A wretched failure
November 30th, 2007 at 7:40 am by David FarrarThe Dominion Post calls a spade a spade when it comes to the Electoral Finance Bill:
By any measure, the Electoral Finance Bill is an abject failure, The Dominion Post writes.
It fails to promote participation in parliamentary democracy – one of its lofty ideals; fails to achieve what the prime minister set out to do – end anonymous political donations – and fails to meet any competent law-drafting test.
As the Law Society says, it is so defective and incoherent as to be irredeemable and should be withdrawn. The Government has instead tried to revise it.
National’s deputy leader, Bill English, has damningly dissected the bill’s worst flaws, so irritating Justice Minister Annette King – now in charge of the bill – that she says the law of common sense will apply. No one can find a copy of that.
The bill is still so muddled that Electoral Commission chief Helena Catt has felt compelled to issue a coded admonition to her political bosses, saying she does not intend interpreting the “law of common sense”. Hers was truly a warning shot.
There are political reasons for Labour to push ahead with the bill; confusion suits the prime minister. The absence of countervailing debate will make it so much easier for Labour to get its message across next year, bolstered by taxpayer-funded departmental advertising for KiwiSaver, Working for Families and sustainability, whatever that means.
Had the Government the country’s electoral health at heart, it would take the Law Society’s advice and start again. It might then, for example, remember that, in democracies, elections are not for the parties that contest them but for the people who choose which among them will lead the Government. It would also consult all political parties – not just those in Parliament – because all voters have a stake in elections.
At election time in real democracies – New Zealand used to be one – ordinary voters, as well as lobby groups, can participate through public meetings, advertising, marches and, in this technological age, the blogosphere. No longer. National has promised to repeal the bill. If it really wants to give Labour and its acolytes pause for thought, it should back off and let them stew in their own juice.
I would blog all the editorials in favour of the Electoral Finance Bill, but I can’t find them.
Actually one has to give the media a lot of credit for opposing this bill – because it is against their own interests. If you restrict the ability of parties, candidates and the public to communicate their views to the public, then the media become far far more powerful. The media almost become the sole arbiters of what messages they agree with and publicise to the public.
Related posts:
- The law of common sense
- It’s about democracy
- Free Speech Coalition saddened by passage of Electoral Finance Bill
- Dunne on Electoral Finance Bill
November 30th, 2007 at 7:51 am
“elections are not for the parties that contest them but for the people who choose which among them will lead the Government.”
Words fit to be engraved – on Helen’s forehead.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Kevin Rudd was endorsed by The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald just before the Australian election. That would be illegal under the EFB. Annette King has made it clear in parliament that an opinion piece that says “Vote for X” would be an election advertisement. So to endorse a candidate, a newspaper would have to register as a third party. How they would then calculate the cost of an editorial is anybody’s guess, but it seems that a large circulation newspaper would easily breach the cap. If not, they are highly likely to be subject to litigation over their costings.
So the EFB is effectively abolishing one of our long held press freedoms – the right of editorials to endorse a party or a candidate.
If that is not an attack on free speech, I don’t know what is.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:00 am
R0b on the Standard has opened the books on quoting me when I come on kiwiblog, so I thought I would return the favour. Over to you R0B.
Qu: Why has the EFB been rushed through Parliament with so little public debate prior to the drafting process?
“In theory of democracy we have the concept of avoiding “the tyranny of the majority”. In other words, the rights of minorities must be protected. It’s not the case that the majority should have unlimited power.”
But what about the fact it doesn’t affect the Unions’ role in electioneering particularly?
“Similarly, in the practice of democracy, we have the concept of “a level playing field”. In other words, the rights of less powerful groups must be protected. It’s not the case that the rich and powerful should have unlimited power.”
Is that why other challenges to the Government are restricted, while the Government gets a blank cheque to spend willy-nilly on promoting ‘public awareness messages’?
“Consequently, every functioning democracy has limits and restrictions on campaign spending, to try and create a level playing field. (Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? – Yeah Right.)”
Why did the Draft of the EFB take disparate examples from the UK, Canda and US, cobble them together with little regard for NZ?
“For these reasons, like most democracies, NZ has always had laws governing campaign spending. The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws.”
And why no iproper round of cross-party consultation or Public Discussion?
“It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.”
So what do you think of those who oppose it?
“National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “free speech”. Well, (in the slightly mangled words of Mandy Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn’t they.”
Thank you R0b.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Oh dear, another newspaper that will be branded as a right-wing mouthpiece now by our usual suspects when they attack the messenger once more.
I honestly support the idea of cleaning up our electoral process, and suspect a number of New Zealanders do. But not through this legislation, not without following due process and certainly not by granting whichever government is in power more rights than it’s citizens.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:06 am
“I honestly support the idea of cleaning up our electoral process, and suspect a number of New Zealanders do. But not through this legislation, not without following due process and certainly not by granting whichever government is in power more rights than it’s citizens.”
Sorry that is unacceptable. You will do as you are told.
hey pascal mail me leeharman42@hotmail.com about that thing. maybe we can form a plan.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:10 am
The one thing that I cannot understand in this whole debate is why the usual suspects will froth on about the EB, but will turn a blind eye to the blatant (and successful) theft of $800,000.00 from the tax payer to win the last election.
Labour is believed to be liable for up to $800,000 for breaching spending rules last year, and it is considering passing legislation to negate the problem.
Helen Clark said that Labour had pioneered the use of pledge cards in New Zealand
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am
How can the Press be so out of touch with reality—-Yeah right!!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Hon. Annette King’s op-ed in today’s DomPost begins to show why anonymity should be protected.
Annette King, the Prime Minister and Michael Cullen can lambast individuals and groups both in the House and on TV but these same individuals have virtually no equal opportunity to repsond.
It’s rather ironic that in such a situation there is an “uneven playing field”.
Furthermore, Annette King’s admission that she was driving around Christchurch to track down a certain group is worrying. Anonymity protects individuals and groups from those who are prepared to use force against others. What’s to say that next time Ms King won’t have a policeman with her?
Anonymity does raise the problem of not knowing where money is coming from but, as history shows us, power should be tipped towards the people, not toward the government. Limiting the power of governers has always been the main driving force behind the emergence of democracy.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Annette King basically says that all opponents of the EFB are National Party stooges tainted by secret money, lies and the exclusive brethren.
WRONG. It’s a sad sign when opponents are attacked on the basis of spurious associations, rather than having arguments addressed on their merits.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Annette Kings piece in the DomPost todaywas pitiful.
She focused on the EB (as they do) and as indicated above maintained the line that it is essential to keep big money out of politics.
By inference she also said it was okay for Labour and its cohorts to stifle free speech and steal taxpayers money.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
A Japanese official in Nazi Germany late in the 1930′s, was asked what he thaought of Naziism and he replied “it is magnificent, but what a pity we could not do it in Japan, because we have no Jews”.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
It took the Dom Post long enough, but surely this is the death knell for the EFB? When even Labour’s chief propagandists say that something isn’t right?
Pascal Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 8:00 am
“Oh dear, another newspaper that will be branded as a right-wing mouthpiece now by our usual suspects when they attack the messenger once more.”
Tane, Sam Dixon, Roger Nome and Co can’t be far off doing just this – come on guys, where are you?
Actually this isn’t a question of rightwing principles versus leftwing principles. The Editors of the Dom Post are part of the Vietnam War Protest generation same as Helen Clark. It’s just that unlike her, they still have SOME principles- this is encouraging, I didn’t have much reason to think so before now.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“Oh dear, another newspaper that will be branded as a right-wing mouthpiece now by our usual suspects when they attack the messenger once more.”
Still, makes a change from d4j or redbaiter labelling media outlets as lefty propaganda machines.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I’ve just blogged on this:
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/annette-king-defends-indefensible.html
Given the suggestion by King that the National Party is puttinbg people up to oppose the EFB, I have concluded my post with a disclosure, and suggest that other bloggers do likewise. Here’s mine:
“Lastly, King implies that opposition to the EFB is confined to the National Party and its supporters. Our “friends” at The Standard, that wonderful blog of the union movement, the last bastion of freedom of speech and freedom of thought, are big on disclosure. Today, so am I, so here goes:
* I am NOT a member of the National Party, nor any other political party. I was last a member of the National party prior to the 1999 election.
Vote:* Until July 2006, I was a paid-up, card-carrying member of the EPMU.
* My wife and I own and manage an education service.
* I am a Christian, but NOT a member of the Exclusive Brethren church. The views expressed on * Keeping Stock are mine, and mine alone.
* I receive no revenue from blogging, and no remuneration or compensation from any political party or other organisation for my opposition the the Electoral Finance Bill.
* I choose to blog anonymously, and will continue to do so.
* I have made a financial contribution to the Free Speech Coalition.”
November 30th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Annette Kingstoff 1934: -Op-ed in the Berliner (Extracts)
“Through a mixture of luck and persistence the Green-Shirts discovered that members of the Jewish community had waged a 1.2 million Reichmark secret misinformation campaign to help elect a Democratic Government…”
“… By chance when the Jewish health pamphlet was published I was in Munich with an Aide….”
“…Through the hard work of our propoganda division we were able to find that the Democrats had lied about the role it had played in secretly assisting International Jewry in their efforts…”
“…But what we didn’t learn to a year in to the current Reichstag is that the Jewish scandal was just the tip of the iceberg…”
“….In introducing the Electoral (Jewish Disenfranchisement) Bill the National Socialist Party overriding concern was to create a level playing field…”
“…We wanted to allow all Germans to know when international Jewry was financing efforts to influence their vote…”
“…Improvements have been made…we have agreed…to delete a clause in the Bill that may have unintentionally restricted the ability of Non-Jewish supporters of the National Socialists to freely debate issues in a non-partisan way…”
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
There is a precious post at Not Right Turn this morning…
“this sort of self-interested constitutional tinkering is deeply undemocratic and constitutionally dangerous, and something no democrat should endorse. While no constitution is carved in stone (and neither ought they to be), changes of this nature need to be done for some reason other than prolonging your own time in power.”
Apparently it’s only bad if Hugo Chavez does it in Venezuela!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
PhilBest said “Tane, Sam Dixon, Roger Nome and Co can’t be far off doing just this – come on guys, where are you?”
It’s Friday mate – they’ve probably taken sickies to go and see Beckham at the stadium for free – abuse him for being rich – they’d be too tight to pay for a look!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
It will be interesting to see how the ‘left’ respond to the DOm for this. They have spent a lot of effort targetting the ‘Granny Herals’, now will they turn against the Dom?
Will it start to become apparent to them that they are burning bridgeswith more enthusiasm than the retreating Wermacht idid in 1945?
Are they short-sighted enough to realise that they will have a hard time picking up the pieces after this, when they have made enemies of so many, with their ‘shoot the messanger’ policy?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
They are all busy texting Dear Leader to see what punishment Mike Williams is to get for dropping her in the crap over her memory loss at CHOGM.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Johnboy – remember that “forgetting isn’t a hanging offence”
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Emmerson’s cartoon from today’s NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/500814/index.cfm?c_id=500814
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I gave that EFB soccer ball a bloody good boot from a distance of 1600m and the impact is obvious . The smack on impact sound will be something I savour for the rest of my life . Even old Becks and stuck up painted bimbo were impressed .
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The ref should make that EFB ball illegal.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
# Lawrence Hakiwai Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
“There is a precious post at Not Right Turn this morning…
“this sort of self-interested constitutional tinkering is deeply undemocratic and constitutionally dangerous, and something no democrat should endorse. While no constitution is carved in stone (and neither ought they to be), changes of this nature need to be done for some reason other than prolonging your own time in power.”
Apparently it’s only bad if Hugo Chavez does it in Venezuela!”
And Tane, Sam Dixon et al don’t even mind Chavez (or Putin) either. The only apologists for this bill now are the loony left.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Inventory2 Says:
“Johnboy – remember that “forgetting isn’t a hanging offence”
Try using “I forgot” as an excuse when the IRD hang you by the balls for not paying your tax.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
LOL the refernences to Nazi Germany Keep them coming and shut down the usual bull shit Godwins defence.
If it loooks like Nazi and it acts like a Nazi then it is a Nazi.
Seig Heil Helen
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I think that the initial strategic reason for this [EFB] was to try and utilise the EB/National link to win sympathy in the next election.
However, the longer it goes on and the more they use the EB line the more it looks like a big government bullying a very small minority.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
reg, (shudders) the similarities are all too creepy…!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The problem I have with likening Helen Clark to Stalin or Hitler, it cheapens the argument…There are plenty out there doing that without us adding to it.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I agree Lee, think Robert Mugabe, but with subtlety!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Lee C: The problem I have with likening Helen Clark to Stalin or Hitler, it cheapens the argument…
Agreed. She does not have the blood of millions on her hands, so it’s a foolish comparison. However, looking at policy and comparing that seems reasonably fair game to me.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Dr Catt said the main purpose of the meeting would be to talk to parties about guidance the commission would be offering on how to meet the new rules. (Can you believe – “These talks to be held after the EFB is passed into Law). What a sell out?
Respect for the Electoral Commission Zero!
Bill English says National wont be attending the talks.
I don’t blame them. “Guidelines” – what rubbish? We need something with teeth. We need, clear definitions and law enforcement
Do we have guidelines for the Crimes Act? Of course not. Only those in the Service of the Crown have Guidelines, Codes of Conduct to contend with.
The rest of us Joe Bloggs have the Crimes Act 1961 only.
We are stupid because we allow ourselves to be discriminated against?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“Agreed. She does not have the blood of millions on her hands,”
guess its all per capita terms and future projections.
With bills like the EFB,, the next thing is book burning.
and you know what they say is the next to be burned.
The very fact the left is trying to placate what the bill says is enough to warrant the strongest of suspicion and act on that alone.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Sorry to stray off topic but if we had a saftey net, like the house of lords, it might stop self serving leglislation such as this. At what point does the Governor-General step in? Can he pull rank in situations like the EFB & Appropriations bill ?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Lee C Says: “However, the longer it goes on and the more they use the EB line the more it looks like a big government bullying a very small minority”.
This is the very point I made in laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission over six weeks ago and renewing it a week ago as there has been no response.
It was concerned with the persecution of a minority religious denomination
Vote:because of the activities of 7 of it’s members.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“like the house of lords ” yeah right Phillip R , Margaret Wilson destroyed that avenue long ago under emergency legislation that obliterated right of appeal to Privy Council ? Go figure, its easy to work out, as it was all well thought out and planned long ago…. Reap what you sow kiwi’s .
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Phillip R: The Governor-General, ex Ombudsman is just a rubber stamp. Busby was a giant compared to him?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hmm.. with all the major papers against the EFB they must be in the pocket of the EBs and big business.
LiarLabour and the lefty trolls that comment on this blog must be wanting to have the newspapers shut down.
I suspect that will have to wait.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
From the DomPost article: “Labour and the Greens… determined to .. make donors’ names public.”
Has anyone else noticed how the history has changed? Labour’s hamfisted and blatantly self-interested attempt to keep anonymous disclosure out of the bill has been forgotten already.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Good point d4j. It makes me sick that this shit can be allowed to happen. Its now so obvoius this deal was stiched up with the greens re S59. And as you suggest may go back many more years.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Who was that kicking the EFB ball in Emmerson’s cartoon?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Lee C said:
“The problem I have with likening Helen Clark to Stalin or Hitler, it cheapens the argument…There are plenty out there doing that without us adding to it”.
I think you’re right Lee in the context of the later developments of the Nazi regime. The Holocaust stands out as the most dreadful blot to ever stain Western civilisation.
But it started somewhere!
Vote:Indeed it started by a popularly elected Party,moving to dismantle the constitutional pillars of a democracy and using an unpopular minority as a “scapegoat” for all societies troubles.
I believe we are perfectly entitled to draw comparisons with the legislative trend of the current Labour Party and the activities of the German National Socialists in the early 1930s.
You say well it won’t happen here.
I don’t believe in 1930 most Germans in the most wildest imagination would believe that their government would/could in 12 years time embark on a program to heartlessly murder in cold blood millions of defenceless men women and children.
It is only by constantly reminding one another of the end of subtle movements towards tyranny that we can be assured that such atrocities will never happen again!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Is the dompost article everyone is referring to in todays paper?
I am buggered if I can see any such article and yesterdays paper went in the recycling this morning. Perhaps I need new glasses.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Editorial was yesterday.
Vote:Yesterday also Op-ed by Bill English.
Today reply Op-ed by Annette King.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Poor old EBs. Lambasted again by Green Party Sue Bradford on radio talk back.
Again they tried to buy an election! Never Ends? Same weak old argument regurgitated by the perpetrators of the EFB
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
PDM – page B7
It’s not on the stuff website yet, but here’s a link to Bill English’s piece from yesterday:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4296654a1861.html
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Here’s how English concludes:
“When it comes to changing aspects of the electoral system, the Government of the day has a duty to act in a completely transparent, fair and non-partisan manner. It must scrupulously avoid proposing changes to the electoral rules to favour itself.
But this has not happened under this Labour Government with its disgraceful and anti-democratic Electoral Finance Bill. What we have seen is outrageous, self-serving behaviour from the Labour Party as it desperately seeks to screw the scrum to win a fourth term.
Labour is bringing lasting shame on our democracy as it treats voters as stupid and stacks the rules solely in its favour.
A National government will repeal this outrageous legislation.”
Note to Tane, Sam Dixon, roger nome, ghostwhowalks, rocketboy etc etc etc – read Bill’s lips “A National government will repeal thos outrageous legislation”
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
A King, using her expertise as a former dental nurse keeps drilling into the Brethren but it ‘aint working ,lady. The pamplets used Green party website info and other publicly available info so its utter crap labelling it misinformation.She is part of a vindictive,paranoid administration trying to ram through rotten legislation and I hope the public see it as such.
Vote:The parliamentary privilege rules need reviewing,because there is simply no precedent to the abuse some MPs have levelled at the EB.
Good points Reg.
When are the cops going to find who stole/hacked DBs emails – Hollow Hagar and Co need to be exposed sooner rather than later
November 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Opponents of the EFB email these people and tell them what you think:
Helen Clark: pm@ministers.govt.nz
Winston Peters: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Jeanette Fitzsimons: jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz
Peter Dunne: peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz
All these leaders of parties support the bill.
KILL THE BILL
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
go NZ said “When are the cops going to find who stole/hacked DBs emails”
Never, because it’s not in the public interest, use your common-sense, nothing to see here, move on……..get the picture?
Sadly, the top brass of the NZ police have become like most other government departments – highly politicised, and highly unlikely to do anything which will cause the government any unease.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Inventory2:
The funny thing is: they really couldn’t argue otherwise.
It’s interesting to take stock on the “defence” of the EFB we’ve seen so far.
Yesterday, when Phillip John/Roger Nome wasn’t being an offensive wanker (those who viewed the particular thread will know what I mean), he was trying to justify the EFB. His position shifted from “Labour has a mandate to legislate” to “it’s no different to National in the 1950s regarding the upper house” to “80% of the public supports it but let’s not discuss the poll methodology” to (most laughable of all) “National in the 1950s set the stage for privatisation in the 1980s and 1990s”. Phillip John was, I think it’s fair to say, roundly criticised on all of these counts.
Others (Sam Dixon, Tane et al) have tried to defend the content of the Bill, but this essentially is rhetorical flourish: “one person, one vote” and “stop the rich from buying elections”. They have yet to prove that one person doesn’t get one vote (a logical absurdity) and can’t defend Labour’s pledge card expenditure or prove conclusively that money buys elections (they best they can come up with is, if money doesn’t matter during election campaigns, then why do people spend it?)
Still others (Sam Dixon and Kent Parker particularly spring to mind) have attacked detailed analysis of the EFB, by arguing that any contrary interpretation is shallow, misinformed and wrong. Sam Dixon’s laughable “rebuttal” of DPF’s specific criticisms – especially after challenging DPF to put them up (I think) – was an embarrassment to his self-claimed legal credentials.
Finally, we most recently have Phillip John (and others who I’ve probably missed) arguing that it’s all a storm in a teacup, and this time next year people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. This is also a makeweight argument. It fails to address the appalling path the EFB has taken: non-consultation before the first reading; leaky Select Commitee before the report-back; report-back with substantive new material on which the public never got to make submissions; and no doubt second and third readings to be taken under urgency as 1 January 2008 is fast approaching.
When I reflect on all of the above, it’s a complete disgrace that those who would defend the EFB can’t even so much as acknowledge that the process could have been much better.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Good summary POC
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Peak, great summary of play – appreciated.
Now did a bolt of lightening hit Troll HQ today? Where are the critters? Perhaps the fax machine jammed and the day’s Troll Patrol obuscation talking points failed to reach the front-lines?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“Where are the critters?”
cacofinix has gone white baiting.
After being soundly rounded on.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
FRANK SAID”Dr Catt said the main purpose of the meeting would be to talk to parties about guidance the commission would be offering on how to meet the new rules. (Can you believe – “These talks to be held after the EFB is passed into Law). What a sell out?”
I was also surprised by Dr Catt stating this after having been very courageous previously in stating exactly what she thought of the bill. The Human Rights Commissioner has also diluted her assessment…Could it be that they have had the example of the independent professionally appointed Electricity Commissioner who was effectively fired and replaced by Liabour Hack David CAYGILL placed in front of them…..Dr Catt’s proposition seems absolutely rediculous…….Interesting to see the new Liabour Goverment in UK was given almost $2,000,000 in election donations by a man using for four identities one of which belonged to a Tory Supporter, when the donor’s apparent wealth was less than half a million dollars. …Surely a case for the commo Hager to look at.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
POC – excellent post – my point was that our “friends” on the left tried their damndest to link Brownlee’s clumsy offer to roll the “validating legislation” over for a few months until a mutual agreement was reached for National somehow flip-flopping on the entire EFB. They have not, they are opposed, they will repeal it, and the trolls from the Mundane, kwiwblogblog etc should stop lying.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I see Colin Espiner has weighed in on the EFB:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2007/11/29/pleased-to-meet-you-john-key-re-introduces-himself-to-new-zealand/
These seem to me to be very sensible comments,
particularly given Espiner’s other comment:
I defy anyone supporting the EFB to offer up a decent rebuttal.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Oh and witness this gem over at Espiner’s place:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2007/11/25/humble-pie-and-sausage-rolls-at-kevin-rudds-place/#comment-24970
This has to be the most novel defence of the EFB yet
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“Labour parties the world over serve sausage rolls and potato-top mince savouries at election functions.”
yes,,
Very hypocritical behaviour.
these are the very foods they are keeping out of schools, so it won’t be long b4 they take them out of lunch bars.
slowly & slowly the socialists creep. marching a little bit at a time, taking our country from us.
The creeps.
Ewwww. Helen had the gall to call Campbell a creep.
See how she deflects things off herself.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Nice one hinamanu! Look forward to Labour getting taken to task by the Food Police for eating the very substances they say that our kids can’t eat. Now, what’s it going to be for tea tonight, fish & chips?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Appeals to reason are clearly ineffective and this abomination will be rammed through. Civil disobedience everybody? If not, why not?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I can’t see any reason why not mara, as what has the average kiwi citizen got to lose under this oppressive Labour gummint ? Freedom of expression is the right of every New Zealander . The EFB is a bloody insult .
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I’d love to see an orchestrated and media-reported example of two people (one EB and another Labour supporter) collaborating to deliberately flout the mugabesque laws that will be ours from 1-Jan. I wonder about the outcome…
I’ve said this before… I’m normally shamed by overdue library books or parking tickets. But I’m planning to get over that in a major way in 2008. Civil disobedience? Where do I sign on..?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Checked the Very Double Standard today – it has totally ignored the Dominion Post article.
Vote:Perhaps this is their new strategy – pretend it’s not happening?
Now Annette King will be talking the bullets for this ‘less than spectacular’ (to quote Gruela) Bill.
Another political career sacrificed on the altar of Helen’s paranoia?
three Urban myths:
1) There is no split in the Labour Party
2) The EFB will create a ‘level playing field’
3) Helen will last out a fourth term as PM.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I think looking at the EFB politically is the best thing that can happen to the National Party is for Labour to pass this legislation in something like it’s current busted up and broken down form. I think civil disobedience in 2008 will happen as will lawyers who oppose this law will be studying the final legislation carefully to find the inevitable loopholes.
Unless Labour ditches this bill next week they’re dog tucker who will get a major kick in the arse from the voters.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
oops typo….
Vote:‘is’ should have been omitted so should read:
“EFB politically the best thing than can”
November 30th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“I think looking at the EFB politically is the best thing that can happen to the National Party is for Labour to pass this legislation in something like it’s current busted up and broken down form.”
Your strategy would be complete text book manouvres if John Key could be trusted. very, very dodgy.
Could the bill be taken from a demons hand straight into the Devils.
I know that’s a hard analogy, but what politician has proven the licence for that kind of trust up till now.
No politician of any political leaning leads this country by example.
I’m surprised we haven’t been told to tighten our belts as usual,, even with the surplus. Certainly never a campaign statement!
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Colin Espiner’s comments (quoted above by POC 4.07pm) are a rare criticism of the Government from a columnist who usually sits well with most of Labour’s fare.
Maybe the lateness of his call suggests that he is feeling the prefofessional danger of sitting on an increasingly insecure fence?
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
“professional” – sorry.
Vote:November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I loked this so much when I posted it on keepingstock I have repeated it here.
The government have become blinded by their own arrogance and act as an echo-chamber for their own spin.
Vote:for a long time they have been spoiled by a compliant media and as a result their critical faculties have withered through lack of usage.
There is a cultural over-hang. They still believe that ‘saying it makes it so.’ and are vitriolic in their treatment of any dissenting voices.
But this means they have ceased to take the argument or debate to the poeple, rather, relying on a scratched-record mantra to relay their policy – not their beliefs.
Annette King is simply trying a technique of villifying the opposition to the EFB which is sadly past its sell-by date.
However, Annette, her government and her hard-line supporters are so out of touch that htey haven’t realised that the electorate it in the process of doing what Helen Clark so often advocates – it has moved on.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:06 am
seen this?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10479362
This might be some way towards an answer to the EFB issue?
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice link Lee but pointless words, as Helen Clark does not know what this line means ; ” When a little humility could go a long way ” . Just look at her lies and blatant refusal to correct what is wrong ? How could she possibly understand humility !! The examples I can give are endless, but one that does ring out above the others is her deranged words when addressing a question on the possibility of poverty existing in kiwiland . She replied it was “extrapolated from an anecdote ” . I would hate to hazard a “guesstimate ” on this women’s mental well being ?
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
I tend to agree that this mammoth mess that they have got into is a gift for the Nats as long as they run the campaign against it as hard as Bill English has in fact I think JK Bill and Gerry should all be focused 100% on the issue and let the others run the Erin Leigh mess for them.
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am
What did you expect, Lee? Yes, and while the Sub-Standard is blithely convicting National of copyright infringement they might care to brush up on some pretty basic media law (particularly libel) and the whole idea of the difference between an allegation and conviction in a real court.
Also note that the Sub-Standard has done an Orwellian doublethink regarding the unimpeachable authority of Roy Morgan’s polling – now that the numbers are moving the other way.
I can at least respect No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant because he’s putting a left-wing perspective out there, Tane and Co.? Why don’t they come out of the closet and admit they’re just Labour hacks regurgitating the talking points de jour?
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
On the way home from work yesterday afternoon I actually heard Soper telling Susan Wood on ZB that the EFB was a crock. F***ing near run off the road. Worms are not only turning but starting to spin at high speed!
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
johnboy – it could be a very interesting, even seminal week in the House next week – does Labour have the courage to push ahead with the EFb despite overwhelming opposition? How long until one of Labour’s support parties blinks? Surely the latest Roy Morgan poll (taken before the Herald article) and the latest Herald Digi-poll (for roger nome’s benefit, that’s the scientific one, not the online one that Labour hacks rig all the time) should be sending the small parties a message by now – support Labour on the EFB at your own peril! Where has the Greens’ social conscience gone? Watch this space!
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
IV2 ‘courage’ isn’t really the right word instead ‘stupidity’ seems to fit better. As Barry Soper told Susan Wood on ZB today the EFB is appalling
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
This whole debacle really began with one of the worst ever distortions of the truth by the media, viz, that the EB “Secret Seven” somehow represented National’s alliance with ugly “big money”.
After lengthy digging by the media, who obviously hate the Brethren, we have seen a beat-up of links between a few tinpot small businesses and allegations of “envelopes of cash” being carried through customs. One of the “secret seven” apparently lives in “a sprawling villa in Epsom” shock, horror. Where are the EB Fay Richwhites and where are their billions, and where are their tax avoidance schemes through the Cook Islands? How many Exclusive Brethren own an obviously luxury car, or a boat or plane?
More like, the money they spent was a serious whack in their pockets and they deserve to get credit for the depth of their convictions. John Boscawen likewise, it seems, is not a REALLY wealthy man. The REALLY wealthy are conspicuous by their abscence on these issues. What we’re seeing here is the sheer depth of envy concerning even moderately successful people, on the part of Liarbour and THEIR supporters.
Farrar’s point about the power of the media is well made. They know that they can derail pretty much any efforts made by anyone else anyway.
I believe too, that Don Brash was not guilty of “lying”, that his surprise at discovering the identity of the authors of the leaflets was genuine, and that he had had so FEW meetings or discussions with them that he was unable to make the connection at the crucial moment. Only the “Investigate” magazine, though, ever gave readers enough information to enable them to decide if THIS was in fact the true story.
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Lindsay Addies said “IV2 ‘courage’ isn’t really the right word instead ’stupidity’ seems to fit better. As Barry Soper told Susan Wood on ZB today the EFB is appalling”
LA – I used the term “courage” deliberately. Labour has made its strategy to:
*demonise “big money”
*demonise John Key, especially where said “big money” is involved
*demonise the Exclusive Brethren church for the actions (legal) of seven of its members
*demonise National for colluding with the EB.
This is a very risky strategy IMHO, and just how risky is apparent by the fact that Labour is running out of cheerleaders for the EFB. The public is, in growing numbers, against the Bill. The media, especially since the Herald made it front-page news, is starting to turn on the government. Professional organisations and even quasi-government organisations such as the Electoral Commission and the Human Rights Commission are speaking out against the EFB, and even acadaemia, with the possible exception of Dr Peter Davis (either Sociology Dept, Auckland University, or Kingsland, Auckland, depending on which Letters to the Editor you’re reading!) are speaking out. Labour has made this a die-in-a-ditch issue, and until now, its nerve has held. Does Labour, or more to the point Helen Clark have the political courage to push on regardless? Or will one of the support parties (either the Greens or NZ First have enough votes to tip the balance) do the pragmatic thing and pull the plug. So yes, IMHO Clark’s courage is to be tested this week.
As for stupidity – no contest!!! New Zealanders love a fair fight, and Labour has made an absolute hash of the reform of our electoral laws, by tipping the balance so much in their own favour. Dumb stuff indeed, and Labour will pay in November next year.
Vote:December 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Looks like the USA is trying to limit free speech also.
The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It’s a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law.
Vote:http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 am
405 to 6? Come ON. I can’t see Nancy Pelosi and the bleeding heart Democrats letting through the sort of thing that you’re alleging. There’s NO COMPARISON with what President Klark and her lickspittle parliamentary allies are about to do to NZ and YOU KNOW IT.
Vote: