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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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”

?????

…..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.

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”.

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!