Electoral Finance Bill Speech
November 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am by David FarrarPaul Walker has a copy of the speech given to the Christchurch march against the Electoral Finance Bill, by Eric Crampton.
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 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!
A great speech Eric – especially for an economist 
The NZ Herald has a story on the march – very powerful symbolism when people read about a war veteran marching, and his comments.
Related posts:
- Free Speech Coalition saddened by passage of Electoral Finance Bill
- HoS on Electoral Finance Bill
- 19 problems still remaining with the Electoral Finance Bill
- More on Electoral Finance Bill
November 29th, 2007 at 10:06 am
So which part of this dont your Socialists trolls understand.
Many of us on this site have been very patient and very tolerant of your defense of the indefensible We understand you are in a trance like state enthralled with your Dear Heavenly Beloved Leader and her anal retentives.
But our patence and tolerance is wearing thin just like the 62% of those in the latest poll who have decided enough is enough.
But keep on keeping on You are condemning yourselves to a decade plus as part of a very small Opposition in the Parliament
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:07 am
God Farrar – in the Wellington march you and that scumbag Stephen Franks played on both the deaths of JohnBoscawen’s Dad and Rod Donald for your cause, now its war veterans? What next, the unborn child? God?
Citing unknown rightwing economists is also powerful stuff, incidentally.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:08 am
The fact that Labour thinks it can write constitutional law to favour itself means that when they lose the election next year, Helen Clark will not be able to go out with the same class that John Howard did. She has sealed her own fate and her own legacy. She will be remembered much worse then Muldoon, I can assure you of that.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“…Helen Clark will not be able to go ut with the same class that John Howard did…”
that’s because she has no class.
The dissolution of Helen and the Labour Party is going to be the most spectacular and sickening public display of suppressed hate NZ has ever seen. I expect her crowd are busily “booby trapping” NZ’s financial future as we speak.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
What of the case of John Tamahere who may [this blog and media reports] stand for Parliament next year. At the moment he is a talk-back radio host and I guess may be still that after January 1, expressing views about many political matters. However if he then declares he will stand for Parliament, will his utterances from January 1 up to then be subject to retrospective accounting towards his spending cap, or will we see people able to build on reputations, express views but only start ‘spending’ from the point of an official declaration of their political intentions? And then is he spending the money, or in this hypothetical case Radio Live?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:21 am
While I am not playing the ‘this-person-died-for-this-or-that-cause’ card, does anyone remember how Helen Clark played Folole Muliaga’s death off against “big business”?
Sam, you are clutching at straws. Grow up.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Does anyone know the numbers involved in the protest yesterday.
Helen says under 5,000 makes the marches irrelevant.
No one seems to be talking about how big the protest was yesterday.
Its imperative numbers are up which can only be done with publicity.
Was the protest on the news last night?
Is the media still reporting the protests?
The ripples of this protest are still not being felt in the community.
There is still no fundamental understanding of this bill.
This must be because we’re still infatuated with our Maori issues, our farming issues, our pylon issues, but our democratic issues to protest all these things are being threatened and no one understands.
when some one picks up a loud hailer and gets arrested then it will sink in
Too Too late.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Where does it say that Dave Crampton is right wing. typical more Labour spin. Presumably all left wing economists are employed by the Labour party and are too scared to say anything.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Constitutional law is at the mercy of unscrupulous socialists, who don’t abide by any rules, which enables them to abuse equal rights in law . We need a constitution, so we can stop delirious legalizations like the EFB .
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Sam “I have a law Degree” Dixon, why not rather address the speech itself rather than muckraking?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“you and that scumbag Stephen Franks ”
Witness how hollow this person’s complaints concerning “behaviour” on this blog really are. Note well, the left are never really concerned about such matters. The real objective is always to silence criticism and gulagafy dissenters. The more effective one is in their criticism of leftism, the more they will try and silence you or discredit you.
Not only is the truth of this evident in Dixon’s cowardly hypocritical and frequent complaints about Redbaiter’s language, its evident in the matter of blogs that have recently been established purely to personally attack David Farrar and discredit Kiwiblog. Especially since his vocal and effective opposition to the EFB.
It is a fact that in NZ under the control of the socialists, one does not only need facts and an argument to disagree with the Klark government and her vicious intolerant hate driven acolytes. One most of all needs courage.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
At the sake of another 20 dog hole demerit black points I will again reiterate that Sam Dixon inherited his Law Degree from the Sanitarium Food Company via a packet of Weet bix ? Constitutional law anybody ?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Redbaiter, you should see them over at the Standard. It’s really rather funny. Look at this rather amusing thread.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=775
Then go post on Kiwibloglog and watch them edit your comments
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Sam said “Citing unknown rightwing economists is also powerful stuff, incidentally.”
Other than the fact Farrar put the name of the guy and clicking the link he provided then has another link direct to the guys bio.
http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/people/crampton.shtml
Dr Eric Crampton
Position
Senior Lecturer
Qualifications
B.A. (Double Honours, Economics and Political Studies) (University of Manitoba)
M.A. (Economics) (George Mason University)
Ph.D. (Economics) (George Mason University)
Do you bother even checking the drivel you write or hope that others do not bother to check facts like yourself?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
God Farrar – in the Wellington march you and that scumbag Stephen Franks played on both the deaths of JohnBoscawen’s Dad and Rod Donald for your cause, now its war veterans? What next, the unborn child? God?
Is this like all those people who defended Mallard’s physical asssult on the death of Mallard’s father?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Labour and it allies, and the left trolls at this site freely admit it keeping certain people out of politics they don’t like.
They don’t believe in free and fair elections or democracy.
I suspect Tane, Rodger, Sonic and the rest of the left would agree with certian people being imprisioned for thier political views and/or wanting to promote them.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:42 am
These sub standard scum are twisted hypocrites ! They have no respect for the recently deceased and stoop to levels of behaviour that is far from acceptable decency . The goal posts are very low on the unbalanced playing field at the sub standard asylum, because vermin play rugby with tiny balls of liarbore fungus .
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 10:43 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 11:07 am
This part of the Crampton speech really gets to the heart of what is wrong with this bill. The left have their collective heads in the ground and cannot see this type of ad hoc lawmaking is BAD legislation. It would be bad law if National were proposing it. It has nothing to do with ones political leanings.
All the left can think up is tripe like the silly Stephen Franks comment above by Sam “I am a lawyer” Dixon. Well Sam I’d rather read anything Franks wrote before I’d take you seriously.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
” Then go post on Kiwibloglog and watch them edit your comments ”
Yeah- its gobsmacking that these dumb bastards have the damn gall to sneer at everybody else and whine endlessly about “free speech” etc when one cannot even write comments on their fucken excuse for a blog without risking having them edited by the owners so as to say something enitirely different. I know of nowhere else in the blogosphere that this cowardly yellow backed sneaking dishonest event occurs.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“I suspect Tane, Rodger, Sonic and the rest of the left would agree with certian people being imprisioned for thier political views and/or wanting to promote them.”
They do indeed. I read some kind of sycophantic hero worshipping bullshit relating to one of their far left comrades, and he was advocating just that (jailing) of Garth George for his recent column (on the EFB was it?). Typical communist strategies- profess to care and hold dear to certain principles, (in this instance free speech) whilst in the background, work assiduously to destroy those principles.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I would not be surprised If Garth George was among the first to be imprisoned if the EFB comes into law.
He is a fine upstanding Kiwi who understands NZ is not NZ any more and won’t take that sitting down. I only wish we had known his passion as a younger man. although, knowing editors his youthful enthusiam would’ve been curbed.
Anyone know his journalism history. He sems to have just come out of the blue.
But of course, he’s left the blues hasn’t he.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I seriously doubt Mr Dixon would know how to learn a new trick.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“God Farrar – in the Wellington march you and that scumbag Stephen Franks played on both the deaths of JohnBoscawen’s Dad and Rod Donald for your cause, now its war veterans? What next, the unborn child? God?”
Sam, that war veteren that you belittle is my father. He is a proud New Zealander and has earnt the right to express his opinion. He watched his father die before his time from injuries sustained in the Somme.
By the time you are 76 if you have contributed half as much as Dad has to our society then you will understand.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Farrar, what’s the story with the governor-general’s powers in a constitutional crisis? Is this not every bit as serious as the stuff that the Whitlam Govt. in Aussie was sacked for in the mid ’70′s?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
PhilBest – I don’t think it is, and there is a lot of debate in Australia over whether that action in Australia was inappropriate.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
bwakile: Sam, that war veteren that you belittle is my father.
You can be proud of your father, bwakile. Very proud, in fact.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Hello bwakile good to see theld-school are still undaunted by bullies.
Pascal mail me on leeharman42@hotmail about that thing maybe we can come up with a plan.
Sam – grow some intelligence.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy”
Last I looked 5 of 8 parties were voting in favour of the EFB. That’s a pretty broad agreement in anyone’s book.
National’s objections to the amended bill thus far have mainly centred around small mistakes that will be easily fixed (i.e. the ridiculous “megaphone” example) – so clearly it’s not for these reasons that National want the Bill scrapped. The real problem that they have is that it will make their previously secret trusts transparent (their rich donors may now think twice about donating because their agenda will be made transparent), and it will restrict the degree to which they can rort the party spending cap by running huge third party campaigns – this is where National has a distinct advantage (big secret money) – and it wants to retain this advantage. Now most political parties, and most of the public want these loop holes closed. So clearly it would be undemocratic if the government weren’t to make these changes. As such the argument that it’s “unconstitutional” for the public and the vast majority of political parties to not bow to the interests of National’s rich mates is a misnomer – when such small and powerful interest groups have such a vested interest in retaining their undemocratic advantage you’re never going to get them to agree on signing it away – as such, as long as they have representatives in parliament (the National Party) you’re never going to get a constitutional parliamentary consensus on this issue. They’re always going to oppose NZ becoming more democratic because it’s not in their interest – ignore the plutocrats I say.
[DPF: And PJ fails maths - 5 out of 8 is the smallest majority possible. And the final third reading may have only four parties in favour - or three if one excludes Progressive. But I will remember to quote Roger as supporting any future National's constitutional changes so long as there is the smallest possible majority in Parliament in favour]
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Roger Nome: “Last I looked 5 of 8 parties were voting in favour of the EFB. That’s a pretty broad agreement in anyone’s book.”
Except if you look at it in terms of how many of the 5 are small parties – actually the EFB has only enough votes to pass, with all 5 HAVING to vote for it to pass – be honest, hardly broad agreement, is it?
To look at what you say in another way you’d say that there is broad agreement on a bill if only Labour and National together don’t support something that all the small parties do? It is 6 out 8 of the parties, so the vast majority of the parties are for it.
You do your credibility no favours with such a stupid statement. I doubt anyone would call 55% “broad agreement”, given that 45% are opposed, rather than indifferent. If it was 75% or 80%, then that is was most would call broad agreement – as it used to be with changes to the electoral system in the past.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Roger, what utterly appalling logic. it assumes that a majority in parliament represents the interests of a majority of NZers. political hubris killed that notion off some time ago.
but hey, when Labour claims to have a parliamentary majority in support for their ‘Infant Sacrifice’ bill you’ll be there telling us how broad the agreement is.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
roger nome said “Last I looked 5 of 8 parties were voting in favour of the EFB. That’s a pretty broad agreement in anyone’s book.”
roger – check out the correalation to yesterdays NZ Herald poll:
Labour: 38.1%
Greens: 3.9%
NZ First: 2.1%
United & Progressives both below 1%
Do you think there might be a connection?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
roger nome: keep with the meme, someone might believe you someday. Or you could ask yourself whether perhaps National oppose the bill because it is bad policy and achieves nothing other than to unnecessarily restrict people’s lives.
There are no stated problems with the election last time that this bill would fix. There are a number that it doesn’t fix, and it introduces all sorts of new ones. It doesn’t stop the EB, which is the main reason the damn thing exists – it is so incompetent it couldn’t even achieve that.
No benefit from it, lots of downside. Kill it. Simple really.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Inventory – we don’t make governments based on surveys carried out on a few dozen people. Labour, NZ first, JPP and the Greens recieved their mandate to legislate at the 2005 election. Your argument is meaningless.
Parties with 56% of vote are in favour of this legislation. National is opposed to it because it’s going to make NZ more democratic, which will mean less power for the rich. So if it’s “unconstitutional” to make NZ more democratic just because a bunch of fascist Tories and their bag men don’t want it to be, so be it.
[DPF: Roger calls opponents fascist when he doesn't realise his arguments mirror those in support of the Enabling Act - the majority voted for it]
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
roger: wrong again. You entirely made up your second paragraph beyond the first sentence. 56% of the vote is not broad agreement – that is the point. This shouldn’t be decided based on a bare majority, it should require a substantial consensus.
Your attribution of reasons to National is entirely fictitious (in that you have no evidence and you made it up). It is as valid as me stating that Labour’s reason for doing it is that Helen’s psychic told her to. Have you nothing more to offer than unsubstantiated allegations?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Paul:
“There are no stated problems with the election last time that this bill would fix.”
It will make elections more transparent (i.e. the trusts) you’re wrong.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Has Chris Trotter died. It sure looks like the gnome is chennelling is perverted view on life and his paranoid hatred of anything free and right. Claims of “big secret money”, “rich donors” etc. Crikey, next thing he will be talking about “acceptable corruption”
tell me roger, would it be OK for someone to spend $5 million on electioneering if they received 100,000 $50 donations when the others could only raise 2000 $50 donations and only had $100K to spend?
Or should everyone be restricted to the lowest common denominator and be limited to $100,000?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“56% of the vote is not broad agreement – that is the point.”
The fact that some undemocratic plutocrats oppose this democratising legislation is no reason to scrap it – in fact it’s all the more reason to support it.
[DPF: Give up people. Roger Gnome doesn't give a fuck about constitutional conventions. He can not get his head around the idea of not using a narrow majority to do anything at all that he agrees with. In fact he thinks skewing the electoral playing field so his side wins all the time is a perfectly good outcome. It's the same arrogant self belief that we see in Fiji - I'm one of the godo guys, so anything I do is justified. ]
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
” …. is channelling his ….” oops
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“hatred of anything free and right”
Idiot.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“would it be OK for someone to spend $5 million on electioneering if they received 100,000 $50 donations when the others could only raise 2000 $50 donations and only had $100K to spend?”
Would it be OK if John Key joined the Business Round Table in a circle jerk in the conference room on Mars?
[DPF: Wow he really dot not want to answer that question]
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“Roger Gnome doesn’t give a fuck about constitutional conventions”
If National gave a fuck about taking the big, dirty undemocratic money out of politics there would be no constitutional issue – they’re the problem, not the 56% majority.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
You’re right DPF. Don’t feed the trolls. They won’t change, it only makes them feel important.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Just as an aside. I was amused by a comment from Paul (“Concerned of Linwood” in Vancouver) a few days ago when he was protesting at the general odium in which left-wingers are held on this blog. In particular he protested the constant association of the left with Stalin & co. and made the following comment:
Even at the time I laughed at this comment and the usual ‘high moral ground’ attempt. I cannot remember a time when left-wingers did not throw out this slur in the midst of arguments with the right. And here it is again, courtesy of a ‘decent’ leftie – Roger. Hope Paul (Concerned) is taking note!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
roger nome repeats the mantra of the left:
“Money stolen from the taxpayer = good; money earned through hard work, enterprise and risk = bad” or
“We know how to spend your money better than you do, so give it to us you Tory sucker!”
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“[DPF: Wow he really dot not want to answer that question]”
Why would I, it’s meaningless because it has never happened before in NZ, and probably never will.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Nice one IV2 – Mindlessly repeating stupid rhetorical lines. Is that really the best you’ve got?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
No, but seeing as the intent was to expose your own hypocricy and get a bite, I’d say it worked!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Roger: Not at all meaningless. Over a three year cycle National receives I’d estimate approx 150,000 individual small donations. So do you have a problem with them spending all the small donations they have got from their members?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Someone put Phillip John/Roger Nome out of his misery.
Mandate to legislate only goes so far. I doubt Phillip John the political ignoramus can find EFB on the policy manifesto at the 2005 election. So no grounds for enactment on that basis.
I’d like to see Phillip John prove his claims (without Wikipedia references and without Hollow Men references).
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
roger nome it is offen stated that we as humans use only 10% of our brain function. Do you think if would be possible if you could kick in another 10% of brain function as clearly your 10% is not working the way it should. Yes go ahead and pass the EFB the backlash will be like nothing you have every seen. Forget power you and your ilk will be in the political wilderness for years to come. And your much hated groups like the EB and National party will attract support that will keep Dear Leader awake at nights in a cold sweet.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“Roger: Not at all meaningless. Over a three year cycle National receives I’d estimate approx 150,000 individual small donations.”
1) Can you show us any material basis for that estimation?
2) What do you mean by “small”?
3) Not if it came in at under the spending cap.
4) I would actually favour a system in which 3rd party organisations were able to spend up to $10 per member on electioneering, up to a cap of say $200,000. Other 3rd parties wouldn’t be required to register, and would be able to spend up to around $20,000. This system would go a long way to democratising the electoral process.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“I doubt Phillip John the political ignoramus can find EFB on the policy manifesto at the 2005 election.”
That’s because the many electoral scandals happened at the time of the election moron!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Phillip John
Oh dear.
Maybe Labour, NZ First, JPP and the Greens didn’t receive their mandate to legislate the EFB at the 2005 election. Because by your own logic the public didn’t vote on it. Moron!
And Phillip John at 1:04 pm:
Phillip John fails to mention the New Zealand Herald poll – the one apparently rigged by a disaffected youth with Phillip John-type ideals of democracy. As the result doesn’t accord with his views, Phillip John will naturally dismiss it.
Compare that with Phillip John at 2:12 pm:
I get it. Democracy is a platform for the likes of Phillip John to impose his views regardless of constitutional conventions.
By the way, can someone point Phillip John to a definition of fascism on Wikipedia, as his browser (or maybe his brain) doesn’t seem to be working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism
*Snigger*
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“Yes go ahead and pass the EFB the backlash will be like nothing you have every seen.”
Why ??
If so few are protesting the bill now, why will there be a huge back lash.
there might be a wimpy backlash in letters to the editor and talk back
No ones going to do anything real and act
As long as they have a little comfort zone to cling onto, theyll let the rest of their freedoms perish.
Well known fact, according to Helen.
she understood Goebbels well. a little truth helps a big lie.
The next step he taught is when you kill a 1,000 it matters
But when you kill six million it loses significance.
Helen might understand this as well.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
“Maybe Labour, NZ First, JPP and the Greens didn’t receive their mandate to legislate the EFB at the 2005 election.”
Most of the legislation that’s passed isn’t campaigned on though – just ask the 1990s National crew.
“Phillip John fails to mention the New Zealand Herald poll”
Why would you base your argument on an unscientific poll carried out on behalf of a paper that was caught hysterically chanting “democracy under attack” a few days before amendments were to be made to the EFB (i.e. they had no idea as to whether their criticisms would be valid the next week)?
“I get it. Democracy is a platform for the likes of Phillip John to impose his views regardless of constitutional conventions.”
Rubbish – Labour disagreed with much of the 1993 electoral act yet National still passed it. In the 1950s National scrapped the upper legislative chamber without the approval of Labour – there is no convention.
As it stands, this legislation won’t effect the vast majority of people in election year won’t be effected by the EFB, and it will deliver what most people want – an end to big secret money in elections.
images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/news2007/colmar_brunton/APR07/eleccampaignfunding.pdf -
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Roger: pet hate. Effect is when you cause something to happen. Affect is when you have an impact, but it wasn’t deliberate. Affect is the correct word in this context.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Phillip John,
you don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the third party campaings happened before the election, not on teh day itself. Therefore this gave them plenty of time to come up with a policy along the lines of the EFB.
Wonder why they didn’t.
Looking forward your rebuttal to POC statement about the definition of fascism.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
So now your position has evolved from “mandate to legislate” to “National did it anyway”? Two wrongs don’t make a right. If I recall correctly, we can’t ditch MMP for anything else unless there’s a 75% majority vote in parliament. My personal view is that there are certain other categories of legislation, particularly electoral legislation, that should command a 75% majority in the house (analogous to a special resolution in company law). The EFB is one of them.
As it stands, this is mere bluster. Let’s look at the long title of the Electoral Act 1993:
My understanding is that Labour quite likes the present system, and certainly has learned how to work with it better than National (to date). I’d like to see you put up some substance for your assertions.
And you dismiss the NZ Herald poll only to put up a dodgy TVNZ poll in support of a different assertion? You fail to quote the preamble to the question – and the survey period:
First, this poll was conducted back in April, probably before the public had crystallised its thinking on the EFB. Second, the bold text is highly likely to colour the mind of the uninformed survey participant that something is amiss, thus garnerning support. And third, to the extent that this relates to anonymous donations, it’s a sub-set of the EFB as presently drafted. And guess what, the anonymous donations weren’t covered in the original Bill.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
PaulL – That’s not the way I read it.
Effect: “Something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect
Affect: “to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affect
I could have used either one.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Phillip John:
It’s generally frowned upon at Kiwiblog to engage in grammatical pedantry, so I generally desist, but PaulL is quite correct. If you look at the examples you quote, “effect” is a noun (descriptive state) whereas “affect” is the verb (an active state).
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“you don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the third party campaings happened before the election,”
The Don Brash, John Key – Exclusive Brethren scandal only broke a few days before the election – certainly not enough time to properly consider, let alone draw up a large and important piece of legislation.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Roger Nome
You really are flailing around today. “..base your argument on an unscientific poll” – please furnish evidence of Digipoll’s flawed methodology before foisting your spin on us all.
Dr Crampton said “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society.” This comment gets to the heart of the travesty going on with the EFB. Roger – I assume you believe that the Electoral Act is the closest thing NZ has to an effective constitution. Up until the EFB, any and ALL changes of substance to this Act have been through the most rigourous public consultation, usually become subject to Royal Commissions or referenda and then has wide bi-partisan support. This Bill has received as much public scrutiny as the dog chipping law and involved a consultation process limited to Labour’s allies in Parliament and NO ONE else. This has never been done before in NZ.
Furthermore the opposition to the Bill is still widespread and the left leaning Clark appointed Human Rights Commission is still sticking to its criticism and request for the regulated period to remain at 90 days even after the amended Bill was presented.
Nome-answer this one question. Would you be so sanguine about this law had National brought it to Parliament in the form and manner Labour has done?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Just answer that one question roger nome ? Go on , surprise us all and be honest for once ? Dare you too ?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
care to define “a few days” Phillip John?
Remembering how quickly Labour brought out the Student Load no interest policy it seems to me they are quite capable of acting quickly when they want to. We are talking about Helen Clark after all (and that is not a slur either).
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
KIA:
I may be wrong, but Phillip John/Roger Nome’s answer may be identical to his 2:51 pm post:
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Scandal? What scandal? Oh that’s right… some concerned NZers (men, fathers, EBs, business men, husbands etc) used their own money to put quite factual information out for public to consider.
Gosh, better put and end to that. I mean, fancy considering the NZ public smart enough to pass their own judgements on the merits of that others say/think. Ridiculous! No no no… we have to be told what to think by Dear Leader.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“So now your position has evolved from “mandate to legislate” to “National did it anyway”? Two wrongs don’t make a right”
In a representitive democracy such as ours most legislation isn’t campaigned on. And most of the legislation that is campaigned on is largely irrelivant to the result – i.e. modern day campaigns focus on 1-3 large policies. So if government mandate only extended to policies that were campaigned on there wouldn’t be a hell of a lot of legislating going o
“I’d like to see you put up some substance for your assertions.”
Can’t be bothered trawling through the hansard, though has come up many times in debate in the last year. Also – you fail to address this point…
“In the 1950s National scrapped the upper legislative chamber without the approval of Labour – there is no convention.”
As to the TV One poll – it was vary clear and ties in nicely with the EFB
“political parties would have to be more open about where their funding comes from.”
80% of the public want what the EFB is delivering – the hysteria that the Herald and National have kicked up with lines like “democracy under attack” is based on minor mistakes within the bill that are due to be fixed very soon. The Bill will go ahead, and I predict that it won’t actually change a lot other than getting rid of the big dirty secret money. As such the public will be happy with the results, even after being spooked by the likes of “table thumper in chief” DPF, and shrill old granny Herald. As such I look forward to showing you this thread again in one year’s time.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“80% of the public”. why not 90%, 95% or 99%?!? Your assertion is simply plucked from thin air
“minor mistakes”.. what? like the first bill to get a slaying from the HRC, Law Commission, national marches that featured concerned kiwis from across political spectrum etc etc etc. Minor.., minor?!?
“big dirty secret money”… yeah right! the only money that fits that bill is the big money that labour STOLE from the taxpayer
“public will be happy”… I think that…, ah, bugger it… have you ever visited the planet earth?
Roger, I didn’t believe people could be simultaneously shallow and ideologically blinded. But now I believe, I believe. Thank you.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
“please furnish evidence of Digipoll’s flawed methodology before foisting your spin on us all.”
The fact that poll can so easily be hacked is enough in itself to write it off – then you’ve got the fact that it’s voted on only by people who read news on the internet – Probably a predominantly white, male and middle class demographic (much like the readers of kiwiblog). The poll’s an absolute joke.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
roger nome
“In the 1950s National scrapped the upper legislative chamber without the approval of Labour – there is no convention.” Read your history Rog – National introduced a Bill in 1947 to abolish the Legislative Council and it was defeated by Labour. Then Labour called a Joint Constitutional Reform Committee was set up to consider the whole question of a second chamber – note the word JOINT: National and Labour members were on the committee. But here’s the clincher – National campaigned in the 1949 election on a platform to abolish the Upper House and won the election hence they had a mandate from the people to affect their amendment to election law.
So Roger by your logic Labour should hold over the implimentation of the EFB until AFTER the 08 election and put this law reform to the people like National did in 1949. Or even better they could put it to a referendum like we did with the switch from FPP to MMP. Now I wonder why Labour are not contemplating any of these DEMOCRATIC routes to major constitutional law change.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Why, roger nome is the need for constitutional law change ? Answer that please ?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I have to say you’ve skirted around my points.
One point, particularly, was that in the case of certain types of legislation, there should arguably be a 75% parliamentary majority to pass it.
Second, you say:
Even if you could substantiate your assertion, was not there a consultative process around the introduction of MMP. I quoted the long title to the Act above. What part of that (which goes to the legislative objectives) do you suppose Labour found offensive?
Third, you still haven’t justified the basis for the poll – I made specific criticisms. All you come up with is this one liner: “As to the TV One poll – it was vary clear and ties in nicely with the EFB”. Can’t you do better than this? And then (without any substantiation of the poll methodology) you go on to say:
Have you been taking stand-up comedy lessons from TomS. One unsubstantiated poll (so far) does not back up your assertion. And, about these “minor mistakes within the bill that are due to be fixed very soon”, you’re saying that there are still minor mistakes remaining after the Select Commitee report-back? Oops! And I thought you were telling us that the SC would fix everything in its list of recommended changes?
There are other points, but I’ll let them slide for the moment.
Then you say I haven’t addressed your point:
“In the 1950s National scrapped the upper legislative chamber without the approval of Labour – there is no convention.”
I probably don’t need to, seeing as Chris Diack delivered the smack-down you wanted when you last raised it:
You had no answer to this other than:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/geddis_on_herald_campaign.html#comment-367724
Hmmm… six-foot deep in doo-doo?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Roger
Vote:“The fact that poll can so easily be hacked is enough in itself to write it off – then you’ve got the fact that it’s voted on only by people who read news on the internet ” You are an idiot. The Herald DigiPoll is a professional opinion poll conducted by proper pollsters over a week long period with a sample size of over 900 voters not some random on-line poll as you allege.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Nome
Vote:Answer the question: “Would you be so sanguine about this law had National brought it to Parliament in the form and manner Labour has done?”
November 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“National campaigned in the 1949 election on a platform to abolish the Upper House and won the election hence they had a mandate…”
I doubt it was a major party of their campaign – so, as with most other legislation there was no direct kind of public “mandate”. In any case the National party left us without any safe guard against hasty law making. Thus we wound up with the fire sale of state owned assets in the 1980s and 1990s etc…
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Matthew:
He can’t – and quoting further from Wikipedia:
It’s not exclusively a slur against right-wing concepts.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Oh sweetcorn, my comment at 5.16 stands: “So now your position has evolved from “mandate to legislate” to “National did it anyway”? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
In case you’ve forgotten, we were talking about upper legislative chamber which, in your words “National scrapped … without the approval of Labour – there is no convention”. Now you’re wimping out on us, and jumping into “the 1980s and 1990s etc”.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I am reminded of nothing so much as a fish flopping around in the bottom of the boat when reading Roger’s posts in this thread. He’s so desperate not to have his faulty arguments here skewered and it seems almost everyone is trying to stick a fork in the poor fellow.
Leave him be. He might cry.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Oh great, roger darts back to National selling state assets , blimey wasn’t this thread about a EFB ? Hey nome, would you be making as much frigging noise if National tried this rort ? Surely rogered gnome , you are weak in timid rants and so fill of shit Tane had to release the overflow switch at the sub standard sewer plant – Lickspittles everywhere – run everybody as they’re far worse than blue bottles at the beach . Bingo rogered -line – whack !!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Pascal:
I’m wondering if what Phillip John said about me yesterday (“talking out your arse, never providing anything to back up your substantiate your arguments”) now rings a little hollow.
Yes, Phillip John, I also look forward to showing you this thread again in one year’s time. Shall we make a date and time now or later?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Roger: I could have used either one
Actually not. Go back and read the definitions you linked to. You used effect as a verb which would have required a few more words in that sentence to read correctly. Affect is primarily used as a verb and would have been appropriate in that context.
Damnit, my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
“Damnit, my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.”
The rogered nome is only half educated, but fully indoctrinated. Like most leftists. Its why its hopeless trying to argue with him. You might as well attempt to explain to a bird that has flown into your house and is trapped by the window how glass is manufactured.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“I made specific criticisms.”
They were rather insubstantive and petty I’m afraid POC – that’s why I didn’t see them as fit to answer. As I’ve said, people want to know where party funding is coming from – that much is clear. 80% in a scientific poll of some 800 people is very significant any way you look at it.
The SC did take care of the major problems according to COG and Green Peace, although unsurprisingly some small drafting problems slipped through.
“One point, particularly, was that in the case of certain types of legislation, there should arguably be a 75% parliamentary majority to pass it.”
Perhaps – I don’t think that the EFB is one of the, though – the only thing it’s going to substantially change is the secrecy of election donations. The rest is mere tinkering. It’s certainly not any kind of major constitutional change.
KIA:
“The Herald DigiPoll is a professional opinion poll conducted by proper pollsters over a week long period”
We’re talking about different polls KIA – The so called “free speech” (no bias hey?)
– poll which followed the herald’s screeches of “democracy under attack was indeed a random online poll.
You’re talking about a more general poll that wasn’t specifically about what we’re considering on this thread.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Now you know why the highly educated (at my expense) idiot is banned at No Minister.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
off topic (no general debate post)…
I hope they use this photo on the next pledgecard
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.”
You married your dog?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Phillip John:
The plain fact is you can’t answer them, much like a number of other points on this thread. The funny thing is, when you accused me of not answering one of your points (how dare I), I referred you to Chris Diack’s smackdown. Now you choose not to answer that point either?
And to come back to the specific criticisms in my 5:16 pm post, they were:
These points go to the core of your argument. I defy you to address them.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Roger
Vote:How weak – no matter how small a part the abolition of the Upper House played in National’s 1949 campaign manifesto, it at least restrained itself from capricious law making and submitted to the will of the people BEFORE proceding with the abolition. Labour is giving the passage of this legislation the same amount of public scrutiny and exposure to the will of the people as any run-of-the-mill uncontroversal law changes. Like all good socialists you maintain that the ends justifies the means – the desire to rid NZ once and for all of the influence of the evil naughty Brethren justifies the suspension of the very bi-partisan processes, procedures and prescedents that have underpinned NZ’s democracy.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“Now you know why the highly educated (at my expense) idiot is banned at No Minister.”
I was banned for laughing at you and your merry band of retards adolf – as countless others have been.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Roger
Vote:You mean the poll showing National 14 points ahead? Ah yes wrong poll – a result unconnected to the EFB of course.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Phillip John:
Now you’re getting flustered. Aren’t GreenPeace about saving the whales, not the electoral sytem:
Vote:http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/about
November 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“I referred you to Chris Diack’s smackdown”
um – I demolished that argument in response to KIA – just because you get voted in, doesn’t mean that all your policies have a majority mandate -especially the policies which are down-played (i.e. like sale of public schools by National will be in 2008). It was a weak argument.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
” You married your dog? ” barks rogered nomer a mongrel cross breed frothing socialist spaniel with a micro chip inserted in its brain and programmed digitally on remote control by Supreme Leader – special lickspittle model . I bet it sits down to piss , go away you bloody pest !!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
roger
Vote:You didnt demolish anything – you lamely suggested that National had no mandate to abolish the LC because it wasn’t on the front page of its 1949 Manifesto which is piffle. But that’s OK – Labour can make passage of the EFB part of its 08 manifesto and we won’t tell if they don’t make a big fuss about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Even that would be an improvement on their blatant anti-democratic tactics currently being employed
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Phillip John:
Phillip John on on 1 November 2007 at 5:17 pm
Your thoughts, Phillip John?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“It was a weak argument.”
May I suggest it is you roger nome that is weak, as even the flowers laugh at you . You are that weak you fall over in a Wellington gale and I hear the lads at the Port need some weak gutted bait .
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“The plain fact is you can’t answer them”
You say the scientific poll of 800 plus people was unfair because it asked respondents a straight forward question.
80% of respondents agreed that….
“political parties should have to declare where all their election campaign funding comes from”
No priming or skewing – it simply stated the simple fact in an neutral and non-emotive way ….
that currently political parties aren’t required to declare where all their funding comes from -
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Back to the Unions roger , how much do they help Labour along with things like funding rort electioneering pledge cards featuring our twisted supreme leader ( in a previous life ) colored in Moscow red !!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.”
You married your dog?
Roger you really are a prick
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Phillip John:
Can’t you bring yourself to address my second criticism?
This was the question asked (you only quote selectively):
My second criticism: the bold text is highly likely to colour the mind of the uninformed survey participant that something is amiss, thus garnerning support.
The pollsters frame a context for their questions, then ask it. Or are you now trying to say that in April 2007 members of the public were so informed that they didn’t need to be told about the EFB?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
“my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.”
You married your dog?”
David Farrar – I got 20 demerits for far less . I think this comment is deplorable and deserves a life time ban for roger nome . Fairs fair . Rotten bastard is pure filth !!!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Roger: You married your dog?
That is a sick fucking thing to say, Roger. Myself – I’m fair game. Throw whatever you like at me, but when you open your mouth about my wife you’d better behave like a gentleman.
So no, I married a sweet and lovely Chinese girl, who’se parents had intended for her to be a farm worker and married off. She was not happy with the idea and ran away from home, where her elder brother took her in and taught her, at the age of 17, the basics of reading and writing. Once she’d grasped that she enrolled in an English Language course in Malaysia, which she completed perfectly after which she enrolled herself, with money she had saved up, in Auckland University to study Business Management. Which she successfully completed and did rather well at.
Now? Now she’s a happily married Kiwi girl, with a beautiful daughter and her own business.
My dog? No. A damn incredible woman with more courage in her little finger than you can manage in that entire poxy body of yours.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Well said Pascal.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
And you can never, ever complain about bad behavior from anybody else. You’ve shown yourself to be lower than the gunk at the bottom of somebody’s shoe with that comment, Philip John Mason.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“My second criticism: the bold text is highly likely to colour the mind of the uninformed survey participant that something is amiss”
I disagree, it’s a straight foward, non-emotive fact. Your reading is tenuous at best.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“with money she had saved up, in Auckland University to study Business Management. Which she successfully completed and did rather well at.”
So now you yourself to be an opportunistic liar Pascal! Your wife indeed is indeed educated. tut tut tut. I hope she doesn’t find out that you’ve been telling lies about her on the internet!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Well said Pascal
Vote:You tell your lovely wife that Nome does not represent NZ and we are blessed as a country to have people like you.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Sorry, Phillip John, but we’ll just have to disagree on that.
Legislation is passed for a reason. And why did survey respondents need to be told that political parties would have to be more open about where their funding comes from? The words “more open” imply some skulduggery. Why weren’t they simply told that political parties would have to disclose all sources of funding?
Accuse me of playing semantics, if you must, but I think there’s a difference.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’m disappointed in you Pascal – that you should go around lying about such a “courageous woman” who has placed her trust in you. She deserves better than you mate.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Phillip John:
Now you’re being an offensive fuckwit.
What Pascal described is entirely consistent with someone who had “no schooling at all” and subsequently learned “at the age of 17 … the basics of reading and writing”.
Stop digging and apologise to Pascal like a man.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“tut tut tut ” Clearly this roger nome is insane , fill of drugs ? Maybe an acid, strange freak ? He talks so much gibberish anyone would think he is studying at a University . Do they have wards on campus ?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Did she have the benefit of schooling? Through from six years old like you had? No, her reading and writing of Mandarin was taught by her brother. She learned English in Malaysia, aye – at the age of 24. Done by 26 and then on her way to New Zealand. So did she have the benefit of schooling like you had? Not on your life.
And you don’t even have the courage to apologize. You’ve shown the type of man you are, Philip John. There is no point in further discussion with you.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“Stop digging and apologise to Pascal like a man.”
Come on roger , do what POC said, now !!!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I have read all of Roger Nome’s posts in this thread and cannot remember reading such an incoherent lot of socialist drivel in my life. I suggest he has a lie down in a dark room, that might help.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
“Accuse me of playing semantics, if you must, but I think there’s a difference.”
As I said POC if there’s a point there it’s a tenuous and minor one, and I doubt that the results would have been much different had the introduction to the survey been worded in you preferred way.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
roger nome your posts are written by a delusional person . You are beyond hope .
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Roger
You obviously dont know the first rule of holes – when in one, STOP DIGGING.
I note you have avoided my earlier question “Would you be so sanguine about this law had National brought it to Parliament in the form and manner Labour has done?”. You have tried to allege that the Holland Government did as Clark is doing with the EFB over the issue of abolishing the Upper House and that argument fell flat on its face because a JOINT Parliamentary Committee was set up by Labour with equal Nat/Lab representation to consider the issue AND the laws formally abolishing the LC were proposed by National BEFORE the 1949 election and not passed until AFTER the voters of NZ handed the Treasury benches to Sid Holland.
I know (and can actually understand) your ideological acceptance of the thrust of the Bill and thus your willingness to wade continually into the kiwiblog battlezone to argue its merits. Lets set the contents of the Bill to one side and focus on the process. 2nd question – do you accept that attempting to pass the EFB without the bi-partisan support of the other major party in Parliament OR putting the law to the people either in a General Election OR by way of referendum is a departure from the norm of making major changes to NZ’s electoral law?
Must off to bed – its nudging midnight here in the US
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
oh don’t be such a sooky bubba Pascal. You said….
“Damnit, my wife had no schooling at all and manages better English than that.”
I called you out on that lie – and I was right. Now you’re becoming abusive because I’ve exposed you as a charlotan and a liar. Shame on you
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
WTF is a “charlotan”
Do we have to put up with illiteracy as well as bigotory and ignorance from Otago University’s finest?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
roger nome said “Thus we wound up with the fire sale of state owned assets in the 1980s and 1990s etc…”
Um, ‘scuse me roger, but wasn’t it LABOUR that began the process of state asset sales? The Labour government which included Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Annette King, Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard.
Which also makes you think – those guys were around in the late 80′s – twenty years ago. Has Labour ever considered rejuvenation? Thought not!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“because I’ve exposed you as a charlotan and a liar.”
First sign of madness – talking to oneself ? Poor roger nome .
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Phillip John:
You should have left the matter rest with Pascal’s 7:26 post – a simple “fair enough, explanation accepted, sorry to call her a dog” would have sufficed.
Instead, you’ve persisted and I see your full name has been posted here, so this thread is now a permanent internet stain on your character.
You owe Pascal (and his wife) an apology.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Must be more of that fine Masters Degree speaking there from our poor little uneducated savage.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
POC: You owe Pascal (and his wife) an apology.
It will not be because he feels he has done wrong – it will be because he has been pressured into it. There is no gentleman in him at all, he is all boor.
Bwakili, do you speak any Afrikaans or Dutch at all? My first language, so my English does not always come out as it should. But maybe somebody could explain to the little man what the difference between “Skool toe gaan” en “By ‘n universiteit studeer” is and how the two have a distinct difference in Afrikaans?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Oh and Phillip John:
“Now you’re becoming abusive”
I’ll remember that when you react to someone’s comments on your choice of girlfriend.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“You have tried to allege that the Holland Government did as Clark is doing with the EFB over the issue of abolishing the Upper House and that argument fell flat on its face because a JOINT Parliamentary Committee was set up by Labour with equal Nat/Lab representation to consider the issue”
yes… and labour voted against abolishing the upper chamber – it didn’t go ahead. It wasn’t until National gained a small minority that the upper house was unilaterally abolished. My point in fact stands.
“do you accept that attempting to pass the EFB without the bi-partisan support etc….”
That would have been ideal – but, unlike mmp, it’s not so major a constitutional change that it’s absolutely necessary. As I’ve said – the main change will be the abolition of big, dirty money – otherwise the changes are rather cosmetic.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“poor little uneducated savage”
Now he starts to get racist – what a nasty little piece of work you truely are Pascal.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
roger, your abuse plumbs new depths. gotta say i feel sorry for labour supporters reading all this — your hubris and bile is a disgrace
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Re the abolition of the upper house a look at this site tell what really happened:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/HstBldgs/History/Evolution/LC/b/b/e/bbedac128a134afc8eb0fa77be80722f.htm
There had been a long standing habit of stacking the upper house for political ends.
Note that a certain Sir Geoffrey Palmer has always been against restoring it. A careful reading of the history of the upper house shows it had become a total waste of time anyway.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
sav·age /ˈsævɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled
–adjective
1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.
2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes.
3. enraged or furiously angry, as a person.
4. unpolished; rude: savage manners.
5. wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.
6. Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild.
–noun
7. an uncivilized human being.
8. a fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
9. a rude, boorish person.
10. a member of a preliterate society.
Nothing racist in there. Are you guys sure that Philip John actually exists and actually has some form of education? I mean, an allegation of racism based upon the word savage?
Or did the fact that I was born a South African somehow immediately make his Neanderthalian intellect label me as a racist?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Pascal:
Your comments prompted me to find that unforgettable Helen Clark apology:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3351302
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“You owe Pascal (and his wife) an apology”
Not at all – I called Pascal’s bluff, his wife turned out to be no more a dog than she was “completely without schooling”. Pascal has shown himself to be an opportunistic liar – now where’s that appology Pascal?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I forgot to mention in the debate to abolish the upper house Labour put up nothing more than token resistance.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Sorry Pascal
Vote:I’m 5th generation Irish NZ
I do a lot of business in Africa hence my name, which by the way means “the sun has risen or as it is used everyday “good morning”"
November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Roger, ek vra omverskoning omdat ek nie die hele storie vertel het nie. Ek is seker jy sal verstaan dat wanneer ‘n mens praat vanuit ‘n algehele anderste verwysings raamwerk jy somtyds die verkeerde woord kan gebruik.
So there it is. Most people however understood that especially once the full story was told. (Which one does not always do within a blog post, as elaborating on the full background would quite frequently make comments take up more than is required)
That however, does not excuse the fact that you compared my wife to a dog and then continued to offer insult upon insult without even the vaguest hint of an apology.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Phillip John:
Shit. You’ve tried to wiggle-out but subtly repeating your original comment. Now you’re really crossing the line. How many demerits would you like for your grossly inflammatory personal attacks on this thread:
100 points – For highly defamatory comments
50 points – For grossly inflammatory comments with no redeeming quality
35 points – For blatant trolling, highly inflammatory comments
20 points – abusive language
10 points – posting off topic
5 points – For minor infractions, such as one inflammatory sentence in an otherwise good post
I’m sure DPF will have his own views.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes.”
There we are – the white colonial racist overtones in that word are clear as day light. Not only have you shown yourself to be a liar – now you prove yourself to be a racist! What’s next? “my wife’s from ….”? Keep it coming Einstein
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“First sign of madness – talking to oneself ? Poor roger nome .”
So tell me D4J, when did that first start happening for you?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“I have read all of Roger Nome’s posts in this thread”
Really? What an unbelievable masochist..!!!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
*laughs* Our words are on this thread, Roger. There is no point in actually opposing anything you say, because reason and good behavior do not factor into your sociological makeup. I’ll leave it up to people to choose for themselves how to interpret them.
For what it is worth, my apologies for saying no schooling when that is technically incorrect. If you managed to understand my earlier comment, you would understand that it comes from a different linguistic frame of reference, coupled with a disinterest in explaining the full back story. An off the cuff comment, if you will so as to not bore everyone with the full explanation. You do however now know the full story and can understand that it was meant with no primary and secondary schooling behind her name.
Of course, that doesn’t quite have the same verve, now does it?
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
There is something rather disconcerting about a boy that names himself after a garden ornament, sitting in a skanky dunedin flat, under the delusion that he is some sort of academic star. Hunched over a keyboard, night after night, spewing forth bile and incoherent left wing obfuscation, whilst his girlfriend ( I believe he refers to her as his 145IQ sweetie), slowly deflates in the corner
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Well this sure has been fun guys, but must fly now. Keep up the good work!
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Well, my apologies to everyone else as well for this rather spectacular derailment of the thread. It was entirely unintended. And I’ll admit to being honestly gobsmacked. I did not think it was even remotely possible.
However, I have to pull a Roger now as well to go put my daughter to bed and read her a bedtime story. She really does exist though
Maybe just read one more thread …
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Pascal, my afrikaans is rusty, but i can’t help but notice the term draagtrekker is absent in your post. When describing Roger N surely it would be almost mandatory.
Vote:Dont stress about him mate. His insulting your wife and then calling you a racist probably provided him with his thrill of the day. And to think people like him feel they have have what it takes to rule the rest of us.
G
November 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Pascal:
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you owe anyone an apology.
Roger Nome started out this thread by saying: “Last I looked 5 of 8 parties were voting in favour of the EFB. That’s a pretty broad agreement in anyone’s book.”
On his comments regarding your wife, there was a definite majority that I saw (with the lone Phillip John in the minority) who seemed to think he’d crossed the line and should apologise.
So Phillip John fails to practice what he preaches in even the most basic civilised way.
Vote:November 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
“Well this sure has been fun guys, but must fly now. Keep up the good work!’
Second sign of extreme madness , a pathetic garden gnome thinks we care whether he comes or goes . What a power tripper , doesn’t he understand that insanity transcends vulgarity and absurdities !! What a fruit bat head case , only in NZ eh ? roger nome is a disgrace to this country .
Vote: