Jordan is right
August 30th, 2007 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarJordan Cater blogs his list of desired improvements for the Electoral Finance Bill. I agree with most (not all) of them. But the point I most agree with is:
Even better, I would never have brought forward a Bill like this in the first place. I would have created a six month commission of inquiry, starting last October, and included the political parties in its deliberations, and required it to hold Citizens Juries around New Zealand to also see what the public thought, in a sensible low key debate. Such a process would, I am sure, have led to quite different legislation being proposed, and would have turned it from what is being seen as a “partisan” issue to a much simpler and cleaner debate about how best to run our electoral system. It would also have meant it would be difficult for anyone to criticise the outcome, given the wide engagement that would have happened.
Jordan is absolutely right. Look the Electoral Act should not be a wildly partisan issue. It is our arguably most important constitutional act. Significant changes to it should be made in a public and considered way.
Even putting aside all the problems wrong with the substance of the EFB, the even bigger problem is the total absence of a process to allow public input into the policy on which the bill is based. You have a public policy process to start with, and then you have a bill based on that policy.
This is why the bill needs to be stopped. Not because it is absolutely impossible to improve it. But because the public have not had their say on the underlying policy issues. And that is very different to being allowed to send in a submission to a select committee once the bill is in Parliament. A proper public process involves discussion papers, options papers, forums, seminars, a website, discussions on radio and television etc etc. Absolutely all of this is missing.
If the Government does not stop the bill, and passes (even with amendments) the bill before Christmas, then the Electoral Act will not recover. It will become a partisan prize for whoever wins the election.
And it doesn’t need to be that way. If a proper process was set up for public debate, with well thought out options, I think one could gain a wide degree of consensus. But you CAN NOT allow this bill to proceed in the absence of the public debate. Especially when the Electoral Act is being massively extended to not just regulate parties and candidates, but every New Zealander. How can you pass a law regulating every New Zealander, when you have not even had their input into why such a law is needed, if it is?
Tags: Electoral Act
August 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Its obvious to most how and why this came about David.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I feel dirty agreeing with Jordon.
But he is right about that. It says a lot about how flawed this piece of legislation is, when Labour’s biggest on-line apologist hammers it.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
This is exactly the kind of issue that should be treated with a citizen’s jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_jury but that would require transparency from all political parties and I don’t believe any of ours have any interest in that.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The EFB is rapidly becoming a very large albatross around Labour’s collective necks. Criticism from the right was to be expected. However the criticism is coming from everywhere in the political spectrum. Surely, there will come a time when Labour will take note, and do a tactical withdrawl.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I reject the idea that there is any need to change the system. I say the grounds for wanting to change it are at best weak and at worst propaganda.
I shudder at the thought of either National or Labour or any of the current crop of barbaric politicians messing with this legislation. That this bill got as far as it has already is a demonstration of how low standards of governance have sunk in this country. No change, get your filthy socialist hands off this legislation.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Even putting aside all the problems wrong with the substance of the EFB, the even bigger problem is the total absence of a process to allow public input into the policy on which the bill is based. ”
I absolutely agree David. It’s like National’s Employment Contracts Bill all over again. Except in National’s case, the Business Round Table’s Michael Fay and David Richwhite made a $ one million anonymous donation to National. They then sent two of their lawyers to National to write the bill. The rest of course is history.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“The rest of course is history.”
History as you recount it is always a leftist revisionist fantasy. Only half educated, you wouldn’t have a damn clue.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I seem to recall National went into the 1990 election with an explicit policy for most of the changes in the ECA. But hey carry on about it PJM if it makes you feel better.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
What is wrong with the present Electoral Act?
The only things I can see wrong are that “Policy” and “Bribe” are not defined.
It was the Politicians, Political Parties, The Electoral Officer, The Electoral Commission and the Police that allowed transgressions of the Electoral and Crimes Act.
The Electoral Finance Bill is a desperate criminal attempt to give some transparency to what in my book was the criminal behaviour indulged in during and after the last election.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I’ve said it before…Sonic alone supports the bill.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Well, I’m merely telling you what a one of National’s then cabinet ministers has said about the ECB. Sorry if the reality of the situation is unpalatable for you RB.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“I seem to recall National went into the 1990 election with an explicit policy for most of the changes in the ECA.”
So National knew what changes the NZBR wanted made in NZ’s Industrial Relations framework before the election? Am I supposed to be surprised?
You seem to be implying that National was completely open about the contents of the ECB before its implementation. Unfortunately the reality is that it wasn’t available for the public or the opposition to read until a few weeks before its implementation. Not exactly an “open process” now was it?
You also haven’t denied what I’ve said RE – Fay and Richwhite. I’ll take that as a tacit admission coming from someone who was a National Party insider of that period.
[DPF: My God you are a pathethic sniveling whiner. In 1990 I was just finishing university and am about as likely to know who donated to the Party that year as hell freexing over. But let us enjoy the smear style of PJM - he invents an allegation, and then because someone who was a 22 year old Young National at the time doesn't deny it, he trumpets it as ad admission it happened. Anyway this debate is over because you are just a diversion from the EFB, as much as you like to invent and chase 18 year old phantoms]
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hurrah for Jordan !!!!!!!!!!!
Finally a Labour supporter who has enough guts to say what a lot of us are thinking about this bill.
Likewise RN don’t dig in to quicksand on this it is better to regroup and have a fresh look at it.
I agree it needs to be scrapped. I don’t mind saying this in front of the mighty rightys either, but I think that the best way to win support now is to say we made a mistake, admit it and start again properly with consulting the public in a fair way or we will forever live with the “albatross” reference and other similar references likening the party to foreign juntas of ill repute.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Spammed any polls today roger nome?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Nah, he’s far too busy making shit up.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“You also haven’t denied what I’ve said RE – Fay and Richwhite.”
Fuck off you thread hi-jacking infant. This isn’t about Fay Richwhite, or any of your fairy tale bogeymen. Its about an almost complete rejection of your leader’s stinking Chavez style anti freedom of expression legislation. Even the lamest Klark toadies have been embarrased into criticising it. When will they get real and admit there is in reality no need for it. Or are they suggesting that all previous elections should be invalidated?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
FRD – I agree with you about scrapping the EFB, but wonder if Labour has the will to do this – sure, Mark Burton will be an easy sacrifical lamb, but will Clark be able to take that deep breath and say “sorry – stuffed up” – somehow, I don’t think so.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
HHHmmmmm cause vs effect
Question for the gnome
Have the substantial contributions to Labour Party Funds by the Trade Union movement over the years been the cause (ie the catalyst for policy creation) or the effect (ie the recognition of policies with which the movement has sympathy)?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I, for one , will say this OUT LOUD.
roger, will you deal with the friggin issue at hand. Why the constant need to bring up shit from the past in defence of shit from the present. It is not even a valid arguement. What you refer to happened (?) 17 years ago.
You are being a tool.
&
Flagging red dog; For future reference, Carter is a worm who has turned. His recent past defense of the bill has crumbled which may just show that Labour are preparing to back down….testing the water as it were.
Your comments about labour admitting a mistake and withdrawing the bill have been made here before, including by me, and rightly been laughed off the page. Certainly it would be the “right” thing to do, but we’ll see.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Roger Nome says: “It’s like National’s Employment Contracts Bill all over again. Except in National’s case, the Business Round Table’s Michael Fay and David Richwhite …. ”
Roger, there is a big difference between labour law and electoral law. The former is what we argue over in election campaigns. The latter is the framework to allow us to have that argument. Labour wants to prevent the public from being allowed to have the argument. No matter what you think of the ECA (or the replacement ERA) you can’t be seriously comparing them with the Electoral Act in terms of their importance to democracy.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Lets not forget that this bill is Winston’s and Dunne’s idea of democratic process too. Without their obeisance it couldn’t get off the ground. It also shows how shallow the protestations of Ron Mark and other NZ First members are likely to be on other matters on which they take a position…What a fraudulent joke the SUPER Gold Card was, I’m surprised even Winston had the nerve to grandstand on it.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Woger/Phillip John:
You haven’t any evidence for your defamatory claim. Nobody is debating the issue with you because it’s a baseless lie, and because it’s another attempt by you to hijack the thread.
Get back on topic.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Leave roger alone, he just stated that Helen Clark & Michael Cullen are the modern equivalents of Fay & Richwhite which must have taken a lot of soul searching to make. Reading rogernome’s written statement of “absolute agreement” on the Clark/Fay equivalency reveals the loathing many (even on the extreme left) feel for this bill.
PS – Roger the similarities do not end there, both defrauded the state coffers and got away scot free.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Rogered Gnome / Phillip John,
Tell me something. Do you actually dream up all of the shit you write or is it something you’re brainwashed into as part of your pointless Political Science degree?
God help academia if it’s the latter.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I’ve been asked by several people to provide proof of my claims. Well here it is – I hope it’s not too upseting for you Nats here. But remember, you should never shy away from the truth however ugly. We ignore it at our own peril.
“Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the bill propose to allow, or, thus far, have any of the submissions made to the Minister, as the Minister in charge of the legislation, suggested that it is right for a political party to secretly hide away in trusts and other financial devices millions of dollars to be used in a campaign with that party’s full knowledge—of the type that saw National take $1 million from Fay Richwhite in 1990—which is totally against the spirit of the Electoral Act of this country?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will it be permissible under this legislation for a third party outside of this House, by the use of its electoral donation money to a political party, to buy that political party’s policy-making machine, the nature, shape, and character of which happened in 1990 with the industrial relations policy of the National Party?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, before we rush to the idea that just because some members do not like the truth it is therefore a matter that cannot be raised in this House, I remind you that I was on the front bench of the National Party when the Business Roundtable not only bought the policy but put two people in the National Party organisation to write the industrial relations policy. Those are the facts. Mr English can disguise the truth, but the reality is that is a political party being bought off.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the member asking the question was actually on the front bench of the National Party, which in those days included talks with the Business Roundtable but not with the rest of the caucus, which included Dr Lockwood Smith—and that is why he does not know—is it the case that the bill will not allow a political party’s policy to be bought and written outside of this place—”
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
God won’t. Academia was the devil’s idea ‘cept he forgot the ‘m’ but still managed to produce nuts only a less useful kind, these are bad for our health, more expensive and found in Ivory towers not trees.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
oh. btw the above evidence can be found here.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/a/9/a/48HansD_20070815-Volume-641-Week-52-Wednesday-15-August-2007.htm
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
In my wiew scrapping or withdrawing the Bill is the worst thing that could happen.
This scheming, manipulative Bill, having been approved by some parties, must be subject to the full glare of publicity (That is if our tame Media are capable of applying same).
Submission proceedings of the Justice and Electoral Committee are to be under the watchful eye of our distinguished constitutional Lawyer “Sir” Geoffrey Palmer who gave some $10,000 to the Labour Party. I am of the opinion, that if this donation was used to help pay off the money owed by the Labour Party, then he is guilty of an offence under the Electoral Standing
I would have thought that a person of his eminence would have vehemently opposed the Electoral Finance Act publicly. Instead, he allows himself to be used to give some “Transparency” to this hypocritical Bill.
Get your submissions in promptly. Only 7 days to go.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“1990 I was just finishing university and am about as likely to know who donated to the Party that year as hell freexing over.”
OK ,fair enough. Please accept my apologies for implicating you in that scandal David – it was unfair and wrong.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Winnie the pooh? THAT is your source? And you say Mike Moore has an axe to grind…..
My god man, you have the consistency of instant pudding!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Peter’s wouldn’t lie in parliament would he? I mean surely he would have been sued for defamation for making outrageous claims like that!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Yeah and if Peter’s had such a problem with it in 1990, why didnt he do something about it then?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
BTW – I thoroughly reject the idea that my above pointing out of National’s hypocrisy is “threadjacking”. I mean FFS, if one party is going to criticise the policy formation process of the another (and validly in my opinion) it can expect to have its own criticised in turn. Particularly when one of its most senior MPs (DR Lockwood Smith) was a cabinet minister it the time of the said scandal.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Anyway, you’re lying again Roger.
You said F&R sent two of their lawyers to write the legislation for the gnats.
Peters said no such thing.
Getting too excited to let the truth stand in the way of a good story ay? Liar.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
ROTFLMAO.
Roger Nome uses what Winston Peters says as proof of something.
Bahahaha. Mwahahaha.
Of course, this is the man who said he wouldn’t take the baubles of office and look what he’s doing.
Roger, that is so bloody funny, you have made my day.
Vote:Thanks.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Sorry to skew slightly OT here but it’s indicative of the state of the electorate that it’s the chattering classes (i.e. us, and those in the media with memories longer than a guppy) who are concerned about this. Trouble is, our idea of “action” is to write a submission, which will be treated predictably when it arrives (straight to the recycling bin) or pontificate in a newspaper column.
Where are the effigies? The banners? The bullhorns? Where’s the outrage that characterised opposition to the anti-smacking legislation, say? It seems the great unwashed simply don’t appreciate the gravity of the Bill or, if they do, don’t care.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Rex, that is because for the great many people all they do is vote on polling day and so they won’t be affected directly. It is the indirect effect on their vote via this bill they should be worried about, but they don’t get it, or care.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Well done Jordan As one who modestly right at the ourset pointed out that the pollies were conflicted and the PEOPLE must be the final arbiters in matters such as this I did wonder if alas I was but a small voice in the wilderness.
Hopefully the pollies will get the bloody message that they arent the only show in town and that sometimes they need to be inclusive and I mean genuinely inclusive rather than treating we citizens as a unnecessary nuisance getting in the way of their good works.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“You said F&R sent two of their lawyers to write the legislation for the gnats. Peters said no such thing”
Name me one non-lawyer who has written legislation for any government in New Zealand during the last 20 years. Any one … please.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Rex I have repeatedly called for revolution and matching to the Parliament and putting some heads on spikes at the gates but sadly I dont have any support Maybe you would like to sign up with me and I will be right and i do mean right behind you as we storm the Bastille
Vive L’Revolution
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
http://www.nzcpr.com/petition.htm
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
More lies from nome.
Nome says that Lockwood Smith was in on the F&R deal, (if it actually existed)
Peters said Lockwood Smith never know about it. Nome would know this if he read the actual transcript.
Vote:Which leaves the question, did he read it, and just not understand it, which makes him stupid, or did he read it, understand it, and lie about, which makes him a liar.
So what is is Rog?
Stupid Liar?
August 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“Name me one non-lawyer who has written legislation for any government in New Zealand during the last 20 years.”
Who cares? Peters says the business roundtable sent two if their men to write the legislation-
You say F&R sent two of their lawyers to do it.
You can’t even copy properly. Moron.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
People – haven’t you learned your lesson with PJ/Rog – DONT FEED THE TROLL. He’s hijacked countless threads and usually the ones covering damaging stuff to do with Clark and Labour. Roger – when David posts about the ERA/ECA or Industrial Relations, have at it – this thread is about what Jordan (rightly in my opinion) said about the EFB. The Electoral Act is effectively NZ’s constitution – previous changes were taken cautiously, in a bi-partisan way and often after an exhaustive Royal Commission or something of similar gravitas. This Bill is the single greatest threat to the fabric of NZ democracy in my lifetime. Nothing even remotely close to it would even be contemplated in the US let alone having a snowballs chance in hell of passing the various checks and balances the US Constitution has.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Bevan:
“Yeah and if Peter’s had such a problem with it in 1990, why didnt he do something about it then?”
Perhaps that was part of what caused peters to leave the National Party?
In any case none of the Gnats denied the claims. They merely winged about how Mr Peters was an “old man” and “living in the past”.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
September 7th- last day for submissions- outside parliament, say 12 midday. I’ll fly down especially. Someone will need to bring a spare bullhorn, I doubt I’d get on a plane with one, especially to WGTN.
Or we wait til the house sits and pack the gallery. At an agreed time we can unfurl banners & abuse….
I suck at organising, I’m used to just giving instructions. But I will be there. Whenever. Whose up for it?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Woger/Phillip John:
So in this little exercise of thread-jacking–yet again–the only evidence you’ve got that Michael Fay wrote the employment contracts bill, despite the fact that FR has never been a major employer, is a claim from Winston Peters, who was never involved in fundraising for the National Party?
I could point to all sorts of former Labour Party members who had no involvement in fundraising for the Labour Party, who are prepared to claim that the unions anonymously donated very large sums of money to the Labour Party, and wrote specific pieces of legislation for the Labour Party to implement. Ross Wilson and the ERA, anyone?
Stop thread-jacking, Phillip John. It’s dishonest and tiresome.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
“Who cares? Peters says the business roundtable sent two if their men to write the legislation- You say F&R sent two of their lawyers to do it.”
My point was that it was an inference, and a valid one. Can you give me a good a reason why you think it’s wrong to assume that lawyers wrote the ECB? If so, i’ll agree that my inference was invalid.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
There are countless academics who write legislation who are not lawyers as they do not have practicing certificates.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“I could point to all sorts of former Labour Party members who had no involvement in fundraising for the Labour Party, who are prepared to claim that the unions anonymously donated very large sums of money to the Labour Party, and wrote specific pieces of legislation for the Labour Party to implement. Ross Wilson and the ERA, anyone?”
1) Winston was not mearly a “member” but a cabinet minister at the time. Big difference.
2) The Employment Relations Act has been slammed by the CTU, especially by Ross Wilson. So It’s just ludicrous that Ross Wilson wrote it.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“There are countless academics who write legislation who are not lawyers as they do not have practicing certificates.”
OK – I’ll admit that the NZBRT may have hired some academics to write the ECB instead of using their own business lawyers. My mistake.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Bullshit, Phillip John. As an aspiring academic who supposedly is an expert on industrial relations, you’re talking through your arse. Margaret Wilson had dozens of meetings with Ross Wilson when the ERA was being drafted. There were some minor issues that the CTU didn’t win its way on, primarily around sympathy strikes and multi-workplace agreements. It was otherwise precisely along the lines of what the CTU were advocating.
You can also stop telling lies about the Employment Contracts Bill. It was drafted by the Labour Market Policy Group in the Department of Labour, with input from Treasury. Bill Birch consulted with a range of employer groups, of course. Max Bradford chaired the Select Committee, and since Bradford’s never been a friend of Fay Richwhite, you can hardly claim that he was bought off.
Simply repeating Winston Peters’ lies–a man who has held total vitriol against Michael Fay for many years–doesn’t make your argument stronger.
Stop thread-jacking.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“I’ll admit that the NZBRT may have hired some academics to write the ECB instead of using their own business lawyers. My mistake.”
Mistake? You said that Fay and Richwhite sent two of their own lawyers to draft the bill. All lies. What a twit.
Peters said no such thing. And even Peters was probably lying. What interesting company you keep PJM…
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
IP:
Ok gotta go now – but before I do, here’s a few choice quotes from some work i’ve done. Have a good night.
“CTU president, Ross Wilson sees the ERA as… too mild a response (to the ECA) to deliver improvements in collective bargaining – particularly in the hostile private sector environment (Wilson, 2004: 173).”
“CTU president Ross Wilson has likened the penalties for breaching good faith to a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket as a deterrent for employers who seek to bypass unions and undermine collective bargaining (Wilson, 2004: 178).”
“Ross Wilson concludes that the Bill is too weak to really address the issue of free-riding, but is a start (Wilson, 2004: 181).”
Wilson, R. (2004) The Employment Relations Act: A CTU Perspective, in Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act, Rasmussen, E. (ed), Auckland University Press, New Zealand.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Oh this is hilarious. PJM quotes Winston as an authority. The man who has told more lies in Parliament than any other person living. How desperate is that.
And as it happens I have written a Government bill and I am not a lawyer.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Phillip John:
Again you’re not proving yourself to be credible as a researcher or academic. The ERB was drafted in 2000. Wilson’s quotes were part of a CTU campaign to strengthen the Act, which were implemented in 2004.
You haven’t come up with any evidence that Ross Wilson wasn’t heavily engaged with Margaret Wilson, then Labour Minister, to draft the legislation to suit CTU interests. I don’t actually think there’s anything particularly suspect about that. Labour was always going to write a law that suited union interests, given the union dominance of the Labour Party.
But you cannot claim that there was no connection.
The Labour Party followed almost to the letter, with few exceptions, the CTU’s prescription for labour reform. The ERA overwhelmingly favours collective bargaining, particularly in the public sector. The consequence of this has been that the trade unions in New Zealand have substantially increased their membership and asset base.
I would have expected, Phillip John, that as a trade union sympathiser, you might actually know your subject well enough to come up with half-decent arguments. You haven’t. You get a D- on this assignment.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
This guys like a broken record! I’d never heard of a ERA fetish before.
Whats funniest is that such an employment specialist is hardly likely to ever be employed, well except by a Labour Govt.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
‘Ok guys, gotta go… and, er, just gotta go’
Something more pressing suddenly grabs his attention just as his arse gets served up to him on a plate.
What a joke.
btw “Ross Wilson concludes that the Bill is too weak to really address the issue of free-riding, but is a start”
wow that’s some harsh, harsh criticism.
Another issue altogether, you appear to be quoting Ross Wilson, who appears to be quoting….himself. what astute people you socialist academics are.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Oh poor roger nome – gets his butt kicked from one side of the blogosphere to the other, and the best he can come up with is “IP:
Ok gotta go now – but before I do, here’s a few choice quotes from some work i’ve done. Have a good night. ”
A bit reminiscent of B-P and the Dominion reporter “What was that – no sorry, you’re breaking up”.
roger nome – YOU are the Biggest Loser!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
What right does a Government that has openly stolen money from the public purse to buy an election have to now foist a removal of our core freedom on to the public of New Zealand without a lawfully obtained mandate from the public in the first place.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome isn’t just a serial threadjacker. He’s also a serial threadjumper when he finds himself in a sticky mess.
Yesterday he quoted various opinions on Mike Moore as evidence of Mike Moore’s views on himself! He failed to address this criticism. Today, on this thread, he serves up flimsy evidence for his own misguided arguments – he quotes Winston as his source! And then (yet again) he runs for cover when the bullets come thick and fast. This is so hilarious coming from someone who constantly challenges others to provide proof. In Phillip John’s blue sky world, the choice is between statements made under parliamentary privilege or plagarised Wikipedia references.
Does anyone know how Phillip John’s thesis is coming along?
DPF: just for a giggle, could you please start another peak oil thread so Phillip John can showcase his latest research?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Well children, what a load of fucking bullshit you all talk.
Vote:Insult each other, relay back to the past on who did what and said this or that.
The attention span is pathetic! The subject is the Liarbore Party trying to take away our freedom to stay in power. It is about our future.
Try and make sugestive comments about this, rather than compare this to old political behaviour.
Can’t see the wood for the trees huh?
August 30th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
As an aside, with tongue poked firmly in cheek, id like to post a wiki quote( source deliberately average…and reflective)
which one of the recent posters on this thread does this most accurately represent
“Asperger syndrome (also referred to as Asperger’s syndrome, Asperger’s disorder, Asperger’s, or AS) is a condition on the autistic spectrum. Like other autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs), Asperger’s includes “restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.” However, Asperger’s differs from ‘classic’ autism in that there is no significant delay in non-social aspects of intellectual development.[1] AS can have both positive and negative effects on an individual’s life.[2]["
Answers on a postcard.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Id like to emphasise that the above post is not to belittle autisim……..I just think the comparison between this high functioning end of the autistic spectrum is comparable to the repetitive diatribe of a certain resident garden ornament.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Fred. That’s just dumb – I mean there’s a lot of repetitive and unimaginative rightwing twatary (twatery?) (sp?) going on in this thread and yet you try to get clever (and I do mean “try”) with Sonic using that line? Are you naturally counterintuitve or does it take years of desocializing? Do any of you people have lives?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I mean – “counterintuitive” and Roger (not sonic). I need to get off this site…
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Fair point Robinson,
Maybe as I said “tongue in cheek”…..may put it in perspective.
You know funny…………like Mike Moore does funny!!!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Robinson, seeing as you’ve put it in issue, do you find left-wing “twattery” equally objectionable? If so then that Phillip John’s a real twat isn’t he.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The British example is worth looking at.
First, an independent commission of inquiry reported on the issue (the Neill Committee).
Then the government released a White Paper with a consultation period.
Only then did they introduce the PPERA.
The contrast with the NZ example where electoral bills were formulated in secret by the governing parties is stark.
And Peter Dunne and Nandor Tanczos supported a formal public consultation process for constitutionally important laws when they sat on the Constitutional Affairs select committee. I will be interested in whether anyone appearing before the J&A select committee will draw this to the attention of the Green Party rep and Peter Dunne.
And will people PLEASE stop reacting to roger nome’s pathetic attempts at threadjacking!
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Is NZ a lovely bunch of folksy types that aren’t doing anything until it is too late!!
Vote:This has all the hallmarks of Stalin’s Russian dream- We at the Politburo alone decide what is best for you as you are unable to decide for yourselves.
Why is there not more public outcry about this ?
If this was in France, UK or the US etc there would be people marching the length of the country to Parliaments steps about this.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Robinson said:
Ah, you made a right pig’s ear out of that, didn’t you Robby. I guess that’s what happens when you try to get clever (and I do mean ‘try’).
Maybe next time, eh, bro?
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Castafiore,
Vote:Miss Teflon will decide what is best for those who are complacent.
There is public outcry, but we can’t cry if we do nothing to stop them.
Too many commentors here hide with a ficticious name. Make yourselves known to the readers. Who are these posters who have no real name?
Identify yourselves.
Stephen C P Otto
August 30th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Steve, names are one thing. But what I’d love to see the IP addresses of some of the posters. Think there’d be a concentration of posters from just a few wellington-based sources. The term ‘commentator’ is probably overly kind for some. Some of us are casual independent folks.. and others are, well, more structured, co-ordinated & scripted.
Back on topic, Labour have mis-read the public on this bill. Their contempt for democracy is astounding.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Krazikiwi: “Labour have misread the public on this bill. Their contempt for democracy is astounding.”
Labour haven’t misread the public on this bill. Their contempt for the voter is not astounding. They are convinced that they can take over our electoral procedures and that the gutless New Zealanders will just roll over and let ir happen. So far they are right.
Vive La Revotution: Aus armes cityonnes!
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 5:57 am
The Labour Partry goes on about the abuse of big money in elections. The neglect to say that this leaves wide open the Labour Party’s abuse of the big money belonging to the taxpayer.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 6:08 am
So, just reading between the lines, Roger Nome supports the ELB. But his reason for that is because he objects to how a piece of legislation National tabled some years back, was formulated. Breathtaking how much some people are prepared to throw our democratic rights to the wolves, just to keep their job. Roger, read ’1984; by George Orwell, it illustrates how slavish adherence to the party line can pervert language and truth. Sadly, I suspect you are too far gone to actually recognise how this applies to your present situation. Especailly read the last paragraph of the book and transpose ‘Big Sister’ for ‘Big Brother. In the meantime don’t give up your job at the Ministry of Truth. You class traitor.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 7:31 am
HP: yeah I did but then I kinda pointed it out myself so trying to score a points off it is kinda redundant. Then again I guess you’ve gotta get your digs in where you can.
POC: Ah, “Twattery”. Thank you, and yes – left-wing twattery is even more annoying because lefties should know better.
DPF: A little birdie tells me that National is against the EFB because they’ve already got $2.1m in their war chest and are worried they won’t be able to use the way they want to if the campaign period is extended to the start of 2008 – is this true?
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Lee C
Couldn’t have said it better. I think John Key saying that this legislation will remove our rights to free speech for a third of our lives is truly frightening.
Frightening I think because it gives a window into the thinking of the iniquitous bunch we have running this country. If they are prepared to throw away our democratic principles (as with the smacking bill) then I think it is extraordinary that anyone still wants to vote for them.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 7:50 am
Frank
Well said. I heard Barry Soper say Clark has often referred to the average NZ’er as “horses” to corral. Her mantra is “don’t spook the horses.”
One would have to say, that with the apparent ease in which they are still maintaining a third of the vote, and how easily they bought off the NZ public in the last election that she may have a point.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:02 am
robinson, war chest bollocks.
people like me – who have NEVER contributed to an political party’s coffers before – are voting with their wallets. I’ve donated money to National becuase I HATE THIS LABOUR GOVERNMENT and everything they stand for.
Labour are corrput, lying, ethically bankrupt and set the worst possible example for any young NZers aspiring to leadership.
Actually, the set the worst possible example for any NZers aspiring to anything.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:09 am
You’re a genius! Perhaps you could list those that are supportive of the EFB. Shouldn’t take long. It will be a short list. Something like Helen, her poodles, her hired goons and, um, er, well that’s it.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:21 am
KK – Perhaps I should’ve said “primarily against the EFB”. Don’t think for a second National’s got anyone’s interest but their own (and their corporate sponsors) at heart. Funny you should bite so quickly – have I hit a sore spot?
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:28 am
Robinson, we are all acutely aware that this bill is ANTI DEMOCRATIC.
It is the worst piece of legislation to even be drafted, let alone one that we could contemplate becoming law. You know this. I know this. Most of NZ knows this.
Yet you seem intent on playing the ‘big business’ trired, stuck record like a programmed clown.
go back you your paymasters and ask for an new script.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:35 am
KK – for the record I don’t agree with the EFB in its current form (I think we do need some sort of change, particularly around anonymous donations and I don’t like the restrictions it places on third parties at all) but I’m well aware that National is dissembling when it talks of democracy. If you could get free from your paranoia about “paymasters” for a second you’d realise that as well.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:37 am
“John Key saying that this legislation will remove our rights to free speech for a third of our lives is truly frightening”.
What is TRULY frightening, is that John Key voices his concerns but does nothing.
If he had one scrap of leadership in him and had some real steel, he would be leading a march on Parliament in protest at this Trojan Horse Blll designed to take over our democratic election procedures.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am
Robinson, what i realise is that this Labour government has deliberately set out to pervert our democratic processes. Labour’s desperation is matched only by their breathtaking hubris.
the proposed legislation belongs in the bin. you had better make it a bin that’s also big enough for a whole bunch of labour MPs who are about to be cast out of their cosy little nests into the real world.
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hey Jordan is flip-flopping. Todays post at his online rag is entitled “Why we need the Electoral Finance Bill”
Also a poster there comented:
Vote:August 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
What the hell was that all about? DPF – I know you don’t usually delete comments, but could we consider that to be spam?
Vote: