Dom Post on pledge card legalisation bill
Friday’s Dom Post Editorial lays into the The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.
The legislation is as outrageous as the spending that provoked it. It is every bit as outrageous as its companion measure, the Electoral Finance Bill, also before the House.
The former will allow political parties to spend their cut of the $14.6 million as they see fit; the latter will effectively deny all but Government MPs the opportunity to spend more than a pittance publicly advocating, backing or opposing policy.
Indeed. It is a three part whammy:
- The EFB restricts how much one can criticise parties and MPs, extending the period of regulated speech
- The EFB exempts parliamentary spending
- The ACIMPPB removes restrictions on parliamentary expenditure in the last 90 days
The net effect is that you have de facto state funding of political parties, but even worse that their electioneering is exempt from electoral spending limits.
The Dom Post goes on to say:
It is incredible that any social democrat party would countenance such a move but when a party faces possible defeat, it can elevate ambition over ethics. Miss Clark seems to be calculating that the public interest in election spending is over – that, while voters got seriously angry in 2006, this latest row will be an overnight wonder.
National needs to ensure she is wrong.
Indeed. National can not stop these two laws, but they should continue to remind the public of them right up until election day.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:17 am
But DPF, haven’t you heard? National’s very own font bench heavy weight Gerry Brownly has said that National’s all for labour’s electoral law reforms. Well all of them except the one that will make it harder for them to launch multi-million dollar attack campaigns, funded by the same overseas property developers that have helped create the housing bubble.
You might try listnening to the Radio NZ interview linked to in the piece. It’s very illuminating indeed.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=622
[DPF: National is not in favour. Simple as that. National have pledged to repeal it.]
November 10th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“[DPF: National is not in favour. Simple as that. National have pledged to repeal it.]“
But DPF – National also promised to stop the rogernomics agenda in the 1990s – in particular, they promised no more privatisation of SOEs, nd what did we get? More privatisation of SOEs. Is it not conceivable that National may be saying one thing publicly, but planning another thing privately (i.e. the hollow men)? Gerry Brownly’s rather naive slip up the other day in the debating chamber certainly indicates this.
[DPF: Apart from the silliness of harping back to 20 years ago (why not go back to Muldoon also) I do not recall National ever promised no selling of SOEs in 1990. I would be amazed if they did]
November 10th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Good morning Roger Nome. How’s the attack on Democracy going today. Continuing to run interference for the erosion of our political institutions are we? Is it “my party, right or wrong”.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I’d say it was odds on that the Labour Party have exhausted their financial reserves and due to growing contempt for the party, are having trouble raising money from the usual sources.
Leftists habitually have no compunction whatsoever about looting the taxpayer. In their collectivist delusions, the Labour heirarchy see every dollar that any NZer earns as their dollar. As well as this, they are pathologically obsessed with power. Its natural that the left would promote this legislation.
The need money from some new source. They are desperate to win the election and press on with their plans for a one party totalitarian state, an objective so tantalizingly close they are collectively wetting their pants at the thought it might slip away.
Given all of the above its unlikely this corrupt gang of cronyists thieves and thugs will be deterred. All NZers who still care about the integrity of their government can do is take note of the politicians who are supporting this legislation, especially those in the minority parties, and whose leaders have hollowly professed to watch over any dishonesty and deter the major parties from any such course of action. Given that most of these so called leaders are themselves shallow and weak opportunists whose own actions consistently confront their propaganda, there’s probably not any real solutions there either.
There is in reality only one person who can really have any effect on the incremental destruction of NZ’s Westminster democracy. That’s you readers. Only you can restore some degree of integrity to NZ’s democratic system. You, every one of you, must use your vote to free this country from the grip of these immoral conscienceless thieving power obsessed totalitarians.
During the election campaign National must do the right thing and promise to not access any money made due to them under Klark’s legislation. If they didn’t do this, any criticism or promise to repeal would have an extremely hollow ring.
More importantly though, if Nationally totally distance themselves from this deceit and corruption, it would then allow those many former Labour supporters outraged by Labour’s arrogance and this immoral legislation to vote for the Nats.
National can turn Labour’s thievery into an extremely useful vote winner. All the Nats need is the balls integrity and the ability to successfully manage the strategy. Can they step up to the plate and turn Labour’s greed, immorality and corruption into an election winner for National? Jeez, wish to hell I could say yes to that question.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:27 am
<p>Roger<br />
Have you been hacked, I refer to a comment elsewhere (being deliberatly obscure to stop a flame war)<br />
It does not seem you normal style………..just wondering</p>
November 10th, 2007 at 9:27 am
“Apart from the silliness of harping back to 20 years ago”
But it isn’t silly. The same snake oil salesmen are still there, right at teh top. i.e. McCully, English, Lockwood Smith, Ryall.
“I do not recall National ever promised no selling of SOEs in 1990.”
It’s my understanding that they, but I can’t confirm that they did. In any case – they were obviously deceptive about their agenda before the 1990 election.
“But once upon a time then was a man called Jim Bolger. He didn’t win his first general election as leader, in 1987, but he did lead National to a massive election win three years later in 1990.
How did he do it?
But telling the electorate what they wanted to hear.
And what did they want to hear?
They wanted a Major Party that would reject the extremist, heartless and impractical economic and socially divisive policies of the 4th Labour Government of 1984-1990.
And Mr Bolger promised just that. He promised a compassionate, conservative style of government in the face of the poisonous policies of the 4th Labour Government which history has given a name: Rogernomics.
Mr Bolger promised an end to Rogernomics and won a mandate but the moment votes had been counted after the 1990 election he put a Rogernome, Ms Ruth Richardson, into the finance portfolio and in came policies like Crown Health Enterprises (you had to pay a fee to go to a hospital), asset sales (NZ Railways was sold as were the last of the public shareholding in BNZ bank), unemployment soared to above 20% for Maori and toward 9% for non-Maori and welfare dependency and drug abuse and violence rose.
http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2515
November 10th, 2007 at 9:31 am
In spite of everything else, National will get my vote if they promise to repeal both laws.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Saying that National cannot stop this is wrong. It is the sort of defeatist, lazy thinking that puts a lot of people off the Nats. It is also the thinking that Labour relies on to push “outrageous” legislation like this through. And they will come up with plenty more because they like having the reins of power. This is not a game of cricket chaps – there are no rules now so change your thinking and do something different. (Is Murray McCully the problem ?)
There is a considerable portion of the electorate who crave “Leadership” – it does not have to be good leadership with Muldoon and Clark as the best examples. I would suggest that this group are content to stay with Helen for the moment because they do not see an alternative. If the Nats can get off their complacent arses and show some real Leadership on this issue they may not win this fight but they will certainly win the war. Wake you Dullards – you could be the govt by the first quarter next year if you really wanted to be.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“Have you been hacked, I refer to a comment elsewhere (being deliberatly obscure to stop a flame war)
It does not seem you normal style………..just wondering”
Ummm, not sure what you’re talking about there Ray.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:33 am
As sent to Inventory yesterday (excuse the cutnpaste)
“To all those who have had to endure Sam, Tane & roger nome’s assertions that National now supports the EFB, this is the reply I got from my e-mail to English this morning:
“We are opposed to the government’s legislation because it’s anti democratic and we will repeal it if we are the government. The media are now getting interested in it – expect more coverage over the next few weeks as the legislation comes back to the House.
Regards
Bill English”
Cheers Bill
November 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Roger – have you forgotten; Bolger sacked Ruth Richardson in the end. Or is that not mentioned in your political primer ? And where was Helen Clark in the 1980s?
More red herrings and obfuscation in support of the erosion of free speech.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:39 am
casual watcher –
“Saying that National cannot stop this is wrong. It is the sort of defeatist, lazy thinking that puts a lot of people off the Nats. It is also the thinking that Labour relies on to push “outrageous” legislation like this through.”
wait for Santa Claus to come along. He’s already started drawing up a ‘game-plan’ for the 1011 election based on the premise the Nats will fail in 2008. I too have been guilty of this negativity, out of frustration and as an attempt to rattle poeple. My motives may have been pure – but you are correct – it is counter-productive.
I am unsure whether Santa Calus is genuine or a clever ‘mole’ (like we need another subterranean dweller!), but he articulates the worst fears fo an anti-govt type, and as such needs to be listened to.
With a pinch of salt.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
“And where was Helen Clark in the 1980s?”
She was a junior cabinet minister in the second term of the 4th lab govt as I understand – and yes she should have voted against Douglas – Cullen did. I guess she was being realistic about her chances of getting the rogernomics pro gramme defeated in her position.
“Bolger sacked Ruth Richardson in the end. Or is that not mentioned in your political primer?”
Sure, but he should have never put her in charge of that portfolio in the first place.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Roger – have you forgotten;
For fuck’s sake- here we go again. Kiwiblog is Rogernome’s blog, while his own pissant attempt at blogging lies in desolate loneliness, ignored because its content is so mindlessly boring and full of the same old same old socialist bullshit. I guess if you people love reading and writing to band width wasting idiots like Rogernome, then Kiwiblog is the place for you.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
sorry – 2011 election – 1011 was about the time the first wakas arrived!
November 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am
“For fuck’s sake- here we go again.”
oh go on bait, have a little flail and hissy fit – and let the adults get on with the debate – it’s not like we haven’t seen it a million times before.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Redbaiter – how do you rate National’s chances at the next election if it were called tomorrow?
November 10th, 2007 at 9:48 am
milo, have you seen the leaflet I got sent? wanna copy? mail me no-to-efa@hotmail.com
November 10th, 2007 at 9:50 am
This is why the EFB is a gift to the opposition:
“ben Says:
In spite of everything else, National will get my vote if they promise to repeal both laws.”
I assume ben represents a floating voter. I also think that if more women realised how they were likely to be ‘gagged’ under Helen, it would have a major impact on her support base.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:54 am
So where were Helen Clark, Mallard, Wilson, Cullen in the 1980s. I recall that Clark was the hardarsed conservation minister who oversaw the new department after russell marshall shepherded the legislation through, and who ruthlessly controlled its expenditure – directly imposing the culture that led to Cave Creek. After that success she was promoted to Health I seem to recall, to do much the same, scare the management and strong arm fiscal control.
But of course in phillipjohn’s alternative universe she was merely a powerless junior.
that boy is really a laugh a minute. but the lying and spinning does get a little tedious, particularly for someone who claims to have some critical faculties. PJ a commentator the other day was right about you, you seem to be rather emotionally dependent on this site, perhaps you should seek support? we are starting to get worried about you.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I sent the following email to my local Labour council:
I am writing as a long-time supporter of the local Labour candidates. I have voted for the Labour candidate in my riding in all of the elections since I arrived in New Zealand 16 years ago. That will not happen any longer. I am most unhappy with the EFB. I am astonished by the persistence of the Labour-led government with the EFB when even the Law Commission and the Human Rights Commission have called for its removal from the parliamentary schedule. They have noted that it is fundamentally flawed.
My partner has spoken in person with a couple of the local MPs, while attending meetings for other reasons, and we can tell that the Labour party just doesn’t get it. You don’t seem to understand why so many of us are so unhappy with the EFB. It is, fundamentally, an anti-democratic bill, and I would have thought that, as a left-wing party, Labour would hold as a foundation principle that the widest participation in the democratic process was the way to ensure the survival and health of New Zealand’s democracy. The EFB does the opposite.
As for controlling election expenses, it appears to do this only to a very limited extent. However, as some formal and informal studies have shown (e.g. I refer you to the book Freakonomics), whoever spends the most money doesn’t win an election. The control of expenditure is, in my opinion, a red herring, especially in the bizarre way the EFB proposes to do it.
In summary, if Labour insists on continuing with the EFB, then they are in danger of losing voters, like myself, who have been long-time supporters. We care more about democratic principles than about power.
Regards
P.S. And while it would be nice to get tax cuts from Uncle Mike, who takes a very unpleasant patrician attitude towards us ordinary citizens, and it would be nice to pay some of the bills we have run up because things like housing costs have gone up faster than net income increases, I also think we should be spending on some basic infrastructure. There is general talk sometimes about NZ being competitive. Well, how about pledging to role out fibre-optic cable throughout NZ, so that we can all have genuine broadband? It would do wonders for our economy.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:01 am
davidn the trouble is, for you that as soon as you stated that you were no longer prepared to vote Labour, you became ‘the enemy’, and as such, not worty of an opinion.
If you do not believe me just read someof the patronising invective that is aimed at disaffected Labourites when they state their opinions in kiwiblog.
You, and the response of labour supporters, are both examples of how out of touch Labour has become.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:06 am
deity:
re ‘”rather emotionally dependent on this site…”
it is true that we should stop being a counselling service for the neurotic lefties who appear to need kiwiblog as a physiological addiction. They have to learn that we are no longer in the mid-eighties. Sadly they don’t appear able to make the leap. And after all there is now ‘The very double standard’ if they need a methodone fix, or other substitute.
One day at a time…
November 10th, 2007 at 10:12 am
whoa ! there I go accusing others of ‘patronising invective’ then I do it myself. Apologies.
Must try not to eleate ambition over ethics:
“It is incredible that any social democrat party would countenance such a move but when a party faces possible defeat, it can elevate ambition over ethics.”
Do Labour still qualify as a Social Democratic’ Party? No. I would say that boat sailed with the Pledge-card and retrospective legislation.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:14 am
If Leadership can be extracted from the Dullard Nats then people like Davidn have a far more positive motivation to vote for them and then stick with them in the longer term. The provision of a positive always works far better than a negative – it is human nature, it is why most here want a tax cut with choice rather than WWF etc. A very simple concept that seems to have eluded the Nats – you would think they would have a better understanding of the business they are in and the electorate they deal with !!
November 10th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Lee C
First of all, it may well be indicative of how out of touch the Labour hierarchy has become. I think that happens to all parties who are in power for an extended period of time. It’s why in democracies those parties get voted out.
Secondly, I find it ironic when you talk about how we are no longer in the mid-80s. When DB was National leader, all I could think was how all of “his” policies sounded like recycled material from the 1990’s, and having seen the adverse effects of those policies (up close and personal in some cases), I was surprised how much traction they were getting.
Finally, most on the left are principled. Those who feel as if they have their hands on the wheels of power, fleeting and ephemeral as that is, appear to have become corrupted by that, and seek to maintain it by undemocratic means. That _should_ be anathema to anyone who believes in democracy, whether from the left or the right. I may disagree with you, but I will defend your right to say it. And if I cannot win the public discussion with reasoned and case-supported argument, then I should not try to impose my opinion in other ways, such as personal invective and dismissive comments, such as appear here way too often. (Hmmm … such as appears in too many politically-motivated blogs.)
November 10th, 2007 at 10:23 am
casual – I think there is more to come from National. Labour have blown the safe doors open by decalring on tax-cuts, and are trying to nail it shut with the EFB. I think National are going to get ‘down and durdy’ quite soon. SImply because if they don’t their support will abandon them, and they must know that.
davidn – I agree, it is almost an enduring and repititious aspect of human nature that ‘power corrupts’ I quote the final chapter of Animal Farm’ on this, where the initial revolutionaries become indistinguishable from thsoe they tried to overthrow.
Can you imagine the Hellen Clark who demonstrated against apartheid calling some of the shots she has in the last two years?
‘Suppression of ‘terrorism’” ? The Police have my compleste support coupled with public statements on sub judice matters before the courts. Rigged ‘advice’ to ram through legislation with questionable adherence to the Bill of RIghts? The Foreshore and Seabed? THe Pledgecard and retrospective legislation the latest appropriation Bill and the EFB?
Her support base are still stuck in their halcyon youth, incapable of recognising that their beloved party has become the very beast it set out to destroy.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:41 am
“I think National are going to get ‘down and durdy’ quite soon. SImply because if they don’t their support will abandon them, and they must know that.”
Well they’d better do something pretty drastic – the election already seems to be slipping away from them.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=634
November 10th, 2007 at 10:44 am
At http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/214-SPEECH-National-Press-Club.html#c1184 John Key responded on the question of what National has done – so far – on the EFB:
>>Thanks for your comments, and I can assure you that National remains vehemently opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill.
Since the Bill was introduced in July we have invested considerable effort to bring this anti-democratic bill to the public’s attention.
We have relentlessly attacked the bill every day in Parliament. My quick count shows that we have asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice 38 primary questions and about two hundred follow-up questions. Mark Burton’s ineptitude at answering questions on this topic from Bill English is one of the reasons why he was sacked as Justice Minister.
We have also put out 20 press releases on the bill since July. I talked about the bill in my National Party Conference Speech, as did Bill English. In August I gave a widely-reported speech to the National Press Club, slamming the bill as being a threat to our democracy.
Newspapers have generally taken an editorial stance opposing the bill, and stories have appeared in the papers from time to time. What might help to get more coverage is to write letters to your local newspapers. This might assist in making the bill and our stance on it more newsworthy.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am
as i said in another thread:
That Dom Post article is crap.
So Helen Clark is gonna deny the kiddies their classrooms and the poor, frail old folk their hip replacements just so she can have some airbrushed photos of herself. Oh that devilish Helen!
This dickhead is not interested in presenting the issue in a fair and balanced way – he is just trying to make people angry…
“Miss Clark seems to be calculating that the public interest in election spending is over – that, while voters got seriously angry in 2006, this latest row will be an overnight wonder.
National needs to ensure she is wrong.”
In other words: National needs ensure people get “seriously angry”.
You guys just lap this crap up – dont you.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:48 am
If Labour was any good I would vote for them. They are not any good.
Their recent moves are reprehensible. I would oppose these bills no matter what party mooted them
November 10th, 2007 at 10:51 am
If Labour believed the law changes were fair then they would allow public submissions on all changes to the funding of political parties and get support from all parties to agree to any changes.
But Labour knows it’s laws are not fair so are pushing on regardless.
Roger, Tane, Sonic and others from the left know that but all they can bluster is spin and lies.
Oh.. and assualt members of the public and oppositions MPs whenever they feel like it.
It’s hard to believe but after 8 years in government they haven’t acheieved anything.
We all know what the new standards of the left has brought in of sleaze, theft and corruption.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
as regards national saying one thing and doing another:
Remember all that hysterical wailing over the so-called anti-smacking bill? After National is done enciting anger and outrage amongst you folk they will turn around and accept what they once so vehemently opposed.
Same could be said of kiwisaver, working for families…
November 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
idiotboy, are you proud of what Labour is doing with the two bills in question? I only ask as so many leftie posters appear more fearful of a national government than they are of a living in nz following labour-led democracendectomy!
November 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“And if I cannot win the public discussion with reasoned and case-supported argument, then I should not try to impose my opinion in other ways, such as personal invective and dismissive comments, such as appear here way too often. (Hmmm … such as appears in too many politically-motivated blogs.)”
Typical communist. Full of sanctimonious rhetoric, but in the end, the same old same old control freak bullshit. Who decides what is “invective”, what is “dismissive”, how does one “impose one’s opinion” when all participation here is voluntary, including the choice to read a posters messages or not read them?????
..and its why I beat myself over the head for making the error of reading your message David. I should clearly have stopped when I read the offensive lie “most of the left are principled”, or the gratuitous self serving claim that you will “defend my right to disagree”.
Of course you will, as long as I don’t use any words you in your holier than thou state of mind might feel are ‘invective’, or make any comments you in your self appointed role as arbitrator of such matters, might think “dismissive”, or worst of all, seek to “impose” my opinion. Man you commies are underneath all the propaganda, such slippery devious dishonourable people.
Damn.. Now I feel nauseous, and I’ve done it to myself.
PS- useful definition of professional communist:
He preaches tolerance while practicing intolerance; he condemns bigotry while being a bigot; he purports to be for open debate while silencing all of his opponents; he say he is for political freedom whilst he secretly sends dissenters to gulags: Communists promote their ideology by using rhetoric that deflects attention from objectives that are the direct opposite of the sentiments they profess to hold dear..
November 10th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Thanks for your carefully reasoned and dispassionate post, redbaiter. I expected nothing less and nothing more from you.
I had to laugh. You don’t know me, and your bald statements are absurd. ‘Nuff said there. But when I get verbally attacked from both right and left extremes, then methinks that perhaps I am in the right place.
(Right as in correct.
)
November 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
RB, I know plenty of Labour supporters. I do not consider any of them communists. Most of them fear survival of the fittest capitalism and the Labour party have been sucessful in pitching any other political option as proponents thereof. my only broad criticism of my own Labour followers is that they are politically disengaged, blindly supportive and therefore unable to see how their trust is being betrayed.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
to tell you the truth krazykiwi – i dont know much about the bill! This is because the only thing being presented in the media is (as with the Dom Post article) “i am foaming at the mouth with absolute outrage at this EFB thing”.
I have little idea of the substance of the actual bill because I have not found a source that has been able describe it in a way that allows me to evaluate its merits.
Though last i heard Labour were going to make it hard for the rich (like the EB) to buy elections – which sounds quite good to me actually.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:24 am
idiotboy, I’m not usually one to link-whore, but I’ve written some posts here:
http://www.cog.org.nz/
and one here:
http://publicaddress.net/default,4402.sm#post
which look at some aspects of the bill.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:32 am
IB … as a “BTW”, you cannot buy an election. I used to be unhappy with the way election expenses weren’t controlled and the possibility that some unknown person could skew a result with lots of spending. But then I recall that a NZ newpaper (?) did an analysis (which may in fact have been copied here … DPF?) showed that the “winners” spent less than many of the “losers”. A more in-depth and careful study was summarised in a cool book called Freakonomics. A real eye-opener that one – challenges a whole raft of assumptions.
So I now don’t believe you can “buy” an election and would rather see all restrictions off, but transparent, so that whoever spent the money has to be known, but they can spend what they want.
Oh, and as an example of the most extravagant spender losing – look back to the MMP debate. A lot of big companies and special interests (including the big political parties) spent a lot of money against MMP. The public perhaps wondered if where there was smoke there was fire, and thus supported MMP. Just a ponder … off topic a bit, I know …
November 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am
idiot,
Getting into a debate about an issue you freely admit you don’t much about seems rather odd to say the least.
Though you seem to do that here at Kiwiblog on a regular basis.
adieu!
November 10th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Graeme
Thank you very much for the linkhttp://publicaddress.net/default,4402.sm#post
A very well written concise piece on the EFB.
If only we could have an intelligent debate here and on blogs like it without all the bluster from both sides
Do you think the select committee will have been able to tidy up the obvious shortfalls of the bill ?
November 10th, 2007 at 11:45 am
“RB, I know plenty of Labour supporters. I do not consider any of them communists.”
..and I’ll bet they don’t think they’re communists as well, but what real worth is that opinion? One could hardly call it objective. The fact that is in today’s NZ, the globally organised left have been so successful at gradually implementing their collectivist agenda, by slowly infiltrating our education system, our bureaucracy, our media and our government, that most NZers have remained innocently unaware of how their political state of mind has, over the time of these events, been shaped so that it aligns with communist thinking.
Your own belief that you are not a communist and your irrational fear of capitalism are Kiwi, stand out pointers to the success of the strategies of the far left zealots.
One of the most successful parts of the left’s campaign has been their refusal to use the word communist. They will use a dozen different terms, but in reality, they all boil down to the same principle- the state has the right to commit any immorality upon its citizens as long as the “people” (another convenient euphemism- in reality the self appointed guardians of the people) perceive that immorality to be in the public good.
Another success has been their demonisation of the principle of success, a policy that combines scaremongering about what will happen if the left lose control of government with attacks on the integrity of clear thinking business people people who still, in spite of the relentless campaigns of the left, refuse to subscribe to the left’s poisonous and destructive ideology.
You Kiwi, are an unrealising manifestation of the truth of my claims. You’re not willfully trying to deceive, (as others so often do), you just don’t see yourself from afar.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Do you think the select committee will have been able to tidy up the obvious shortfalls of the bill ?”
Santa – if ‘what i’ve been told by a very inside source is true you’ll hardly recognise the thing when it comes out of SC – and the changes are all the right (by that I mean good for democracy, not good for “the right”) ones as well
November 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
idiotboy:
“to tell you the truth krazykiwi – i dont know much about the bill! This is because the only thing being presented in the media is (as with the Dom Post article) “i am foaming at the mouth with absolute outrage at this EFB thing”.
I have little idea of the substance of the actual bill because I have not found a source that has been able describe it in a way that allows me to evaluate its merits.”
If you want a copy of Val Sim’s advice re the Bill I will send you a copy. Look past the invective of people(like me) and see the past posts re the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Counsel, The Law Society, even Nicky Hager’s submission to the Select Committee. If you wan any of these, They are available or I will find them and supply them to you.
We have nothing to hide.
In the meantime, I copied what you said because you have unconscioulsy encapsulated the way this whole issue has been lead by the Government. They have deliberately kept it under the radar, in the hope that hose who argue against it will be written off as ‘crackpots’.
Ask yourself this. WHy do you know so much about kiwisaver, and so little about the EFB?
Why, if Labour are so proud of their record on ‘WFF, they are happy to bring it up daily in Parliament, yet are curously silent about the EFB?
It is because your ignorance is their bliss. They are trying to get this sneaky piece of legislation out into law, on the quiet.
If it is a forward step for democracy, and an improvement on the presetn state, why aren;t they shouting it from the rooftops?
Why?
DO you want evidence they draft hastily and badly thought-out legislation?
And remember this was the basis on which 17 people were arrested this year. Can’t happen here?
Don’t you believe it.
Look at the Terrorism suppression Bill.
Time to join the informed minority, idiotboy.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:57 am
idiot boy the last bit got jumbled up. I didn’t have my tinfoil hat on. sorry.
But I am sure you get my drift.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“But when I get verbally attacked from both right and left extremes, then methinks that perhaps I am in the right place.”
Collaborators always say such things.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Does anyone know when the select Comm reports ?
November 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“Do you think the select committee will have been able to tidy up the obvious shortfalls of the bill?”
They’ll be able to, but I am concerned they won’t get them all. An interim report in the next week or so, with 1-2 weeks for additional public comment would be an important step to ensuring they don’t stuff it up (though whatever comes out of the Select Committee will almost certainly be better than what went in).
November 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Gee, rb, you must check every night for communists hiding under the bed. Sad really to feel the need to call on some great global conspiracy to explain whatever problems you see around you. Usually the problem is in the mirror. And that isn’t directed at you, though it may be applicable, just a general comment.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’m interested to see the next stage, I imagine a ‘better, stronger, faster’ version of the Bill will be presented.
Now there is an interesting dilemma awaitng.
What if the Bill is everything any right thinking democrat could ever want?
Then it will appear that the fuss about the original has been completely unjustified. and that Labour, far from being a corrupt and venal party is a listening and inclusive one. My question here, is then,
What do you think the way that this whole issue would have been steered into law will do to parliamentary conventions and precedent re electoral reform?
Does it mean that one less tier of public consultation about serious issues taht affect us all has now been deemed unnecessary for future reference?
Is that a serious constituional issue worth getting excited about, or will the detractors be accused of trying to stir up trouble for it’s own sake?
November 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“Sad really to feel the need to call on some great global conspiracy to explain whatever problems you see around you.”
Once again, the indoctrinated left shouts ‘conspiracy” as they always do, when its no conspiracy and never has been. A conspiracy has to be secret. There’s nothing secret about the many international socialist organisations, and there’s nothing secret about their objectives. They openly admit to their goal of a one party socialist state, and they openly admit to their strategy of gradualisation (ever heard of Gramsci David??) .
Its not a conspiracy. Its not a reds under the beds condition. Its merely a case of being well informed. Read some socialist literature David, and you’ll have to acknowledge that I’m right. I suggest you start with Socialist International, the global organisation that Helen Klark is a senior representative of (Press Officer or something) along with Tony Blair, Hillary and Bill Clinton and a large number of the Labour Party caucus including Parekura Horima.
Look at all of the other global socialist/ communist organisations. Then point me to an equal number of global rightist organisations. Then point me to an organisation on the right that is the equal of Socialist International. You can’t do it, unless you put your typically leftist tin foil hat on and start referencing the Bilderbeck group or such. That really is conspiracy stuff.
NZ is a country firmly in the hands of the communists, and if that wasn’t true, not for one minute would any political party have the nerve to try the kind of assaults on democracy that Helen Klark’s gang is attempting. In any country where freedom and democracy were respected, these totalitarian bastards and their cronies would be spat on and publicly shunned. Here, they’re still, after what they have done, and in spite of what they intend to do, held in regard by a large percentage of the population. What a leftist sewer this country has become.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“What do you think the way that this whole issue would have been steered into law will do to parliamentary conventions and precedent re electoral reform?”
No more than when the National party unilaterally scrapped NZ’s upper house in the 1950s.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“Read some socialist literature David, and you’ll have to acknowledge that I’m right. ”
In the NZ context the only people who fit this description belong to the International Socialists or the Workers party (maybe 100 people?) – and even they’d argue that they’re for democracy. Face it Baiter, you’re fighting a batlle that has been dead in NZ for the last 50 years or more.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
BTW – the upper house was dominated by Labour of course, and if we still had it our legislative process would be much tighter, and we prbably would have taken a more Australian approach to economic reform in the 1980s and 1990s – it would have probably moderated some of the extreme fire-sale stuff that was going through.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Check affiliations here-
http://www.socialistinternational.org/2Members/who.html#full
Have a look at the New Zealand contact organisation.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Thanks Graeme – I’ll read that when i get time.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Baiter:
This is under the section entitled “declarations of principals –
“it is only possible to speak of democracy if people have a free choice between various political alternatives in the framework of free elections; if there is a possibility for a change of government by peaceful means based on the free will of the people; if individual and minority rights are guaranteed; and, if there is an independent judicial system based on the rule of law impartially applied to all citizens. Political democracy is an indispensable element of a socialist society. Democratic socialism is a continuing process of social and economic democratisation and of increasing social justice.”
oh and don’t come back with that shit about Gramsci that was written 80 odd years ago. The theorist that best embodies the theoretical underpinnings of the current Labour Party would be Anthony Giddens with his “Third Way” theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens#The_Third_Way
November 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
roger nome – I’ve only just joined the conversation, but want to go back to the first “offereing” you made where you assert “But DPF, haven’t you heard? National’s very own font bench heavy weight Gerry Brownly has said that National’s all for labour’s electoral law reforms. Well all of them except the one that will make it harder for them to launch multi-million dollar attack campaigns, funded by the same overseas property developers that have helped create the housing bubble. ”
Plain and simple – you are not telling the truth, and you know it. Brownlee was not talking about the EFB – National remains opposed to the EFB and has undertaken to repeal it if passed. Then again, what would we expect from a serial thread-jacker such as yourself?
November 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
From the Dominion article:
“Miss Clark seems to be calculating that the public interest in election spending is over – that, while voters got seriously angry in 2006, this latest row will be an overnight wonder.”
This is why I am full of wonderment that National has not done more to publicise this additional slap in the face.
Perhaps the recent changes behind the scenes re National’s media organisation will affect a change.
Clock’s ticking.
ps check out Santa Claus – what a superb piece of covert morale-sapping. but he’s just taking iit too far lately.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Lee C – Clark still believes that the EFB is a beltway issue. You and I, and many others believe otherwise. Let’s do whatever we can to prove her wrong!
BTW – did you get krazykiwi’s flyers?
November 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
RB, re Socialist International – could only find the link to Labour website. off topic – the symbolism of SI logo (hand clutching a rose) amused me. anyone forced to handle a rose like that would be an agony thanks to the thorns… and anyone clutching the rose voluntarily would have to be stupid. socialists eh?
November 10th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Yes inventory I did.
I suggested he put a woman’s face on it though, it might be more effective with a female face on it.
ps re my remarks on Santa I found a wikipedia link I posted on the General debate site to outline my feelings.
If this is to be publicised, it has to go pronto. Otherwise National will have to ‘rebuild for the 2011 election’ :0)
November 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Keep going Redbaiter your choice of prose and pragmatism is refreshing compared to the trolls forced ideology.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“Plain and simple – you are not telling the truth, and you know it. Brownlee was not talking about the EFB – National remains opposed to the EFB and has undertaken to repeal it if passed. Then again, what would we expect from a serial thread-jacker such as yourself?”
So you still haven’t listened to the radio NZ interview linked to in this story I take it? The contents refute your claim.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=622
November 10th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
roger nome said (quite a while ago) “But it isn’t silly. The same snake oil salesmen are still there, right at teh top. i.e. McCully, English, Lockwood Smith, Ryall.”
So it isn’t silly then to suggest that nothing has changed in Labour because Clark, Cullen, Goff, King, and Mallard were all in positions of power during the Rogernomics era?
November 10th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
KILL THE BILL
KILL THE BILL
DOWN WITH MUGABE
DOWN WITH MUGABE
MUGABE THE FAILED PRESIDENT OF CLARKISTAN.
( the land of the long red fog)
November 10th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Lee C said “Yes inventory I did.
I suggested he put a woman’s face on it though, it might be more effective with a female face on it.”
Good thinking Batman! There are plenty of images on the Free Speech Coalition’s website of “plastered faces” (meant in the nicest possible way, of course!), although consent might be an issue. I was thinking that standing at the local mall with mouth taped could be a good and eyecatching way to get people to take the flyers and actually read them.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Inventory –
No mate you will frighten the squares!
Better to pay a couple of good-looking young woman to hand them out to men and women in the 25 to 45 age-group.
Explain to her what she needs to know about the Bill and let her loose.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“So it isn’t silly then to suggest that nothing has changed in Labour because Clark, Cullen, Goff, King, and Mallard were all in positions of power during the Rogernomics era?”
You might have a point there if it wasn’t for the fact that in every election since 1999 labour have actually followed through with the economic and social policy that they’ve campaigned on.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“You might have a point there if it wasn’t for the fact that in every election since 1999 labour have actually followed through with the economic and social policy that they’ve campaigned on.”
Roger
You are too old to believe in fairy tales
November 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“Clark, Cullen, Goff, King, and Mallard were all in positions of power during the Rogernomics era”
In perspective, that was so long ago and they’re still sitting on their asses in parliament.
this is how they get to be so powerful, they’re taken too seriously.
Politicians should be treated as simple guardians of the estate and released after a certain tenure. They stay in positions for too long and become entrenched.
2-3 terms and gone I say.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
roger nome Says:”…… You might have a point there if it wasn’t for the fact that in every election since 1999 labour have actually followed through with the economic and social policy that they’ve campaigned”.
In my view they must have had insider knowledge of the surplus that were being built up. Without those surpluses they would have had egg on their faces if Treasury coffers had been empty.
Same thing with the theft of the Leader’s Funds. The Labour Party were bankrupt and had to call on Heather Simpson to get Parliamentary Services to pay the Bill. They had to save face and then validate the theft with an Act of Parliament.
Who ordered the Pledge card? The Police, would you believe, did not ask for this prima facie piece of evidence. Helen told the House it was Labour Party Policy?
November 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Is it possible to access the fliers from somewhere. I am quite happy to do a letterbox drop around my neighboufhood over the next 3 or 4 days.
When are the radio ads running again.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
pdm – got an e-mail addy – I have the files, so do Lee and krazykiwi
Contact me at Inventory2@gmail.com if you don’t want to publish your e-mail
November 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
It’s ok – found something suitable at whale oils.
November 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
“Redbaiter – how do you rate National’s chances at the next election if it were called tomorrow?”
Sorry Lee, did not notice your query until now. Well, if it were called tomorrow, and the vote took place soon after, they may well win. However, I don’t take all that much joy from such an event. Not unless the Nats deliver on the anti-socialist policies I’d like to see implemented. Not likely seeing the party is so compromised by socialists. The Nats really need to wake up and stop making things so easy for the left.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
pdm – what did you use from whale? i sent copies of the flyers i threw together to whale but they’re not up there (that i can see). inventory2, lee and mainennz have copies too
November 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
kk
4th post down under the heading `letter box stuffers’ there are 3 attachments. Are the others different?
November 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
pdm – excellent. that’s them … whale’s posted them up
November 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
RB thanks for the reply – it was partly motivated by a desire to stop some of those pointless threadjackers poisoning the debate with their inanity.
Did you see the link about ‘the third way’ posted by gnome which indicated it was a theroetical influence on the current Labour party Government. You might (or not) be interested to know it has been cited as a facist economic strategy under Mussolini and also as a Peronist strategy.)
Remember Confucious he say:
‘If you sit by the river long enough the bodies of all your enemies will float by…”
Or if you have a weak heart -
‘If you sit by the river long enough the bodies of all your enemies will float b……………”
November 10th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Or if you have Alzheimers:
“Is this the river?”
November 10th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
It’s so lonely at the top…
November 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Lee:
Phillip John/Roger Nome claimed (complete with a Wikipedia reference):
It would be interesting to see him defend this claim.
I read “third way politics” as expounded by Anthony Giddens quite some time ago. I needn’t have bothered. It struck me then (as now) as a trendy philosophy without a long-term future. As a theory, it supposedly rejects the rougher edges of leftism and rightism – and promotes centrism. Yet under Labour we have seen less “rolling back of the state” and more interventionism. I need go no further than Working for Families as a prime example of Labour’s headlong plunge into socialism, as it moves the level of benefit eligibility further up the income tree (above the super-rich level of $60,000 for various other purposes, not least in securities market regulation).
Phillip John, if you read this, can you please identify three undisputable examples of how Labour has adopted a laissez-faire approach?
November 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Aw c’mon POC.. that’s not fair. he’ll need to actually read the book and then trawl wikipedia for each word of more then two syllables. nome’s gotta sleep sometime!
I’m interested in your comment … for various other purposes, not least in securities market regulation. would you be able to elaborate?
November 10th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Yes POC I have to agree the point s of reference for a ‘Third Way’ as Gidden expounded it have all been woefully under-represented by the present Labour lot. Also Blair adopted it as his mantra – right up the to illegal invasion of Iraq (F F sakes).
Then if you look at how it has been adopted as a mix and match between ’socialism and business – basically that equates to totalitarianism dressed up in a pink bow. Or if you will Benthamism dressed up as Owenism.
A lecturer once explained Benthamism to me as this:
“If there are four people in a life boat and there is only enough food and water for three, the fourth one must go over the side.”
Sounds a bit like the thinking behind the recent EFB Appropriations legislation don;t it?
The ‘Third Way’ is a lie – It is the political equivalent to a non-outed bisexual married man with kids. He is conflicted about leaving his wife and kids, in denial about his homosexuality, and yet feels he is morally justified to cruise gay bars as a political statement against his ‘oppression’.
He gets all the benefits with none of the responsibilities, and any responsibilities that might have are sacrificed to the higher need – ‘historical progress’.
To switch back to the real world, it can only end in tears = anti-democratic legislation or wars of aggression against hapless weaklings.
And that’s what happens when it is inexpertly applied!
November 11th, 2007 at 12:51 am
KrazyKiwi:
Looking back, I didn’t express myself very well. What I had in mind was the stark inconsistency between, firstly, the top personal marginal income tax threshold of $60,000, and secondly, the asset/income level at which a person can invest without receiving a prospectus.
To explain this, I have tracked down a parliamentary speech by Stephen Franks which particularly impressed me at the time:
So to summarise:
(1) You’re super-rich (and taxed as such) at $60,000.
(2) You’re too stupid to invest without (condom) protection until you earn $200,000 or have sufficient net assets ($2,000,000).
(3) Disregard all of the above if you qualify for Working for Families assistance. Check out the applicable income thresholds: http://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/tax-credits. The parental tax credit column alone goes up to $196,827 – but “if you have children older than 13 years of age you can earn more and still receive a payment”. Wow, that’s nearly enough for a person to be a sophisticated investor!
It seems incongruous (and not to mention indefensible) to me that a person can be deemed rich for other purposes, and yet still apparently a deserving case for social welfare assistance.
That’s why I’m hoping Phillip John/Roger Nome can enlighten me as to how this promotes a “third way” approach on Anthony Gidden principles.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Sorry, the smart tags weren’t working properly – italics should have stopped at “… still receive a payment”.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Do I understand this correctly – advertising political beliefs is currently restricted for three months prior to an election and the proposed new electoral law will make it illegal for up to 11 months and the term advertising will cover much more.
Does this mean in practice that blogs will not be able to disagree with government policy 11 months prior to the election? How will the government enforce it?
November 11th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Gloria, there is no current restriction on advertising “political” beliefs. The current restrictions are closely tailored to votes – there are restrictions on non-parties from advertising “vote for National” (or similar things designed to get votes for a Party, not necessarily by mentioning them). Negative advertising must have a name and address on it, but is otherwise unrestricted.
You are right that the new law changes the restrictions from “advertising” to something much broader “any form of words of graphics”. You are also right that the three month limit now begins on 1 January (so up to 11 months) – and that in the past this three month limit only mattered to political parties and candidates, not everyone else. It also now covers more expressions, beyond things aimed at the election, to basically any political statement.
There is an exemption for ‘blogs in the new law, but it only applies to individuals, and the blogs must be non-commericial. People who are paid to ‘blog (journalists, or the PM’s office staff who ran Keep NZ left during the last election) don’t fall within the exemption and people like DPF, or Russell Brown, who receive money from advertising, probably don’t fall within the exemption etiher.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Hi Gloria,
I called Newstalkzb at the end of a stimulating morning listening to people discuss the terror raids.
I asked Leighton if the listeners were aware that next year, NZ’ers will not be allowed to discuss the terror raids under the EFB because it dwells on a government policy. In addition, the protest marchers will not be allowed to peacefully protest etc etc. The world Helen Clark is forming for us is so alien to anything we know that I doubt NZ’ers have any concept of it.
In only seven weeks, the world of freedom we know will be gone. The basic democratic rights of freedom of speech, which our fathers fought to retain, will be taken by a greedy, despicable government who cares not a jot for the effects as long as it allows them to cheat their way back into power.
January 1, 2008, MPs will become first class citizens. Every time we want to publicly comment, write, advertise or even send chain emails, we will need their permission if they have taken a public stand on it. They on the other hand, can ride rough shod over anything we say. Even if we pick on a topic they haven’t got a policy on, they can stop with the threat of prison or fine by simply announcing a policy of any type. Case closed.
To the Rogers, Tanes and others of the world that so freely want to discard our fundamental rights because of their ideological obsession – shame on you.
If you enjoy writing on this blog, sending chain emails, organising peaceful protests or any other entirely legal (at the moment) activity, then enjoy it while it lasts. You could be fined and/or sent to prison after Jan 1.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Well done Bogusnews – what was the response?
November 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Leighton said that anyone who voted for Labour, the greens, Dunn and First were living in la la land. He then said he knew they would turn off the radio station then, but he didn’t seem to care.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Graeme Edgeler & Bogusnews thanks for your reply. I read it with utter disgust. If this bill goes through I’m sure the Labour party will use it to their benefit; only on those with good points/arguements to which they cannot answer.
The audacity of this legislation amazes me. When did Helen Clark/Labour decide that they can do whatever they like and to hell with democracy? Why doesn’t she just arrange for Labour Party members to count all the votes.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Next phase –
I foresee a new computerised counting system brought in for marginal Labour seats – it worked in Florida.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“Next phase -
I foresee a new computerised counting system brought in for marginal Labour seats”
Talk about glitches in the system
That system is why the US has an illegal govt.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
That’s where I’m going hinamanu, they’ve already established they have no problem with rigging elections – next they will just perfect the technology.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
by the eay did you see my incredibly witty play on words on ‘toes’ in general debate? Man I am one funny dude. I crack myself up.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
sorry, it was on the one about camels. but incredibly witty all the same.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:00 am
To add insult to injury, has anyone seen this?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10475414
A deal by NZ First, Greens and Labour to allow multimillion dollar ad campaigns advertising Labour policy while the opposition has nothing.
NZ First and the Greens don’t deserve a single vote next election.
Has this contemptable government no shame?
November 12th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Bogusnews:
Interesting – and what particularly irks me is the NZ Herald’s predictions:
I’ve no idea whether Audrey Young is interviewing her computer, or whether she has some basis for these speculations. But assuming she’s half-way correct, these changes go beyond fixing up identified deficiencies and actually create new measures. This belies the nonsense behind arguments from Phillip John/Roger Nome et al (the Select Commitee will fix up the flaws and we’ll live happily ever after). Frankly, it’s a disgrace that these changes (which go to the very heart of democracy) are being negotiated in secret for reasons of political expedience, without adequate public consultation. What’s even more disgraceful is that the usual partisan hacks feel able to defend this.