Electoral Finance Bill marches
November 28th, 2007 at 11:31 am by David FarrarA reminder that today’s march in Christchurch starts at 1 pm from Victoria Square going to Cathedral Square.
And as the PM scoffed at “only” 2,000 marching in Auckland, another march down Queen Street is on for this Saturday, gathering at 2 pm for a 2.30 pm march.
The advertisement for the marchin today’s Herald is thumbnailed below – click on it for the full ad.
Related posts:
- NZ Law Journal on Electoral Finance Bill
- Anderton and Dunne get it wrong on Electoral Finance Bill
- 30 hours left to make your submission on the Electoral Finance Bill
- Growing confusion over Electoral Finance Bill
November 28th, 2007 at 11:40 am
And as the PM scoffed at “only” 2,000 marching in Auckland…
Hopefully you’ll do better than the pathetic 150 who turned out in Wellington – at least a third of them schoolchildren too.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=761
Will you be comparing Helen Clark to Adolf Hitler on this march too?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:40 am
You didn’t get 2000, more like 1500, and that was with $60,000 of advertising.
Hell, if you’ld told people they’ld get a feed of fish and chips for free afterwards you wouldhave got mroe peopl and it would have cost less.
And as for your Wellington march – well, http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=762
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=764
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
oh and http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=748
when are you going to tell the nice people why you really oppose the EFB? becuase it will take the big secret money out of elections and allow them to be a contest of ideas, which terrrifies National.
Vote:http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/farrar-froths-over-small-beer/
November 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I will give a full report sir on the Christchurch March . Number one platoon ready sir . Move forward into the center of town lads and happy hunting ?
Over and out – all Bat Tanks fully loaded and ready sir .
Bomber command at the ready sir ( sub standard sewerage plant must be knocked out first ) .
Tally ho Tane and Sam Dixy chicks’ . Over and out !
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Well, at least they have D4J onboard. Now to round up Bob McCroskie, Stephen Franks and Roger Kerr and they’ve got themselves a march…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Keep shouting dickheads – it’s all good for your credibility and having just the right influence – not
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hurry up Cacofinix.
I want you in the front ranks.
Mount up, Move out!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:54 am
The real question is how many would turn up for a pro EFB march? Five people?
And I think judging an issue just from how many are marching is silly, as the last two polls showing Labour 14% behind National show that people are listening.
And do I even need to point out to people that Sam as usual is lying (he is allowed three lies a day, so has only used 1/3 of his quota up). My submission to Parliament asked for all anon/trust donations to be banned over the disclosure level.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Tane,Sam, you should be paying rent on this site, seen todays poll at all ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Tane / Sam
Are the low life scum who call themselves young Labour intending on disrupting this march as well?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“Tane / Sam
Are the low life scum who call themselves young Labour intending on disrupting this march as well?”
So true.
They are fuelling the controversy,, gotta be good.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
bruv – if you look at the pics and the video I posted on The Standard you’ll see that while there were a few Young Labour members there it wasn’t a Young Labour event. The guy who spoke said he’d never even voted for Labour in his life.
And Dave, don’t kid me that you shouldn’t judge a march by how many people show up. If there’d been 2000 at Parliament you’d have been crowing – as it was you admitted your march was a fiasco and tried your best to disassociate from it.
Your so-called grassroots uprising is nothing of the sort. It’s a few fringe right wackos and aggrieved members of the ownership class.
[DPF: I said you can not judge an issue by the size of a march. Of course you can judge a march by the size of the march. Idiot
And those fringe right wackos include the Law Society, Human Rights Commission, Society of Accountants, and Grey Power I see]
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Give it up DPF. NZ deserves the end of serfdom. It has been striving for it all the time. Let’s just get it over with now and abandon all pretense of believing in democracy. We don’t trust citizens with their own money, it has to be taken and distributed, so we trust them with free speech?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Watch out for any Labour Party ‘yoof’ who are brandishing megaphones about.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
“Your so-called grassroots uprising is nothing of the sort. It’s a few fringe right wackos and aggrieved members of the ownership class.”
Yet the politicians still front up wanting to speak to the lunatics and ingrates.
actually, they demand their right to speak. Why does that feel so galling.
My prediction for the event is no blondes with glasses will be seen in the crowd.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
<i>The real question is how many would turn up for a pro EFB march? Five people?</i>
Dave, give me $60,000 of advertising space and week’s free coverage on the front of the Herald and I’ll get you 1000 at Parliament – easy.
150 is just pathetic, and shows how marginal your movement really is. It’s a pity I couldn’t make the march, but a few non-political people I know who saw it couldn’t believe you were comparing Labour to the Nazis. It’s just appalling bad taste.
[DPF: There wasn't $60,000 of advertising for the Wellington march. I have no idea how much it was but I didn't see or hear any ads - I think there were some on radio. And I have not compared Labour to the Nazis. The placards referred to fascism more generally. But as it so happens, I would not have used that comparison myself]
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Watch out for any Labour Party ‘yoof’ who are brandishing megaphones about.”
Better repeat that sound advice.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
As one who attended the wellington march, Tane’s claim of one third of marchers being school children is false. There were children there, but the numbers Tane are claiming are misleading.
Yes I do wish more people had shown up. Most (if not all) of those I work with and socialise with and have discussed the EFB are in opposition to it. I would love to see a weekend rally in Wellington, marching to premier house.
How about it John, David, starting at the botanical gardens and marching to premier house! Pick a Saturday, lets go for it.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
What counts is not the noise, or even the crowd numbers (or even who has the most obnoxious postings in someone’s blog). What really counts are the votes on election day.
And that is where the silent majority will have their say.
Having said that, I plan to march again. Quietly. With masking tape over my mouth. (And I’ll see how many others want to come with me this time.)
So, rant on, Labour quislings. And be very afraid of what you’re doing to the voters.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
berend has a point. Freedom of speech is a “use it or lose it” thing. This is a critical time. If NZ-ers don’t wake up now, Tane, Sam Dixon, Roger Nome and the like will be one step closer to achieving their dream of one day commanding a gulag.
CONTEST OF IDEAS, IN NEW ZEALAND, Sam Dixon, you make me puke. With all the teachers, and all the journalists, coming out of little neo-Marxist production lines? If we had a contest of IDEAS, we’d have a government like the ACT Party and we’d all be four or five times as well off as we are, including the poorest people.
Free enterprise, liberty, personal responsibility, those are ideas. What the LEFT has is ENVY, and that’s IT.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Just had a look at that ad – atrocious. If I was John Boscawen’s boss and he came to me with that ad I’d sack him.
I think it may well be the worst piece of political advertising I’ve ever seen. It makes Labour’s baby-hanging-from-red-tape debacle look like the dancing cossacks.
I mean, who’s going to read all that? Heck, I’m a political junkie who’s interested in what the Tories are up to, and I couldn’t even get past the first two paragraphs.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
No point marching to Premier House on a Saturday (No one at home on a Saturday).
Tane/Sam Dixon You people are worried about the dissent that is being demonstrated towards the EFB. If you saw the dissent against it as a waste of space and only attracting in your view such limited expression of that dissent why is it that you are so committed to endlessly expressing blind support for what is at best a crock of crap and at worst a gross act of democratic suppression.
If the EFB doesn’t matter and has such widespread support why does it demand so much of your time on so many blogs?
The real problem is that those who must obey have now moved beyond the point of safe return and are committed to flying it into the side of a mouintain. Bale out now before the impact.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
What do you think the advertisement should have been Tane, A little red card, a few glib one line promises and an airbrushed photograph perhaps?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Tane and Sam are probably posting extra hard over here because The Standard appears to be down.
Anyways…
“The guy who spoke said he’d never even voted for Labour in his life” – Tane
Do you think he’s ever voted for *anyone* in his life? He looked young enough to have not been on the roll yet in 2005.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
So are you confirming that advertising DOES NOT ‘buy’ support? Really? Then why do we need the EFB at all?
I’m confused!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Camryn, the dude has a beard and was wearing a suit. Somehow I think he’s older than 19.
And yes, the standard is down. We’re working on getting some commercial hosting.
So are you confirming that advertising DOES NOT ‘buy’ support? Really?
No, but it helps. Obviously if your cause is self-serving and marginal you’ll only get a handful of people no matter how much you advertise it – especially if your advertising is as bad as this latest effort.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Exactly. You are confirming that the sheeple aren’t that stupid, and can determine for themselves what they want and what they don’t – they key bit is that they are given enough information about all the alternatives in order to make an informed decision.
So what the hell are Labour so frightened of? That people might be given more information with which to make an informed decision? That tens of millions spent on “policy information” might be diluted by people providing a different viewpoint?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
the righties/’suits’ marching again..?
(priceless..!..)
oh !..the humiliations..!
oh..!..the humanity..!
oh..!.the feckin’ humour to be had..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Tane – My apologies. I found a video of him that confirms his beard etc. He’s probably early 20′s. Previous images I’d seen were grainy photos (probably from the video) that made the beard look like shadow.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Camryn, no worries bro. We’re back online now – for how long I don’t know.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Clinton said he was not Labour. Tane knows full well that doesn’t mean he is apolitical, and doesn’t rule out the Greens.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Jesus Tane Tutae, you need to work on your QED: I had a mate who left school at 15, had a beard within six months and wore a suit to work.
Or has another lame-duck law been passed saying no beards on under-20s? Wouldn’t fecking surprise me…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Tane Says:
“Just had a look at that ad – atrocious. If I was John Boscawen’s boss and he came to me with that ad I’d sack him.”
1. Under current labour law (created by your dipshit mob) it is fucking near impossible to sack even the most incompetent worker.
2. I doubt an intelligent man like John Boscawen would work for a retard like you even if you had the ability to own a business.
3. You could never be a boss, apart from the IQ problem it would make you into one of Trotterski’s “Owning class’s” and hence you would be immediately purged from Helengrad and shot in a cellar somewhere.
Piss off back to the Lowest Standard where you can spend your worthless life composing more hymns to Dear Leaders glory.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
We’re back online now – for how long I don’t know.
What, the Party hasn’t paid the hosting? Don’t say you’re fucking them off with your inanity as well, Tutae…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Clinton said he was not Labour. Tane knows full well that doesn’t mean he is apolitical, and doesn’t rule out the Greens.
David, I’m sure it doesn’t. I’m just saying the Young Labour tag doesn’t stick.
1. Under current labour law (created by your dipshit mob) it is fucking near impossible to sack even the most incompetent worker.
For repeated incompetence you can. After Boscawen’s efforts in Wellington there’s certainly precedent. He’d be on his final warning after that ad and sacked when the numbers came through from today’s effort in Chch.
2. I doubt an intelligent man like John Boscawen would work for a retard like you even if you had the ability to own a business. 3. You could never be a boss…
I’ve actually part-owned a small business and employed people in the past, so I do know what I’m talking about. Have you?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Unions don’t count as small businesses, plonker.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Tane – a third of those marching were not children.
There was a school group in the square at the same time as the march, and some of them were playing with banners.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Tane Says:
“For repeated incompetence you can.”
But it has been made so tortuous under Labour (to repay the union scum for continued monetary support) that many smaller employers ( the countries life blood ) have fallen foul of the convoluted laws and find it easier to pay to get rid of incompetents.
In my case yes run a medium sized one. In your case owning the collar and lead that attach you to the organ does not mean you employ the organ grinder.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I love how Tane and his Siamese twin Robinsod have suddenly become experts on the costs of film and advertising.
No wonder the EPMU snapped them up.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Wow, that’ a bad ad – I really have to fight to read all the way through
- its boring
- its too long
- it doesnt talk aobut the anti-EFB bloc’s real motivations
- its poorly written
- its a waste of a lot of moeny
hmmm, I wonder if the same people were behind John Key’s DVD, it has pretty much exactly those same features. http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/ambitious-vacuous-more-like/
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Does anyone know where in the herald it was placed or what size it was? I’ve got a Herald rate card from some stuff I did a few months back – it’d probably give a pretty good idea of how much this ad cost.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Tane: 150 is just pathetic, and shows how marginal your movement really is. It’s a pity I couldn’t make the march
Ever considered that people who might feel different to you might have had similar problems making the march? Employers don’t wait for us to play politics. Idiot.
Tane: And yes, the standard is down. We’re working on getting some commercial hosting.
Sheesh man. Commercial hosting, 100GB of traffic per month for the low low price of US$7.99 per month. Are you telling me the Labour party is so skin-flint they can’t even afford that for their political mouthpiece?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The ad is for people who like to have some information and then make up their own minds.
Advertising by the like of Sam and Tane is aimed at people who do not bother with the detail but just go with the slogan.
The pledge card didn’t say much. That was deliberate because the Labour party is worried if the rank and file actually start thinking for themselves. Unions are run on exactly that premise. Treat them like mushrooms, feed them lots of shit and keep them in the dark.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Just under 500 at the Christchurch Protest. No young labour in attendance apparently.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Advertising by the like of Sam and Tane is aimed at people who do not bother with the detail but just go with the slogan.
The pledge card didn’t say much. That was deliberate because the Labour party is worried if the rank and file actually start thinking for themselves.
Iwi/Kiwi, anyone?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sam Dixon:
I’ve already lost count of your link-whoring activities today. Is it remotely possible that you can allow one Kiwiblog thread to pass by without link-whoring to Kiwiblogblog or The Standard?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I heard The Standard has been permanently shut down for repeated slander.
Labor is out of pocket the $65,000 it cost to set up, maintain and pay sycophants to agree with postings there.
Apparently Tane and Robinsod are back on the factory floor as of Monday.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
oh, about the $65,000 – I talked to a few mates and that may be on the low side, could be up around the $200,000 mark.
*** Disclaimer – These calculations have been arrived at a la the Robinsod/Tane/Sam D anal equation method. The author takes no responsibility for their relation to reality ***
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Iwi/Kiwi, anyone?
Yeah – I have to agree with that. Although Labour is very cynical with its PR, National has been leading the pack for some time (I’m thinking of teh Taxathon ad in particular). About the only group that actually use their advertising to put across their policy rather than a “feeling” is the Greens.
I blame the fact that everybody is focused on a swing vote that doesn’t pay attention to politics and so needs to be reached with flashy campaigning. The problem is that the more insubstatial campaigning that goes on the more people are turned off issues and the more the swing vote increases.
I don’t know how you’d fix it but neither side seems to want to anyway.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Apparently Tane and Robinsod are back on the factory floor as of Monday.
F**k – isn’t productivity down enough already without putting Laurel and Hardy back on the floor?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Chicken Little – as far as I know a blog doesn’t cost very much to set up at all. What are you talking about? I also read the standard’s bit about the film and it seemed to be reasonably accurate. Do you have any evidence of how much the DVD really cost? Could we see it?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Over 200 for, none against. Many suited and slightly embarrassed types making a point that freedom of speech is important. Much support along the way.
When the bleaters for it can only quote the standard and some fantasy about secret donations (something DPF has consistently argued against) you know they don’t have much to back it up with.
Typical Clark-regime speak though – if you’re wrong, deny it, muck rake and repeat a lie enough that at least your supporters will believe you.
Pathetic.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Chicken Little Says:
“Apparently Tane and Robinsod are back on the factory floor as of Monday.”
I doubt it. Employers are looking for skilled labour these days and organ grinders are banned from training monkeys under the UN animal rights convention.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hey you guys, Robinsod been banned from the bog now for like a month and you still can’t stop talking about him. It’s like you’ve been dumped or something.
Come to think of it, what ever happened to rakaunui? He jumped ship as soon as Robinsod was banned. If I were a conspiracy theorist…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Over 200 for, none against
That’s like, more than 200 more people for than against. Well done!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Just back from the Chch march, I wouldn’t want to guess the actual number but seemed to be much better than the Wellington march. John B spoke with great conviction about the EFB and also challenged Clark to a one on one debate (which he doesn’t expect her to accept). One of the other speakers was an economics lecturer from Canterbury University who gave an excellent speech (sorry I cannot remember his name). He pointed out that the EFB is nothing but a ‘protection racket’ for Labour.
Didn’t see or hear any counter protest from the left but I hope the guy with the blowup doll (dummy) wearing a labour tee shirt called Helen shows up on the TV or on the web somewhere!
I saw one MP at the rally that was Niky Wagner whom I said hello. Also ran into Rick Giles from Silent Running. John B is organizing another march in Auckland this weekend I think. If you can get off your arse and show up.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Do you have any evidence of how much the DVD really cost? Could we see it?
Do you Bardamu? I’d love to see it.
No?
Ah well its all b s then, ain’t it?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Chicken Little, I guess if there’s no other evidence I’ll go with the standard’s view then, they seem to make a pretty good case for their costing. Does anyone here have any film or TV experience/expertise they can use to show where the standard got it wrong?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Will thats 5000 Left-Wing Equivalents at Chch march. Well done!
Still think Saturdays a better day to march.
Remember the right represents the workers and the left the shirkers!
Roll on Auckland march No. 2.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Out of interest, did anyone see D4J at the march?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Bardamu: Does anyone here have any film or TV experience/expertise they can use to show where the standard got it wrong?
Does anyone here have any film or TV experience/expertise they can use to show where the standard got it right?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Half the time you guys are complaining the too many Labour MPs come form the union movement, now you’re complaining that a good portion of them don’t. Try to stay on message.
I was just rubbishing the idea that Tamihere could lead a ‘True Labour’.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
sorry, wrong thread.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“My prediction for the event is no blondes with glasses will be seen in the crowd.”
Wrong !
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think you’ve got the wrong thread Sam – try over here:
Vote:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/williams_on_tamihere.html
November 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yeah Sam. Turn back to page 44 of today’s list of things to do to disrupt the right wingers talking. You are supposed to be posting on the Williams on Tamihere thread when you post that comment. Of course, you’ve used it so if you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see there are four alternative comments. In-case one of your colleagues had already used yours.
Oh. And don’t forget the random thread jack section in the back. There are a number of useful posts in there too.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Many blondes in sun glasses and curvy dresses were Marching . It was kind of funny and so appropriate when a lovely local National MP nearly slipped on those nasty footpaths in stunning high heals in Cathedral Square not far from Tim B’s Office , only to be saved by a nearby Batman . She thanked me and we all chanted kill the bill and waved our signs . Those wretched side walks as the auntie helen keystone cops wouldn’t issue a permit, so it was rather congested on the footpaths. All done in good humour . The dude that spoke from Canterbury Uni was sensational .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
D4J:
Is this hyperbole? Or were you really dressed up as Batman? Got photos?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Pascal – I believe the standard have made their argument about the cost of the DVD and backed it up with figures. It seems critics should now prove that position wrong. So far nobody seems to have done so. Using your logic it would be enough for me to continue to answer “prove it” to every proposition made to me in order for me to be considered part of the debate.
I’ve noticed a lot of commenters on this blog including yourself spend quite a bit of time talking about how stupid people at the standard are and how they can’t debate rationally. I would suggest if you wish to be taken seriously it behoves you to prove you are capable of rational and informed debate. Can you?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
http://bp2.blogger.com/_YFQ-bSm9Z0g/RuB6lSTb7uI/AAAAAAAAAAc/qxrDQ0k6Bvw/S180/004_4+(Small).JPG
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I could’ve sworn I saw the Cathedral Shake when the learned chap from uni spoke of the dangerous consequences of this insane bill, as it clearly displays a breach of constitutional justice ? .
Know anything about that subject sub standard dumb nits ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“Is this hyperbole? Or were you really dressed up as Batman? Got photos?”
Sorry POC, I played suit and tie boy today not a Batman . I helped set up tables for signatures etc…etc.. that sort of thing , you know blend in and chat up ladies and shake the hands of people like the war veteran that John had with him , that sort of thing .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
D4J:
Fair enough – you’ve got to play to the crowd.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
POC – It was a good cross section of polite , concerned, genuine and passionate people kiwi’s, who are extremely concerned about the direction this Labour government is leading the country . It was amazing how many people not in the March stop and listen at event like that ? Lots of people were interested .
This tells me Christchurch is sick of the Labour stranglehold in Christchurch Central electorate . Tim Barnett and his hooker pinko legislation has destroyed the soul of the city . Many in Labour are worried .
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Bardamu: I believe the standard have made their argument about the cost of the DVD and backed it up with figures.
They have done nothing but guess. There is no substantiation of anything. What it is at the moment is pure wind and fluff. Just because somebody says something on the internet and it sounds believable does not make it true, Bardamu. No matter how reasonable it sounds.
I have sent the video on to a friend at TV3 and a friend who manages a recording studio to get a proper estimate of the cost, including the useage of the Coldplay song.
Which, to be honest, is a damn sight more than the boys at the Standard did before sucking that post out of their thumb.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Estimating the Coldplay cost will be hard, but I have it on good authority the BNZ paid $1m for a year’s NZ rights to Bittersweet Symphony. What it would cost for the world rights to Coldplay I couldn’t imagine.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Kill two birds with one stone.
I will be collecting signatures calling for a referendum to repeal or amend Bradford’s and Clark’s anti smacking legislation.
If any one wishes to help contact Unity for Liberty
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/register.html
or download a form and bring it along to the march.
The two issues are very much related. The Clark government will not listen to the people. It is also a concern that the EFB may make it very difficult to collect signatures in public.
We have over 230,000 signatures now so we need less the 70,000 to make the required 300,000.
Clark will not want to be answering questions in a leader’s debate as to what she will do if 80% of the public at election time indicate that want the anti smacking legislation amended or repealed.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Pascal – when will you be posting your friends’ estimates?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Tane
Your $1m seems far fetched or BNZ got ripped off. ASCAP says a hit could cost up to $750k but that is for a national audience in the US. So for lil ol nyuzelend you need to start discounting for the scale of audience, the age of the song etc.
For comparison, Microsoft are reported as paying $8m for Start me Up for the launch of windows globally.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
As much as I feel engaging the Standard’s sad wee partisan lemmings is like competing in the Special Olympics, I am struggling to think of when the last time was that Labour Party supporters mobilised ANYTHING on the streets. Nor can I think of any protests since the anti-GE marches that gathered so many supporters. That they could feel justified in crowing amongst the reality-based community about the numbers on the marches shows they have severe psychological defects.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Tane:
Does your “good authority” occupy a position at BNZ that would put him/her in full view of this information? If not, will you allow for the possibility that your “good authority” is wrong?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Blair, it’s probably because Labour’s in government. You may recall last year 5000 unionists marched on Aotea Square against National’s 90 day no rights bill.
insider – I can’t say if that’s true either, it’s just what was reported at the time. My same contact said he’d asked about 1 yr NZ rights to ‘Hit me with your best shot’ by Pat Benatar and been told $280,000. Either way, we’re talking big money for the NZ rights (let alone the world rights) to Coldplay.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Insider – if a hit for the US could cost that much how much for world rights to a hit? Actually, do you need the world rights to post it to the web? Surely the National Party doesn’t have that much money to pay for a campaign theme song?
BlairM – you have a point but people don’t usually march in favour of a government. I remember a lot of protesting and marching against National in the nineties but I don’t think anyone marched for it.
I’ve also got to say that a counter-protest in favour of a piece of legislation is very unusual, I can’t think of any pro-bill counterprotest since the Civil Union Bill was up for the vote. Was there one for the Foreshore and Seabed protest?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Tane its not Coldplay. Its a soundalike. A bit like how Coldplay sound like every other shoegazing crap english band of the nineties. The banality of their music is bound to be confused with a muzak composition for a political broadcast.
So…..it cost them very little.
But as per usual, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Bardamu
Rights are based on reach and the value of the music. I suspect a National party video on You tube would not attract that great a premium as, in reality, it is still not going to ‘reach’ many outside NZ. Perhaps they used Annette;s Law of Common Sense in their negotiations?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
insider…its not f*****g COLDPLAY…there were no rights issues!
Compare the two tracks, they are different.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Tane
your Pat Benatar example really undermines your $1m for Bittersweet symphony. That song is used all over the place so I suspect is a premium product. BSS is a good song but probably not in the PB league. It’s certainly not a hairbrush song and probably won;t pack the same commercial ‘punch’ in 20 years that HMWYBS does.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
prat
stop acting like your name. I;ve never mentioned blandplay.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
sorry insider,
it’s just the dishonest obfuscation of the lefty trolls, getting the old blood pressure up!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
BTP – even if it’s a cover of Coldplay there’ll still be rights issues involved. You can’t just cover a hit song and get away without paying.
insider – Both figures were given to me by someone who works in the advertising industry. The Bittersweet Symphony figure is one that he’s heard directly from the person who paid for it, the Pat Benatar figure he dealt with first hand.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Its not a cover, its a different piece of music. This is commonly done in the advertising world. The basic motif is the same, but technically its a different piece of music, register, chord progression etc. And this can be said for many songs, but this DVD is not for sale or pretending to be a commercial track. So no recourse!
They paid very little for this……sorry bro
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Bardarmu: when will you be posting your friends’ estimates?
When I get them. (Sorry, I’ve been on a train heading to next job for the last while) Just as I was walking out past the recording studio the manager stopped me.
Apparently Judith Tizzards’ office had called them regarding the use of the song. It is not the Coldplay song, the melody is altered. This puts it straight into the “Nothing, not even a royalty or whisker of” category. The same advice he gave Judith Tizzards’ office.
I would suggest speaking to somebody professional in the recording industry themselves to confirm if you fail to believe that. So, there you go. Part of Tane’s numbers down the drain.
Hopefully I’ll get a response soon, but … I’m fairly confident that what we’ll be facing is simply more lies and make believe from the Standard in an attempt to deflect from the actual issues – that John Key is actually making sense, that he is spending his own money and not public money (Like Labour does).
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Pascal, the jury’s definitely still out on this one I’d agree, but I find it hard to believe National’s off the hook on the use of Coldplay or a minor alteration of it.
As for the figures, you’ll see the potential Coldplay royalties were never included the $50,000 production costs. Nor was Key’s heartland tour or the MediaOne online advertising campaign.
Got any figures for those?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
We licensed “I’m Too Sexy”. It was a hit at the time, on a major label, and the license covered New Zealand.
Only cost a few thousand….
It really depends on the level….i.e. broadcast, non-broadcast etc…
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Tane – maybe David could ask around at Nat HQ and get back to use with those figures.
I’ve just listened to the music on Key’s video and Coldplay Clocks both on Youtube – there’s no doubt its the same tune.
BTR – I know a joker in the advertising business and he says you can’t just slightly alter a piece of music and then pretend you don’t need the owners’ permission to use it. And it doens’t matter if the use is commerical or not, its whether its broadcast that matters, and this video is clearly broadcast.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
BTW – that track is not the Coldplay track. It isn’t even a cover.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Tane:
You state this as an undisputed fact – don’t get ahead of yourself! The production costs, as estimated by those at The Standard, have yet to be verified.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“Apparently Judith Tizzards’ office had called them regarding the use of the song.”
Stuff this, as this has gone beyond a sick joke !!! So that lazy stamp licker does do something other than inserting sleaze plastic toys !! ?? How long can this continue !!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Im surprised not to see more people standing up for COldplay’s property rights.
Peter – this is posted on the internet though – you can’t just use a NZ licence for that, surely.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
>>Coldplay Clocks
No it isn’t. Compare the melody line.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Perhaps Coldplay should be paying Radiohead or Travis
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Tane, you can go argue with the manager of a recording studio and owner of several songs himself. He knows his industry far better than I do and would be able to answer your questions. I suspect he knows more than you do on this matter as well. There aren’t many recording studios in Auckland Central and surrounding areas, phone them all.
However – your numbers are based off the assumption as to which equipment was used. You have no facts. It’s all a big guess. And you are touting it as fact. Well, your mate Bardarmu is. My question is – what is the relevance of this?
John Key used his own money outside of an election year to advertise himself to the general public. Are you suggesting that this is wrong? Why the fixation on the numbers? The man is fabulously wealthy – he could probably drop a cool $1,000,000.00 on this and would not notice it.
The real issue here is not how much John Key spent outside of an election year.
That is just deflection.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Haha Tane lost another one . Fuck off Tane !!!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
And Dixon dog !!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Sam “I have a law degree” Dixon: Im surprised not to see more people standing up for COldplay’s property rights.
Because it is not a Coldplay song. The melody is different. I know it’s difficult, but think about it. You cannot claim property rights on something you do not own.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Stuff this, as this has gone beyond a sick joke !!! So that lazy stamp licker does do something other than inserting sleaze plastic toys !! ?? How long can this continue !!
Where’s rakaunui when you need him? rakaunui, rakaunui… where are you?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Sam “I have a law degree” Dixon: I’ve just listened to the music on Key’s video and Coldplay Clocks both on Youtube – there’s no doubt its the same tune.
Well, sorry to say it old chum, but I’d trust the ear of the manager of a recording studio that has had Silverchair, Crowded House, Bic Runga, Che Fu, Dave Dobbyn, Tim And Neil Finn, Goldenhorse, No Doubt, etc. record there over you comparing music over Youtube.
If you pull harder you might get a colon?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Pascal, Irish Bill’s figures seem a pretty good estimate to me. He knows the industry, he’s talked to the right people and he’s got a pretty good fix on what equipment was used. Remember, we do have video footage of all this from more than one source.
I’m happy to accept it cost less (or even more) than $50,000 if you can demonstrate otherwise. Until then it’s the best estimate we’ve got.
Why does it matter? As I’ve said before, I’m not arguing that John Key has no right to spend his money. I just find it a odd he had to spend $50,000+ on a piece of boring propaganda just to show us he’s an ordinary bloke.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
There is no debate, it’s not Clocks by Coldplay, nor is it a cover.
If all the left have is a weak attempt at “name that song”……roll on October 08!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The melody is not “the same tune” as Clocks.
The rhythm track is similar. The chords don’t follow the same pattern. The melody is clearly different.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Tane , you are beyond hope . Look is there any truth in the rumour that you are Annette King ?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Tane: Pascal, Irish Bill’s figures seem a pretty good estimate to me.
They would because they suit the agenda you are pushing. Sorry Tane, not buying into that. There was even substantial footage re-use.
So your main point is to whinge because somebody is spending money and it’s not the Labour party?
Got it. Not wasting more of my time or anybody else’s on this bullshit. You really need to get a real job or find a girlfriend or something – because if the best you have is “He made a boring video that costs *sucks thumb* money” then you really, really need help mate.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Hey Pascal, you’re in the industry you might be able to help me with this – if the song is not Clocks and National had to get it made from scratch what would the production costs on something like that be?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
How do you know they needed to get it made from scratch? You can buy this stuff off the shelf.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Tane:
About as much as Chris Knox charges for Labour Party campaign theme song services?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
BTW: I could complete that track from start to finish in less than a day. A professional musician could probably do it faster.
We’re talking a few hundred, or a few thousand. Depends on the studio.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
A muso with ProTools, would charge 600-700 bucks…………….oooh the extravagance!!!
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Stop pandering to Tane and Sam’s fetish over money? It wasn’t theirs, it wasn’t mine. It is none of their bloody business and they have suckered a whole bunch of you (and Judith Tizard too it seems although that wouldn’t be too difficult) into getting concerned/agitated about some non-existent royalty dispute.
Let them waste their time complaining to the artist, let them file law suits (Sam could show us all how good he is), frankly it is a leg pull of the highest order and worthy only of being ignored.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Tane: Hey Pascal, you’re in the industry
No, I am not. I work above a recording studio and am a friend of the manager. Do not claim I’m things I never said just so you can later throw that back in my face.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Lindsay Addie Says: One of the other speakers was an economics lecturer from Canterbury University who gave an excellent speech (sorry I cannot remember his name). He pointed out that the EFB is nothing but a ‘protection racket’ for Labour.
Dr Eric Crampton. A copy of this speech is available here:
http://proudlydismal.canterbury.ac.nz/modules/journal/entry.php?space_key=1&module_key=7&post_key=223&journal_user_key=0
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Sam, Tane et al. Get a life. It is immaterial how much it cost, or whether you like it. It isn’t targeted at you, it seems to resonate with the people it is targeted at. The money is irrelevant, since we are outside even the new election period that your favourite prime minister is trying to create.
So, in short, what is your point? Why are you wasting our time with this?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I know that this has been linked to, but it deserves to be posted in it’s entirety here.
This is Dr Eric Crampton’s speech.
“It takes a lot to drag an academic economist out of his office to a political rally downtown. If this were simply a protest over bad legislation, I’d have stayed in Ilam: bad legislation, unfortunately, isn’t all that uncommon.
And, this is very bad legislation – so bad that, even after amendment,the New Zealand Law Society wants it scrapped. This is amazing. When law is badly drafted, it’s the lawyers that profit by the resulting court battles. Lawyers from Chapman Tripp warn that the courts may well decide the next election – they expect court action. Legislation has to be shockingly bad before we’d expect lawyers to say it should be scrapped entirely, but that’s what they’ve done. Even the Electoral Commission, who has to give advice on compliance with the legislation, is reported to have thrown up its hands: it can’t make heads or tails of the legislation either, and so can’t provide advice.
Even worse, the legislation seems pointless.
The best social science evidence shows that donations to political parties don’t buy the donor a whole lot in terms of changes in policy. And, when sitting politicians spend money on election campaigns, the spending doesn’t have a very big effect on vote share. Spending can matter a lot for challengers, who have to work very hard to get their names known. But, spending doesn’t matter much for incumbent politicians.
Further tightening up of campaign spending rules, and especially changes like the ones now proposed that allow political parties to use Parliamentary budgets for electioneering, protect sitting MPs against challenges by newcomers. It’s an incumbent protection racket plain and simple. New parties and new ideas will be frozen out, and the same old hacks are guaranteed job security.
As bad as all of that is, it’s not the main reason I’m here.
This isn’t just bad law. It’s a bad law that affects how we make laws, and threatens the legitimacy of government itself. Constitutional rules stand apart from other bits of legislation. They affect fundamental rights and freedoms, and they set out how all the other rules will be written. The Electoral Finance Bill directly affects our freedom of speech. Once it’s passed, we’ll only have freedom of speech 2 years in 3. And, it sets out the rules for how an election is conducted – how legislation for the subsequent three years will be formed. These have constitutional implications.
Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. I studied under James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in this area. He likened it to setting out the rules for a poker game: you get everybody to agree to the rules before you deal the cards. If everybody’s agreed to the rules before the cards are dealt, the outcome of the game is fair and legitimate. What Labour and its support parties here have done is dealt the cards, taken a peek at their hands, and then declared deuces wild. This violates constitutional justice and threatens the legitimacy of any government that is elected under the new rules.
Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy. We’re here today to say that we don’t give that assent. If Labour rams this bill through Parliament, shuts up anyone who opposes it during the 2008 election, then squeeks through a tight coalition win after a lot of litigation, will that government have any legitimacy?
That’s why this Bill must be stopped and that’s why I’m here. The Bill violates the spirit of our constitutional foundations. It throws freedom of speech out the window. And it rigs the election to protect the politicians who pass it. Helen Clark, Annette King, throw out this Bill!”
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Paul Walker,
Thanks for the name and the url, it was a superb speech.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Boomtownprat, Pascal, and Peter, are right. Anyone that thought “Clocks” was remotely original knows nothing about music. Both “Clocks” and whatever is on the Nats video are just two more slightly different permutations on the same theme that has been done to death a zillion times already.
All those tin-eared induviduals who think it is the same, see if you can tell if the opening to Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” is not the “same” tune either.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Actually you could also make the same arguement about “we’re not gonna take it” by Twisted Sisiter, and “O come all ye faithfull”
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Correst – it isn’t Coldplay it is a ‘soundalike’ tune. The composer writes something that is kind of like the original version but slightly different either aping the style or basic chord scheme, but slightly changing a subtle aspect of it. result; A lesser version but without the royalty cost. It is on your tele and radio everyday – best example I can think of off the cuff – the old ‘Harvey Norman Ad.’ ‘go, Go harvey Norman, Go!” which was really based on ‘Boogie Wonderland’ By Earth Wind and Fire, but not close enough to infringe copyright. The most glorious attempt at this was when Hendrix wrote ‘Third Rock from the Sun’ (I think) based on the theme to ‘Coronation Street’.
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Rick Giles has posted a photo of the Christchurch march, This is of John B addressing everyone before the march started.
http://silentrunning.tv/?p=2503
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Just saw the pic from Christchurch – that’s not 200 people. It’s a few Family First and ACT Party nutcases in a tight camera shot. Got any other pics to verify numbers?
Pretty poor showing, considering:
By the time the bill returns to Parliament in December, Boscawen, with outside donations, will have paid $120,000 to advertise and organise the marches
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4293325a6530.html)
What’s that per person?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:49 am
So make up your mind, Tane. Does big money buy support or not?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Tane = scum of the earth = you acid tongued viper !!!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:54 am
That depends on whether you think $840,00 is big money. Thats how much Labour has said the Exclusive “7″ Brethren can contribute to National next year.
That could pay for a brand spanking new pledge card. Spanking new.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Tane said ‘thats not 200 people’,
You talk nothing but crap. Were you actually there?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
It has been reported that in the UK the Labour party there are in a spot of bother over electoral funding. Lots of very large anonymous funds.
Funny that our Labour party like to strongly ally itself with the Blair now Brown mob. In fact they closely examine and share strategic initiatives.
I guess that is all over now as this type of activity will have to be publicly condemned by the NZ Labour team.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
The Exclusive “7″ never contributed money to National, nor did they want to. They spent it on THEIR OWN advertising campaign whether National wanted it or not – and Farrar will confirm that they did NOT.
[DPF: Well I don't know who does or does not donate, but it is a matter of record that the EB have said they did not donate and National has said it did not receive any money from them]
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
BTW: Since Tane and his mates are so obsessed by copyright issues, check out this Young Labour video. It’s boring, but what is that I hear…..
Is that Goldenhorse I hear?
How much did you pay to license that, then?
youtube.com/watch?v=C87GPusax54
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
In fact, a whole range of kiwi artists in there….
Must have cost a bomb in licensing fees! You did pay them, right?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Peter, peter, peter… something is wrong when National is alleged to be doing it… and they can be smeared ad infinitum. Labour actually caught red-handed doing the same thing is just fine.
Remember the leftie troll maximum: Labour good. National bad. Suspension of reality offers all sorts of mind expanding opportunities for them. We must be charitable.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Sorry
Vote: