So what! He’s only acquired a green thumb to go with the red flag. He’s a commie!!

Sorry Roger nome, I think replacing the govt is too important to suddenly get magnanimous over a monumental cock-up.

National played this one straight, offered to participate and to be non-partisan about it. Labour rebuffed. If they had come up with something vaguely saleable they might have gotten away with it, but unfortunately for them will now get what they deserve.

The offer to now consult is basically an offer to take it off the front pages, or even better, to put your own foot in your mouth so you can take a turn at being pilloried. There is no way that National can afford to pass up this opportunity – god knows that nobody passed up the opportunity when John Key made a minor mis-speak in his speech to the party conference.

…and the editor of the BOP Times should be fired for his grovelling endorsement of it. What a disgraceful example of a newpaper editior and journalist. Their role is to protect the public from this kind of thing, not slaver over such attacks on freedom choice and democracy like some Red Army propaganda officer. Even at such a turgid example of newspaper publishing as Wilson and Horton, Craig Nicholson stands out as one of the worst examples of a journalist ignorance.

The EFB could well be called the Sedition Provoking Bill as

A seditious intention is an intention—
To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand – leads to public disorder

although

Not seditious is:
To point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of New Zealand, or in the administration of justice; or to incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand.

Needs must if the Devil drives

Reasonable adult humans can admit mistakes, scrap them and be willing to start over. They can swallow their pride. Very obviously we aren’t dealing with reasonable adult people who care about NZ. This lot are loyal to Labour NOT NZ.
Sheesh, tis basically treason – let Labour practice goose-stepping as they get marched around the back of the bikeshed. NZ needs a Bikeshed Bill. All pollies gotta cycle to work so that a bikeshed can be legally justified.

As our servants, in the Service of the Crown, they are trying even more to advantaging themselves to our disadvantage by attempting to rewrite the rules of their engagement.

It is no different to employees wanting to write the rules of their employment and so suddenly we are alerted to their intentions.

When we look at the situation closely we have already lost. They have won.

Our servants allow us every 3 years or so to choose a new staff from a list of their own making. No CV, references or previous training required. No code of conduct required but a Privilege Committee exists fot them.

The conditions of their employment, pay, perks, entitlements, freebies, retirement, etcetera have been set by their appointed representatives.

We can’t sack them. They steal from us, so the upholders of the law look the other way, and this gives them time to write a new rule that vindicates this criminal behaviour.

However there is always a fly in the ointment, in this case Taito Philip Field so there’s a whole rigmarole involving Judges to view his misdemeanours.

The only way under our archaic system, of getting rid of them, is if the Governor-General uses his reserve powers and sacks the lot.

Where has this so called Democratic System of ours gone. It’s been hijacked?

I agree Craig. However I’m not suggesting that National should think about Labour’s welfare . I want them to consider the negative impact that this bill could have the electoral process in the future, and the public’s confidence in it. Surely these things are more important than scoring some cheap, shot-term political points?

[DPF: The real danger to the future PJM is the damage to the conventions around the Electoral Act. Never before has a party trued to use it so brazenly for partisan gain. It's a bit like coups - once you have one, then the second one gets much easier. Now if you allow the Electoral Act to be used as some grand bauble of office that the winner of an election get to rewrite to try and screw over its enemies, then every future govt will try and do that. It will be the first item on the post election agenda. How do we skew the rules to favour us? The process and substance of what the Govt has done is so flawed, that unless they are reprimanded for it, then it will be open slather in the future. Letting this bill proceed is what will damage the electoral process and confidence in it. Referring all the issues to some sort fo public inquiry or citizen's jury would safeguard that confidence.]

Feh… quite right I was referring to the ECA, but don’t think that changes my point – which interestingly enough, you completely failed to address.

But I had to have a bit of a giggle at reading this: his issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National. I thought this was important enough to have a serious piece of legislation put up in the first place; Labour felt otherwise, as they’re entitled to do, and don’t expect me to feel much sympathy when they have to wear the political consequences for their actions. I seriously don’t think this bill can be ‘tweaked’ in the House.

This does seem to be an issue on which the majority of people, regardless of their political hue, agree. As such it represents an unrivalled opportunity to “take back the reins”.

What’s needed is an apolitical vehicle through which supporters of any party, and the noncommitted, can combine to take back democracy.

So what form should such a vehicle take?

IMHO the citizenry would welcome the chance to take back the power in matters where the pollies have a conflict of interest.

We should decide on any matter concerning voting or the funding of political parties. The pollies should be there to do our bidding. Alas over the past few decades the bastards have usurped our rights and taken it on themselves to decide these things.

We have allowed them to do so through apathey and sucumbng to their seduction.
Time for us to retake the reigns and take back control over them.

Vive le revolution

BULLSHIT.

It’s only become an important issue because of the complete balls-up that was made of the EFB.

National have a right to score points of this one. One could even say they have a duty.

What is really important is that it shows us all the incompetence of the current government, their willingness to do anything to stay in power, their flagrant attempt at stealing my freedom of speech & their total lack of accountability to Nzers.

To me, those issues are more important than whether or not the EB will be able to issue more pamphlets at the next election.

Fuck them. Let them squirm. This bill deserves a burial, not a rebuild.

This issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National

So… it wasn’t important enough to take National up in the offer of contributing to multi-party discussions. It was small stuff, just a few chats with the poodles and all would be good.

But now that it looks like a mother-of-all-legislative-cockups and the MSM are hitting Labours bollocks out of the park with each passing editorial… now it looks too important for National to not get involved in?!?!

Have faith in you own abilities roger… try holding your breath.

I agree PaulL – Labour isn’t blameless in this. They should have sort a more inclusive drafting process. They should have, in the very least, invited the input of all parliamentary parties in drawing up this bill. It does involve altering New Zealand’s constitution after all.

But two wrongs don’t make a right Paul. This issue is too important to be used as cynical political point scoring opportunity by National. If they’re more interested in the good of the Nation, than scoring some political cheap shots, they’ll look to form a consensus on this issue. But it is National we’re talking about, so I’m not holding my breath.

The current tactic is to ask John Key to give them some ideas, instead of pointing out that they ballsed it up. This is pure diversion – they want him to suggest something, which would then allow them to attack him for it, and shift the heat away from them. He would be mad to give them that opportunity.

If they want a cross-party consensus, then they should create a structure that allows that, along with the consultation approach with both parties and the public that would allow compromises to be made. Asking John to throw out some ideas in the absence of that structure is absurd. As was them attempting to design a bill like this in the absence of that structure.

I’m afraid that the only way forward for Labour here is to can the bill and start again with a proper structure. Expecting John to give them a free pass on it is just not going to work.

“GD – I’ve been a proponent of direct democracy for a long time now. So of course I agree that this issue should be put to a binding referendum …..

GD – I’ve been a proponent of direct democracy for a long time now. So of course I agree that this issue should be out ot a referendum. However, I also acknowledge that we have to work within the system that we currently have, and unfortunately BCIR isn’t part of it.

“I know its hard for Socialists and their supporters to comprehend the principles of good governance but I would expect the Right and even the Centre to understand. It aint that difficult.”

In my experience direct democracy advocates are more often lefties than righties, so I’m not sure where that came from.