Support the Free Speech Coalition
September 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm by David FarrarAfter scores of requests for something to be done about the Electoral Finance Bill, apart from hoping the Government does a Damascus and agrees to withdraw it, I am happy to announce the formation of the Free Speech Coalition.
Please support us in informing the public about this Bill, and what its effects on society will be. The more the public know about this Bill, the more they will hate it. But we need to be able to get them more aware of it – that is the aim of the Free Speech Coalition. We have no major funders. In fact we have no funders at all at this stage. All expenses have been met by us personally.
So please help us to help yourselves.
Related posts:
- Free Speech Coalition saddened by passage of Electoral Finance Bill
- Free Speech Commissioner Needed
- Free speech – but only for some
- Dom Post on free speech
September 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’m sure all those beneficiaries and low-income workers, will sign up in droves, gutted at no longer being able to spend more than $5000 on an election campaign without registering as a third party.
Why not have a look at what Nicky Hager has to say instead?
Vote:http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/09/guest-column-election-funding-whats.html
September 28th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Free Speech for those who can afford it.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
David, some of your commenters would be more at home at MoveOn.org or the local version, MorOn.org
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
And some of your commenters have inexplicably named themselves after fascist dictators. Free speech, anyone?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Does anyone care what Nicky Hager thinks? A discredited leftie who scaremongers. Wow – we should all take note and take what he says as gospel. Jeez.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Love the lie in the very first line
““This website will be illegal after January 1, 2008.”
Still is nice to see such a bipartisanship, the site has representation from fullest range of political opinion, from rabid National party diehard to, er slightly less rabid National party diehard.
And woe betide anyone who thinks these guys are unprincipled
” We will however voluntarily pledge to refuse any anonymous donation above $10,000″
And there was me just about to get my chequebook out, sigh.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
A discredited leftie who scaremongers
Yet no one has denied the evidence put forward in the Hollow Men about National’s electoral rorts and cynical manipulation of the public.
And Hager makes a good point. This anti-EFB campaign shows all the hallmarks of the kind of dishonest campaigning exposed in the Hollow Men.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
And the EFB bans anonymous donations. Not.
Otherwise where would Labour get it funding.
From stealing from the tax payer of course.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
As a passionate advocate of free speech, I would love to help, but cannot join with the people behind this initiative due to their previous attacks on free speech of others.
DPF was a well known advocate for the “anti-spam laws” we now have, laws that are ineffective and anti democratic.
Funny, but using email to promote the cause of free speech could now be caught under the anti spam laws Farrar supported.
You can have free speech or not; but you can’t have limited free speech.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
So, we can say “cunt” on this site now that we’re all into freedom of expression? I only ask because there have been times that I’d love to use the word cunt. But I have desisted because I did not want to breach your prohibition on the word. It is, after all, your site. But seeing how you’re now actively championing free speech, does that mean your tolerance for pushing the boundaries of tolerable expression will necessarily increase – so you can be an exemplar of tolerance?
[DPF: If you can not understand the difference between someone asserting control over their private property and the Government banning significant criticism of itself in election year, then that's pretty sad]
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I thought the Coalition for Open Government was created for this purpose?
Whatever, when they were set up, I asked them who their backers were, as I well recalled the anonymous men whose heads were hidden by paper bags who spent millions of dollars trying to stop MMP being introduced.
Who is behind your group, David? When I try to find out on the website, eg by clicking “about us”, nothing happens. Is the site only available to members, or something like that?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Tane wants to prevent those on low incomes to uniting in organised opposition groups that are not mere quislings for an entrenched middle class chardonnay party. Sonic supports the legitimisation of anomynous donations and the illegitimisation of public debate. Sometimes it is better to observe facism in action than to rely on ad hominen attacks on an internet name.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
So, we can say “cunt” on this site now that we’re all into freedom of expression? I only ask because there have been times that I’d love to use the word cunt.
Using such language certainly says a lot about the user. Whether it’s a free speech issue is rather less certain.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
It is working now dave, you have to remember it is “designed” and “managed” by NZ’s most technically incompetent blogger.
I’d such cock up not conspiracy.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Free Speech for those who can afford it.”
So typical. Actually free speech is for all. According to Sam, poor people have no freedom to speak?
Of course, your ideal seems to be that those who are “rich” have less of a right to actually use their money for whatever purpose they choose, within the law? that poor people should be given funding so they can practice fee speech?
Free speech but with a price tag. Nice concept. No sweat Sam, I am sure that Labour will find plenty of money to go along with the exemptions for those who wish to speak. As long as they agree with the government of course.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David, this is your main ally in the coalition of free speech?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1306
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8660
Jesus David, the people you associate with…
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David, this is your main ally in the coalition of free speech?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1306
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8660
Jesus David, the people you associate with…
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Oh, and let’s not forget this one:
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Craig, can you a single country that does not put limits on how much you can spend in an election campaign?
Go on, tell us who.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The About Us section as full details. It must have been temporarily not working.
And it is quite incorrect to suggest this Bill affects only those with over $5K to spend. It affects every NZer who spends even $1 on promoting their political views. It will affect every person who wants to take part in a protest march.
Read the Law Society submission and today’s Herald for examples of how far reaching this Bill is, affecting oridnary NZers.
And Sonic, who I suspect has never ever even read the Bill in detail, is wrong. The KTB website would be illegal next year under the EFB.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Leave the Election Funding Bill alone! It’s going through a hard time right now! You’re lucky they even draft legislation for you BASTARDS! Leave the EFB alone! Please!
Anyone who has a problem with the EFB you deal with me.
LEAVE IT ALONE!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I had wondered why your usual post volume was way down. Now I know. Looks like nice work. Sonic et al, you were wrong the last 10 times you shouted those things, you are still wrong. Repeating it over and over again on every single thread isn’t going to make you any more right, it just shows you don’t have anything better to do with your time.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Sonic, where have I said anything about no limits on spending ?
Vote:Your comprehension really is shocking.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Tane sonic et al In the words of your beloved Heavenly Deputy Leader You lost We Won Eat that. Good grief are you morons eyes and ears painted on. Which bit dont you get The Gumints most rabid supporters have declared themselves against the bloody thing When the Human Rights Commission full of Socialist luvvies come out and bag it in the terms they did .Pleaseeeeeeee I suppose you idiots are going to tell me that the HRC actually supports the BIll and I misunderstood and misrepresented their submission Wouldnt surprise me.
Crawl; back into you holes and let the grown ups deal with the issue
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Happy to send a cheque if needed. Rather give it to a good cause then some thieving fucking socialist arseholes. And happy to put my name to it.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
And it is quite incorrect to suggest this Bill affects only those with over $5K to spend. It affects every NZer who spends even $1 on promoting their political views. It will affect every person who wants to take part in a protest march.
As it is currently drafted, but as Hager argues, this is something that can be easily fixed. What you’re trying to do is use these drafting errors (which will be fixed) to muddy the waters while you defend the right of wealthy interests to spend enough money to control the agenda and drown out the voices of ordinary NZers. It’s all just a bit cynical, really.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Whatever effect your new site has on our government ,DPF, it’s certainly got the resident trolls on this site all fired up. Some of their posts are almost incomprehensible.
Vote:G
September 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
gd, in answer to your question on the HRC, I’ve posted on it here:
Vote:http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=232
September 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
CraigM:
So you disagree with the many righties around here who put forward the argument, that the level of election spending has no important or significant impact on the outcome of elections?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Craig you ranted about free speech “not having a price tag”
I’d like you to tell me which country does not regulate election spending.
The last I did so someone made a list, when I checked the first three they all had rules.
The bill will be ammended to deal with the issues raised, everyone knows that.
No 3rd party Brethren millions next election lads, how will you cope?
Mind you talking about this bill sure as hell beats mentioning actual National policy eh David. This week shows what a risky business that is.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Danyl kind of nailed how I’m feeling about the whole thing really.
Still, we mustn’t give up the fight. So, sorry Danyl the EFB is in for a continued pounding. I know it is not the bills fault, it is the fault of the Generals. But, the bill is there and it is cannon fodder. The soldier always takes the bullet for the generals.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
roger, i so agree. decades of evidence of this, after left then right governments. and beside, the $800k the Labour stole apparently had no impact on the last election outcome so why the hypocrisy in suggesting the opposite of other election funding activities?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
oh, and i agree with Grant… the trolls are alive and kicking suddenly!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I’ve donated and I fully support David et al in fighting this bill.
roger nome – if excessive spending affects the election result – then Labour stole the last election by overspending by a minimum of $800K.
I STILL don’t understand why you guys want to shut the EB up so much. If they were talking tripe it shouldn’t bother you. But because they picked apart leftist policies and said why we should vote against them you are still in a lather 2 years later and want to drastically curtail my free speech in a pathetic attempt to shut them up permanently.
If National were in power and had proposed this bill you would be screaming blue murder.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Sonic: Craig you ranted about free speech “not having a price tag”
For one, don’t put quote marks around a phrase that I did not type and then attribute it to me. That makes you dishonest.
And your comprehension still sux.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Tane – not that easy to fix at all. Sure one can narrow the definiton of an election advert but then a placard that says “Vote out National as they hate workers” would still be illegal unless one has a statutory declaration, and a name and address on it.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“roger, i so agree. decades of evidence of this, after left then right governments. and beside, the $800k the Labour stole apparently had no impact on the last election outcome”
All up, in the three months leading up to the election Labour (and third party campaigns supporting Labour) spent about $3 million dollars on campaigning whereas National and the Bretheren spent about $5 million – so it’s a bit silly to be saying that Labour bought the last election by outspending National.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“The bill will be ammended to deal with the issues raised, everyone knows that.”
Who knows that? What evidence? Where are the promises? What does “deal with” mean? Does that mean fiddle in the detail enough to claim that you have solved the issue and then ram the bill through under urgency, or does it mean actually fixing each and every problem with the bill?
Sonic, I can understand how you might be happy with a proposition (which hasn’t even been put publicly) of “trust us”, but I cannot see most NZers trusting Labour with this one. Their self interest is far too clear.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Great effort DPF and Co
You could have renamed this posting,
“How to make Trolls get jumpy”
look at them all bleating!!!!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Hey I’ve just had an idea. Rather than whine about a group of people who get off their arse and are willing to fight for what they believe in, why don’t those who think the Electoral Finance Bill is fine, subject to some minor amendments, launch a campaign in support of it and ask people to join up.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“The bill will be ammended to deal with the issues raised, everyone knows that.”
Utter bollocks.
My view, for what its worth is this:
Vote:The bill was originally designed to nobble anonymous donations which most people agreed with in principle. The Labour party, in cahoots with their mates, decided they couldn’t afford that and have turned their attention to how they can limit criticism of themselves while still being able to use taxpayers money to retain their hold on the treasury benches.
The litmus test for the trolls is this:
If National had put this bill up, word for word, would you support it as fervently as you are now?
G
September 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Tane: Yet no one has denied the evidence put forward in the Hollow Men about National’s electoral rorts and cynical manipulation of the public.
The halmark of any good conspiracy theory is that it must be believable. They typically refer to some entity, men in suits with dark glasses, secret meetings and attempts to control us against our will. And there are always a gullible few who would swallow these words and proclaim them to be truth.
Heck, the evidence of alien abductions are fairly compelling, but just because they’ve not been denied by the aliens does not make them true.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Tane – what Hager says is that anything Labour does that undermines our democracy is a “mistake” but whatever National does on any topic is always sinister and cynical. That says Hager likes Labour more than National. Like his books, it doesn’t tell us anything more.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
All up, in the three months leading up to the election Labour (and third party campaigns supporting Labour) spent about $3 million dollars on campaigning whereas National and the Bretheren spent about $5 million
And that’s not even counting the huge amounts of money National spent outside the three month campaign spending limit. No wonder they’re screaming so loudly about the Jan 1st cap.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Sonic: I’d like you to tell me which country does not regulate election spending.
The last I did so someone made a list, when I checked the first three they all had rules.
That’s not quite correct, now is it? If I recall correctly, you asked for an example of a country that does not limit / cap election expenditure.
There were plenty of examples of those given, but with regulations on anonymous donations.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Look, it’s absolutely clear that National can’t be trusted. The EFB simply takes us one step closer to responsible government. Sure we can have opposition, but their appropriate role is to comment in parliament, and anything else is really unecessary. We can trust Labour to be the one party that really cares.
So the next step, after this, should be referdum on whether the people of New Zealand want a rabid right wing bunch of fascists exploiters to manipulate our economy and make us die early, or whether they will see sense and elect Labour and President Clark to a 10-year term to see through the unstoppable march to equality and prosperity.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Tane, the reason I can post images like that is because we currently have free speech.
oh and why don’t you go get a sense of humour wile you are at it.
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
— Noam Chomsky
Oh…Kill The Bill.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Roger Nome: Every cent the EB spent helped Labour. You know that. So it is silly to say National had a $5 million campaign. You may just as well attribute the cost of the EB’s “campaign” to Labour, such was its effect. [Of course, you could also attribute Labour's idiotic flying baby billboards to National for the same reason
]
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The halmark of any good conspiracy theory is that it must be believable…
Mate, there’s no denying the primary documents. National got caught out lying to the public and screwing the system, and no amount of spin can get around that fact. What’s telling is they don’t seem to have learned their lesson because they’re using all the same tactics.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
roger, what was the value of the unions support of Labour? care to put a dollar figure on it for us? No, thought.
how about the vote-buying inertia attributable to WFF (and similar) advertising – even as a percentage of the overall spend? No, thought not.
oh, and the Hedgehog Apology for everyone’s Friday afternoon viewing pleasure.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Actually, that’s a thought. What happens to citizen initiated referenda in Election Year?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
oh, and just donated some $ to the FSC. good stuff.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Roger, you are going nowhere with that. Last time you tried to quote numbers, and stated that no unions would have exceeded the limit in the EFB, you were flat out wrong and proven to be so. What credibility do the numbers you are quoting now have? Did you just make them up again, what did you exclude?
DPF, the bottom donate link via Visa doesn’t appear to work. Haven’t tried the others yet. (In case it is a browser problem, I’m Firefox on XP. Takes me to a blank paypal page with a retry link, and a title of “page not found”)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
roger nome: All up, in the three months leading up to the election Labour (and third party campaigns supporting Labour) spent about $3 million dollars on campaigning whereas National and the Bretheren spent about $5 million
1. The Exclusive Brethren campaigned AGAINST the Greens. A move which could have benefited Labour, ACT, NZ First, National, United Future, Destiny and all other parties EXCEPT the Greens. In the end, it turned out to be most advantageous to Labour.
2. I would like to see official proof of your numbers. Sucking them out of wikipedia / Hager’s book does not count. Be sure to include man hours, efforts from Unions, distribution of pamphlets by public service workers and alleged governmental advertising bearing the red signals of Labour in them, too.
As you are insinuating that National is the party operating covertly, it is worth noting the examples of the Labour party covertly attempting to steal the election too. Plenty of examples of those to go around, and yet you don’t decry them?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
LOL at Milo. Then we could have a referendum on the value of having an opposition at all. And then…..bliss.
Vote:G
September 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Ah life is sweet, who cannot enjoy the irony of Whale Oil quoting good old Noam Chomsky.
We won’t let him forget that will we!
“why don’t those who think the Electoral Finance Bill is fine, subject to some minor amendments, launch a campaign in support of it and ask people to join up.”
Because David not all of us think it is all that important, but then again not all of us are desperate to help the Nats buy the next election eh?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
good work David. Ive put myself on the mailing list already.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Tane said: National got caught out lying to the public and screwing the system, and no amount of spin can get around that fact. That’s debatable, unlike Labour which screwed the system to the tune of $800k+ and just told the police to put their election thieving in the big round recycling bin, thus dispensing with the need for spin. Labour lies? Christ, you’d need a bloody bigger server, David, if we were to list all those…
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Tane: Mate, there’s no denying the primary documents. National got caught out lying to the public and screwing the system,
Just goes to show how readily you believed the National Enquirer of New Zealand. Next you’ll begin believing all sorts of happenings with lesbian cabals running the government, strange occurences in foreign airports and sham marriages for political gain.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
[DPF: If you can not understand the difference between someone asserting control over their private property and the Government banning significant criticism of itself in election year, then that’s pretty sad]
Its worse than sad, its a glaring example of how ignorant the left are on some critical aspects of democracy. Freedom of political expression being curtailed by government is the issue. What private people do with their own property (blogs for example) is nobody else’s business.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Whaleoil, we may have free speech, but when you post images like this:
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046 and this: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1306, you lose a bit of credibility.
I mean, come on, photoshopping a 15 year old boy’s face onto a porn shot? I’m surprised David Farrar wants to be associated with you in this campaign. Guess it must be slim pickings over on the angry right wing of the blogosphere.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I wonder why, if the EFB is not so important, that the trolls are taking time away from their busy days to so passionately defend it?
Vote:G
September 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Do we really need Tane to comment? Mate you are the ultimate WOFTAM.
Waste of f***ing time and money. Get a real job!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Tane aka Mulgabe
Sonic aka Mulgabe
Sam aka Mulgabe
roger nome aka Mulgabe
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flys like duck and swims like a duck then 9.9/10 it is a duck.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Mal, I thought we were all about free speech?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Nice work Ross, did you think of that all by yourself, including the typo?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Yeah, and all for people’s right to tell you that you are speaking crap, and that your utterings are pure partisan puff. The same as people could do with any advertising campaign during an election.
Of course, if you are a Labour supporter you believe that the sheeple are stupid and easily led, hence why you have a focus on policies that remove choice from them. Of course, you don’t consider yourself to be part of the sheeple Tane, you’re much smarter than that.
National supporters, on the other hand, generally think that everyone else is pretty much as smart as they are, and that they can make decisions on their own. They are at a bit of a loss as to how we explain the existence of sonic and yourself Tane, but we assume that is just the tail of the bell curve.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
In fact, Sonic/Tane, to give you something useful to do rather than repeat your usual statements, I’ll give you a challenge. I see a lot of risks in the EFB, and I don’t see any need for it. Disprove the risk, and/or prove sufficient need for it that outweighs the risk that I see, and I’ll change my mind.
So, on the risks, I don’t accept your assertion that they don’t exist because we should trust Labour. However, the world is a big place. Show me another liberal democracy that has this combination of long black-out period, wide definitions of media and topics covered, and low limit on third party campaigns, and demonstrate that it hasn’t adversely impacted political engagement in that country. If it is such a great idea then probably some other country has already done it, and if it didn’t cause problems then I would agree that my assessment of the risk is overstated.
Alternatively, convince me that there is a problem that needs solving. Identify for me the holes that the current law doesn’t already cover if it were adequately enforced. Where did someone run a campaign that inappropriately influenced the outcome of the election. This would mean that:
– a third party ran a campaign
– that campaign was not known to be being run by that third party
– that campaign did something other than publicise well known facts
– the people viewing that campaign were somehow manipulated into believing something that was somehow untrue
Show me one of those in a credible and well argued way, and I will agree that this bill is needed. The rest of your blather is just one flavour or another of “but this bill is well intentioned”, “but National are bad” or “but the EB are freaks.” None of which are in any way relevant, even if they were true.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome has publicly stated that his life-long ambition is to be a highly-paid academic. It’s a bit rich then – pun intended – for him (and others) to bleat on about the mega-rich buying election results.
Here’s a question for the usual suspects/borderline trolls:
Can you provide PROOF (higher than the requisite Phillip John standard) that the election campaign spending correlates to the election outcome? And, as the media usually portrays elections as a two-horse contest between National and Labour, it’s no argument to say that feeding peanuts to the minor parties entrenches them as minor parties. To take an example, one could waste $5m on Peter Dunne and I doubt he would get any more traction on election day.
Would anyone vote for Phillip John if he spent $100m on an election campaign? No?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Mark Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
And the EFB bans anonymous donations. Not.
Otherwise where would Labour get it funding.
- Labour takes no anonymous doantions over the reporting limit, unlike National, which uses Trusts and lawyers’ trust accounts to hide its’ donors identities. check out the facts (elections.org.nz) rather than blindly recycling DFP’s garbage
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Tane, are you the Tane Woodley standing for the Northern Ward for WCC?
Vote:Just curious
September 28th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Tane LOL You quote Trotter to me. Trotter is a washed up has been A legend in his own lunch time. Still living back in the glorious old days.
Like him you miss the whole point cause you both are thick as 2 short planks. Its about principles but of course using principles and Socialist in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
And the last part of that word describes Trotter to a tee.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Sam What do you call $500 000 anonymously donated by an expat kiwi billionaire living in Aus?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Oh no sussed, I am Mulgabe!
Too late on a Friday afternoon to go it all again Pauly, don’t worry the bill will get amended and pass into law and civilisation will still be standing.
Just like Homosexual law reform, the legalisation of prostitution, civil unions, the smacking bill etc etc etc.
Right wing bloggers frothing about Stalin/Hitler/Mugabe always puts me in mind of my favourite Shakespeare quote.
Much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Have a good weekend comrades (thats just for you ratbiter)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
roger n – can you provide evidence of the amount actually spent by the EB’s on their pamphlet campaign?
The words “millions of dollars” flow easily from your keyboard but I am certain that I have never sen any figures on amount spent even if you could legitimately link it as you have as in “…. National and the EB’s spent ……. ”
I do beileive they stated to the EC that they had a budget of $800k or was it “up to $1m” but then I haven’t ever seen anything as refined as the absolute fact as eventually admitted after much obfuscation and backsliding over commitments by the LP that the Pledge Card cost $800K or the value of GST on the Nats advertising was $100K which they themselves drew to the EC attention.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“Roger Nome: Every cent the EB spent helped Labour. You know that. So it is silly to say National had a $5 million campaign.”
That’s not the point though is it? The point is that National and their supporters, according to all publically available information, far outspent Labour and its supporters during the 2005 election campaign. So to claim that labour won the election through outspending labour is simply not credible. In fact National came within a hare’s breath of buying the election through spending nearly twice as much as labour. I don’t have the time to collate that figures at the moment, but have done so in the past.
All the necessary information is available at these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen2
(BTW – as for the unions – the PPTA spent about $ 130,000, the PSA spent about $100,000 – all up it seems unlikely that the unions spent much more than $600, 000 – i.e. there are only about 5 unions that are wealthy enough ot have made significant contributions – add the NDU, EPMU and possibly the SFWU).
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
DPF asks:
Because Telecom has torn down so many bloody phone booths they can’t find anywhere to hold a meeting.
Well done David et al. Now take it to the streets!!
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Phillip John:
“So to claim that labour won the election through outspending labour is simply not credible”
Hrumph – I think you meant to say “outspending National”. And have you figured out how to spell “suspension” yet – or is it still “suspention”?
“In fact National came within a hare’s breath of buying the election through spending nearly twice as much as labour”
Do you know how ridiculous you look? Flip the proposition around. So Labour spent 50% less for roughly the same votes – how does that equate to National “buying the election”?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Phillip John / Roger Nome: You are twisting facts to suit your view there. Donations count for nothing. You want to look at the expenditure. That is what actually was spent. According to the Party Expenses:
1. NZ Labour Party: $2798603. 17.59% overspend.
2. National Party: $2128028. 5% underspend.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/party-expenses-2005.html
So please try again.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Bok – that wasn’t anonymous – it was Owen Glen.
Sonic asks: “Craig, can you a single country that does not put limits on how much you can spend in an election campaign?”
The following are countries that do not put limits on how much may be spent during an election campaign:
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United States, and Australia
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
And as I am 93% convinced you will be trotting out the tired old Exclusive Brethren excuse, and linking to Wikipedia to prove it. Here are some facts for you.
1. NZ operates under a MMP system.
2. The Exclusive Brethren’s pamphlet attacked Green party policies.
3. The Exclusive Brethren’s pamphlet did not recommend or solicit votes for National, otherwise it would have been counted as expenditure against the National Party under current electoral law.
Like the Pledge Card was counted against Labour’s spending, until they retrospectively changed the legislation to legalize their overspend.
Now, some deductions for you. Which I’m sure you’ll be able to keep up with.
1. If the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign took votes away from their target, the Green party, where do you think those votes would have gone?
2. Two possible scenarios present themselves. First is a party with a diametrically opposite viewpoint – National as you would have us believe. The second case would be towards a party that has a closer tie to the Greens. This second case seems more likely to me.
3. If the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign took votes away from their target, the Green party, those votes would have gone back into a pool, ready to be snapped up by any of the remaining parties striving to form a government under MMP. Remind me again how many parties wanted a seat in the house? It wasn’t just National, was it?
4. So, logically, we can conclude that the Exclusive Brethren’s campaign likely offered a gain to all parties EXCEPT the Green party.
Of course, in actual fact due to perception and media spin they ended up severely harming National’s campaign, lightly harming the Greens and effectively offering a boon to all the other parties.
So please, to try and include the expenditure of a third party under ONE party you happen to disagree with’s expenditure is a ludicrous proposition and only shows a partisan slant to your arguments and reasoning.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
DPF said:
“a placard that says “Vote out National as they hate workers” would still be illegal unless one has a statutory declaration, and a name and address on it.”
Actually, that will be illegal even if there is a statutory declaration and a proper disclosure statement.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Bok Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Sam What do you call $500 000 anonymously donated by an expat kiwi billionaire living in Aus?
I say ‘Bok, you’re an idiot’
its not $500,000 and he’s not anonymous, his name is right there, public and proud on the offical declaration of donations of $10,000 (as required under current law). elections.org.nz
May I suggest you do some research for yourself, rather than just absorbing the rubbish Farrar spits out, then you won’t make such stupid mistakes.
Maybe then you’ll notice whose name’s are missing: the dozen or so men who donated the bulk of the more than $2million National recieved anonymously in 2005.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I am a bit stupid aren’t I David. I thought when you called yourselves “The Free Speech Coalition” you might actually be interested in freedom of speech. But, as your response shows, you’re actually interested in a very narrow aspect of the free speech issue and you have only a limited interest in promoting it in your own forum. So, it’s a case of do as a say, eh?
Your actual campaign might be better described as:
“The Campaign for Freedom of Speech in the regulated period immediately preceding an election as it pertains to political dialogue but unrelated to reasonably regulated political party statements”.
I understand this is your private property – that’s why I asked and did not assume. I stupidly thought you might actually want to model the behaviour you’re expecting others to aspire to.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Post No. 28 on the topic with comment No. 2876 from assorted paranoid conspiracy theorists. And post No. 28 and comment No. 2876 are just as partisan, unilluminating and boring as post No. 1 and comment No. 1.
I think you’ll find everyone is over it already, and the sky isn’t going to fall anytime soon.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Yes, but it is a police-state mentality that Helen and co are quite happy to visit upon New Zealand. The legislation is beginning to look like a ’scorched earth’ policy, designed to starve the enemy of as much sustenance it can, as Labour retreats.
The legislation is not only selfish in its conception, it is is also imposing a major encumbrance on the democratic process which the next generation will find itself incapable of shedding.
Poor sleepy old New Zealand! Still in the 1980s in its attitudes: ‘It could never happen here” has long been the mantra of the ‘do nothing’ spirit, and guess what, it could, and it will. only last week someone blogged on here admonishing DPF for interrupting his desire to live a quiet life and get his lawns mown on the weekend…. poor sleepy little new Zealand!
It’s nice now, we are all great chums and the good old spirit of fair play seems to pervade our attitudes. But tomorrow and tomorrow, you will only need one switched-on, media -savvy party who is able to bully, buy or cajole its pathetic oppositon into submission, and the EFB will be a free ticket to perpetual power.
If New Zealand wants a bloodless revolution to bring it into a single-party state, the EFB will probably be lauded as the second great milestone in this process. The first? retrospective legislation over election spending.
I find it astounding that there are people who are so partisan in their political viewpoints that htey are seriously supporting this legislation, but there it is, it is their right to say what they want. They support it because they are stupid enough to believe that the political climate will always favour their views and so and anti-democratic measure, designed to suppress free speech will not affect them..
Like smokers who ignore the warnings on cigarette packets because cancer is something that other people get…. Until they find themselves diagnosed with it then gosh they wish they’d listened to all those health warnings! It is only then that they are chastened that they laughed at those who told them it was bad for them. Such is the selfish spirit in which this Bill is conceived, and such is the selfish and short-sighted attitudes of those who support it.
So trollers and EFB defenders, kick back, light another cigarette, ignore the health warnings, after all they are directed at every one but you , aren’t they?-
Once the genie is out of the bottle, and all that.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
TomS – yet another one of your off-topic witterings – I didn’t realise you were employed by ratemyblog.com.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Just read the Nicky Hager article at NRT. Chr*st he talks a load of crap. Do you believe for a moment, that if National had drafted this bill and put it forward, that Nicky would write:
“…..no reasonable person can believe that the Labour [insert National] Government was actually trying to close down democratic debate in New Zealand under the cover of an electoral finance bill.”
Laughable.
“That is, it deserved some “do-your-job-properly” criticism from the opposition parties. It warranted some news stories on clumsy drafting, how the Government had got it wrong and hopefully some comment on how best to fix the bill.”
So he’ll blame incompetence over cynicism for labour, but when its EB and National……it’s a grand conspiracy supported by the (new) Jews of the South Pacific.
Hard to admit, but look at Brash and Clark. Who’s more likely to have been incompetent, and who’s more likely to be cynical and ruthless?
And no comments section on the site either…says it all really.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
You’re obviously right about Owen Glenn’s donation not being anonymous, Sam, but you did also say:
“Labour takes no anonymous doantions over the reporting limit, unlike National, which uses Trusts and lawyers’ trust accounts to hide its’ donors identities.”
Which is wrong. Labour took 8 anonymous donations over the reporting limit in 2005.
Also, Owen Glenn donated $300k in 2005 and just under $200k in 2004 – which is pretty close to $500,000 in my book.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Sam Dixon: Maybe then you’ll notice whose name’s are missing: the dozen or so men who donated the bulk of the more than $2million National recieved anonymously in 2005.
Interesting, I note that the only two parties to receive actual anonymous donations are Labour and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party. What was that you said about Labour taking no anonymous donations over the reporting limit? (And we’re not even digging into ones under the reporting limit)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Clearly Owen Glenn isn’t paying enough tax if he can afford that sort of money.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
“Clearly Owen Glenn isn’t paying enough tax if he can afford that sort of money.”
Vote:Is that because he doesn’t live here?
G
September 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
That was my point exactly Grant.
Great isn’t it.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Grant
I guess it was in the best intertest of democracy, ensuring a Labour Govt using the funds of their rich mates….
It’s just lucky that the left wing supporters are blind when it’s in Labour’s best interest. Imagine how many would be slagging Owen Glenn off !
Policies of envy look a little hollow now don’t they. Go the EB – see if you can match the wealth of Labour’s billionaire backers !
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I’m always amused by the left’s attacks on people they perceive as being rich, ie entreprenuers, businessman, farmers, persons on over $60K, etc.
Vote:That money they throw around so happily has to come from somewhere and if those people didn’t produce, the socialists would have to print the stuff like Bob Mugabe does.
Heard that name round here somewhere just recently too…….
G
September 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“I’m always amused by the left’s attacks on people they perceive as being rich”
Its a kind of standard reaction isn’t it? No matter what the issue, if you disagree with leftist policy, you must be some kind of rich cronyist advocating for your buddies. Funny thing is, when it comes to cronyism, nobody is worse than the socialists.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Sonic: “No 3rd party Brethren millions next election lads, how will you cope?”
You haven’t read the bill, have you Sonic? It does nothing to stop the Brethren that is not in the present legislation. And, as I have not noticed the Brethren campaigning for National in the last 12 months while Labour have been taking a rogering in the polls, you need to make room for the possibility that people are sick of Labour.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
burt said:
Clearly Owen Glenn isn’t paying enough tax if he can afford that sort of money.
You are assuming of course that it was Glenn’s money.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
We’re going round in circles – and still no EFB supporter is adequately making the case that election spend-up correlates to election outcome.
Let’s say Phillip John wakes up on a Sunday morning and decides that the end of the world is nigh (he’s done this once before). So Phillip John decides to set up, I don’t know, the Peak Oil Party. Come election time. Phillip John and his party faithful can’t get their message out there because the neoliberal cabal can afford to outspend him (we’ll humour Phillip John and assume, as he does, that the neliberal cabal is ultra rich and, therefore, anti-environment).
Question for EFB supporters:
(1) How does it advance democracy if Phillip John and his merry-go-round supporters are knee-capped in their ability to campaign? [spending cap]
(2) And how does it advance democracy if everyone else is forced to pay for the Peak Oil Party’s campaign? [centralised funding]
(3) And if the Peak Oil Party spent $100m on their election campaign, 100 times everyone else for the sake of argument, does that guarantee them a victory?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Well done to everyone on the new Kill the Bill initiative (a word lefties wouldn’t understand).
Vote:I have registered and offered my support.
There is endless banal dribble on this thread about EB’s and how the EFB won’t really affect free speech and any other topic that may deflect from the real issue.
When organsiations such as the Law Society and HRC come out with such strong wording we should ALL (left, right, pink or green) realise we are in trouble. It can’t get more obvious.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Billy, you’re wasting your time. It’s gone home.
Vote:G
September 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
# Sam Dixon Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Free Speech for those who can afford it.
This blog didnt cost me a cent to post on
Vote:get a life troll
September 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
# Tane Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David, this is your main ally in the coalition of free speech?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1306
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8660
Jesus David, the people you associate with…
so he has associayted with Cameron slater who is worth about ten of you
Vote:these guys are all hard working productive members of the community
whereas you
Do you do anything except whine
September 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
At least Red can spell Mugabe.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
what about Mr Burton’s other gem of a bill?
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=28726
The one giving police the right to seize assets on suspicion of crime, rather than conviction/proof. Justified because Australia does it and they confiscate more money than we do…
Is that still happening?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
adc that would make a lovely set to go with the EFB wouldn’t it?
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
well it seems to be in keeping with Mr Burton’s mentality (or lack thereof)
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
# Tane Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’m sure all those beneficiaries and low-income workers, will sign up in droves, gutted at no longer being able to spend more than $5000 on an election campaign without registering as a third party.
Why not have a look at what Nicky Hager has to say instead?
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/09/guest-column-election-funding-whats.html
“It was a simply a drafting error and was inevitably going to be fixed once the officials and politicians realised they had got it wrong.”
HAHAHAHAHA
this is Hager the Horrible who went on Radio saying it was the Nazi Partys Bill
“This includes National’s secret collaboration with the Exclusive Brethren, who pumped nearly $1,500,000 into advertising to try to get National elected,”
not proved! and the amount keeps getting pumped up wtih NO EVIDENCE
and don’t say no one has denied it BECAUSE THEY HAVE
“That National has got away with this campaign to date is evidence of where some of the genuine problems of our democracy lie.”
Vote:what utter crap
poor old Hager has to go onto a lefty blog because noone else will lsiten to him and this is the most undemorcratic blog that wont allow anyone to comment
Lol
September 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
# Graeme Edgeler Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
The following are countries that do not put limits on how much may be spent during an election campaign:
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United States, and Australia
Vote:Germany the great country that brought us MMP\
surely our lords and masters of MMp the Green party have got some excuse why we deivated from Germany
September 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
# Tane Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
As it is currently drafted, but as Hager argues, this is something that can be easily fixed. What you’re trying to do is use these drafting errors (which will be fixed) to muddy the waters while you defend the right of wealthy interests to spend enough money to control the agenda and drown out the voices of ordinary NZers. It’s all just a bit cynical, really.
Ooops
Vote:Last week it was Hager saying this was the Nazi partys Bill
This week Hager has changed his spots now it is a Drafting error
Scuse me I AM CYNICAL
The man from the weird lefty Greens party who brought in the stupid MMp system because…because…because…because those old hippies couldnt get anyone to elect them changed his tune pretty quick Eh!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Swampy
Look the left don’t actually care a hell of a lot for the facts and that’s about the size of it.
Let us not forget that if “You and I taxpayers” underpaid our tax return by $800,000 in 2005 then by the time we paid it back mid 2007 – the loan would have cost us $1.2m (with LPP, incremental LPP’s and UOMI). So don’t be surprised when the lefty apologists pump up the EB spending by the same proportion or more.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Graeme Edgeler.
Do you have an opinion on why NZ wants to set a limit on campaign spending under MMP when the countries we modeled our implementation of MMP on don’t ?
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 5:20 am
David – (or anyone out there) I am getting sick of this subject, because the Labour Party have essentually kept the lid on it to their own advantage.
It appears to me that all the bellyachng in the world, all the informed opinions, all the esteemed bodies who criticise the EFB are not going to make an iota of difference to it.
I find it incredible that this issue about which we have been whinging for over a month now, is still lagely under the radar as far as Joe Public is involved.
All the majority of your contributors (and I am guilty also) do is chitter-chatter, like THAT’S going to really hurt Aunty Helen’s rise to power, isn’t it?
The amused contempt of the leftie bloggers and trolls display in here is actually justified.
All they have to do is come in,expend a few seconds on some trivial crap about the EFB and the rest of us, like sheep, follow, and ignore the basics.
We are like idiots who crowd to watch some Punch and Judy show while their accomplices load up the car with our household possessions.
We can spend the whole day going on about ‘who said what to whom and how”. But the fact is, all that is chaff, spewed out in the wake of the left-wing Labour ageda to comandeer and divert attention from the real issue.
Some have commented that this blog is a great place to ‘do nothing’. I agree.
Yesterday, having read and taken on board this, I put up a “EFB=RORT” outside a local MP’s Office. It was a small gesture, I know…BUT IT FELT GREAT!!!!!!!!!
Then I asked if anyone might have any ideas about how to organise similar actions.
Guess what, apart from one or two ‘well done’s’ virtual silence.
It’s in the too-hard basket.
Or is it the spineless hot-air basket, readers?
My opinion on this (while I’m still allowed to hold one):
The only thing the MPs care about is their position in power, so , people do do something positive to confront them with their covert activities on this one. Suggestions include:
Find a list of marginal seats, and start to ask these MPs where they stand on this issue.
Put together a poster or leaflet to expose this issue and give it to ten people with their MP’s address on it.
Write a letter to the editor.
Put up a poster outside your MP’s ofice indicating their involvement with the EFB.
Make this an election issue.
Or is the alternative more attractive because it involves ‘doing nothing’?
Are we going to spend another day belly-aching on here, then switch off with the self-satisfied air of one who has ‘made a difference’ when all we have done is enable, and empower the opposition to get away with robbery?
Speech over. You bunch of big girls’ blouses.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Lee C: Well said. Just a bunch of do nothingers. Empty words “full of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing”. A bunch of Neros fiddling whilst The Realm of New Zealand is torpedoed by a corrupt parliament.
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 9:01 am
“Do you have an opinion on why NZ wants to set a limit on campaign spending under MMP when the countries we modeled our implementation of MMP on don’t ?”
Yes.
1. We had a spending limit under FPP and copied it over.
Vote:2. I believe the Royal Commission recommended one.
3. Many countries without spending limits instead have limits on fund-raising instead, and equalise parties through this, rather than spending limits.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Graeme – people raking over coals. I think that this EFB has become a real dog’s dinner. Public and cross-party consultation could have sorted out so many of the things that it seems it has been left to bloggers to work out for themselves over this issue.
I think most people wold support spending caps – after consultation, and also a limit or need to declare anonymous donations – after consultation, etc etc. Trouble is there wasn;t any.
What a mess-up this is.
At worst corrupt, at best incompetent – totally a waste of time
Vote:September 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Thanks Graeme.
Vote: