match that contribution. Of course there should be stiff penalties for people who decide that it’s a good idea to make up members’ names of course.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Roger/Phillip:
Clearly, despite having studies politics for seven years, and yet still only being an honours student, you haven’t yet learned to count.
The National Party’s membership is over 30,000, and climbing. The Labour Party’s membership is under 4,000, and dropping. The Greens have less than a thousand members.
So under your preferred model, National would get $30,000 from the Government, and the Labour Party $4,000?, every year? What is that supposed to pay for?