On National Radio today
I’m on National’s Radio Panel from 4 pm to 5 pm today (not sure if for all of it), to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill wearing my KTB hat.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: DPFOn National Radio today
48 Responses to “On National Radio today”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Can you post a picture of you wearing your KTB hat? Please DPF, pretty please?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Gidday roger nome – read the Herald yet?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
HEY – lefties – can you feel the momentum building against this corrupt peice of legislation. When National Radio start talking about it – you just know the left are buggered. By the way – Matthew Hootten this morning was in good form. I am sure you will want to hear what this independant commentator said – and you canhere the discussion here
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
Thanks for the notice David – I will be sure to listen. I am so pleased how this has dominated the radio talkback today – I am sure Helen will be cursing that thi issue has gone beyond the “beltway”
November 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
You might like to deviate into the area of how someone in government believes we vcan solve indebtness by liberalising the conditions relating bankruptcy as reported in yesterday’s SST.
The idea that we solve indebtedness by making bankruptcy proceeding easier and less of a problem for the indebted beggars belief. What about the poor creditors? Are they now just an extension of the welfare state?
Get into debt, bugger the consequences, let someone else suffer the loss.
Looks like another case of enhanced rights and reduced responsibilities on the individual.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Not a left vs right issue, Monty. This is about a government presuming the right to protect its incumbency by stifling opposition. Most Lefties don’t like the idea of chilling democracy even if it their party doing it.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Monty – you’re deceived – this IS a beltway issue, nothing to see, move on……..
November 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
<i>Not a left vs right issue, Monty. This is about a government presuming the right to protect its incumbency by stifling opposition. </i>
No, it’s about making sure a small moneyed elite can’t buy our elections and the National Party is ready to die in a ditch to keep the money pouring in. That seems like a pretty clear left-right issue to me.
[DPF: On the contrary National said it would support an end to anonymous donations. It was Helen Clark who stopped that, but according to reports she has been rolled on that issue]
November 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Tane,
You’re going to have to convince those evil right-wingers at kiwiblogblog
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/nat-research-unit-hard-at-work/#respond
And that well-known National Party supporter, Nicky Hagar.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Tane wrote:
“That seems like a pretty clear left-right issue to me.”
I suppose the centre is to the right of extreme left. You know, extreme left where democracy is a joke and little more than a side show by the sinster agents of control to convince the dim witted that all is o.k.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Why is it that Tane always repeats his politics of envy line on every issue.
The Labour party mount publicity campaigns of equal size, proportion and probably cost. Where does the money come from?
Some comes from trade unionists (many members are unaware how much they actually contribute), a lot comes from donations (some from companies and organisations who equally fund the major parties). A bit comes from meat raffles in the pub and a whole truckload comes from the taxpayer (A good hunk until recently illegally).
The answer is Tane get the Labour party enlist the help of more rich friends or just get out their and raffle more chooks.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
No, it’s about making sure a small moneyed elite can’t buy our elections
You mean like Clark dipping into the Leaders fund?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Are you having a bad day Tane – what with the Herald turning against the Labour government by having the cheek to criticise the Bill. Although there are many on the left who are opposed to this bill, and I have yet to meet anyone on the right who supports this corrupt legislation. Only those on the left and are labour lickspittle support this disgraceful legislation on the basis it is from the Labour Party. Imagine the howls of protest from those same lefties if National was the party that put up this legislation. I imagine unions would have organised massive protest marches before it even went to the Select committee.
So now the EFB gets the traction in the public areana that it deserves – and DPF on National Radio is just a part of that. Expect things to get a whole lot worse from her on in.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Helen will be cursing that she didn’t get rid of free speech before she decided to get rid of free speech.
Aucklanders remeber to march 10 am Aotea square.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Tane – yes we must make sure that no body runs a $15 million TV campaign in election year.
Oh bugger – was that Labour?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Imagine the howls of protest from those same lefties if National was the party that put up this legislation
Why would National put up the EFB? Why would they want to limit third party campaigns like the racing industry’s Fair Tax campaign and the EB’s advertisements? Why would they limit their own billboards by extending the election spending cap to January 1st on election year?
National is the party that perpetrated the most corrupt rorting of the electoral system in a generation. Their credibility on this is zero.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Moneyed elites are fine, so long as they support Labour. Consider Owen Glenn. Or Aussie Thornley, who addressed the recent Labour conference and has been lauded on The Double. He’s obviously politically OK, even though worth tens of millions. At least he donates a bit to the ALP.
Good luck on RNZ David.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Aussie Evan Thornley, of course.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Why would National put up the EFB? Why would they want to limit third party campaigns like the racing industry’s Fair Tax campaign and the EB’s advertisements? Why would they limit their own billboards by extending the election spending cap to January 1st on election year?
What do you have against the Racing Industry advocating for themselves? Do you also hold the same opinion when it comes to Unions or the PPTA advertising during election campaigns? Do you think Greenpeace should STFU if they dont hold the party line in regard to Global Warming? Why should National be rapped for erecting billboards but Labour get to distribute their Pledge Card?
National is the party that perpetrated the most corrupt rorting of the electoral system in a generation. Their credibility on this is zero.
Blind to your own parties heinous misdeeds are you Tane?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Tane –
Why would Labour put up the EFB?
Why would they want to limit third party campaigns like the CTU campaign and the PTA’s advertisements? Why would they limit their own tv ad’s by extending the election spending cap to January 1st on election year? Or allowing challengers to spend the same as incumbants?
Oh thats right, they’ll just specifically exempt those rorts and just stop anyone else.
Get your head out of your ass and actually look at the current proposal.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Also Tane – I suppose you think the Sensible Sentencing Trust is a corrupt National institution?
or Outdoor Recreation NZ?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Check out the list of organisations for and against the EFB. Id say more than HALF do not oppose it. That includes the Internet Society and the Press Council.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=node/5277
Is it now that scary for the organisations to oppose the Labour Party, or is political freedom that under appreciated?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
ben – except eg the PPTA are on that list as “SUPPORT INTENT OF BILL, BUT HAVE CONCERNS WITH SOME ASPECTS”; when those concerns were that it was flawed and an assault on people’s rights.
Hmm – not sure I’d call that abject support…
November 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“Gidday roger nome – read the Herald yet?”
Yeah- the more one reads the Herald that more it looks like a right-wing mouth piece (despite its token lefties like McCarten etc). The EFB that comes out of the Select Committee is going to be almost unrecognisable – which will mean the most of the criticisms that so called “political commentators” have made will lose any relevance. This will make the people who said the EFB couldn’t be substantially changed in SC (DPF is in this camp) a wee bit red faced, and I look froward to seeing their reactions when the changes come out.
[DPF: Once again you are wrong on the facts. I actually gave the Select Cmte a list of changes they could make to make the bill workable, in case they do proceed with it. I said that in these circumstances though they should allow a second round of public submissions as to use Roger's own words the bill will be almost unrecognisable from when it went in]
November 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
iiq, I did say “do not oppose it”, and not the somewhat higher standard of abject support.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
ben – in otherwords you were relying on the disingenuos nature of the double negative, allowing the inference of do support it.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
disingenuous
November 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I am really shocked how many student unions are in favour of the bill.
A shocking indictment of studied intellectual stupor.
Remembering though, many marxists and dictators came from universities.
obviously, trends don’t change.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The EFB that comes out of the Select Committee is going to be almost unrecognisable
Which makes it critical that it goes back through consultation; otherwise we are putting through legislation that effectively hasn’t been consulted on…
This will make the people who said the EFB couldn’t be substantially changed in SC (DPF is in this camp) a wee bit red faced
Again the main reason for those comments is because of the undemocratic nature of proposing crap and then changing it without possibility of input – not because it “couldn’t” be done.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Of course I’m sure you’re happy for the robust nature of legislation coming from select committee?
November 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
DPF wrote: “I’m on National’s Radio Panel from 4 pm to 5 pm today…”
Surely National Radio’s Panel?
(If National are in charge of RNZ then I’m very surprised as it’s awfully left-wing!)
November 12th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Good on You DPF,
Stick to the core fundamental issue that it is :
1/ Legalising Political Bias.
2/Their so called “Raison d’etre” is non existent because the bill doesn’t even stop the EB’s doing what thy did and good on them anyway.
3/Big Money buying elections is the most hollow phrase ever invented because it doesn’t matter whether it is big or small money the public have a complete right to place any add they like stating policies that are near and dear to their hearts. Hence the power of Greenpeace and this bill stops that and muzzles everyone accept the incumbent.
4/The small parties stand to lose the most in this bill they have been completely sucked in and used by Mugabe’s own Clarkistan spin.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I’m listening to DPF et al at the moment – if the radios on the 9th Floor are tuned to National Radio, there’ll be swearing, ranting, raving, weeping and gnashing of teeth as the Labour Party is taking a pasting!
November 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
roger nome said “The EFB that comes out of the Select Committee is going to be almost unrecognisable”
How the hell would you know nome? The Select Committee is only meeting today to finalise things, and their deliberations are supposed to be highly confidential – not that that seems to matter to Dear Leader. Are you asking us to believe that you are part of the “inner circle”?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Well done David.
The overall discussion was very good and informative. I never heard an angry or ill considered word from any of the participants. It was actually useful for once to listen to full sentences rather than angry sound bites.
I also appreciated the follow on discussion on the TV3 Terrorism evidence item.
Well done – a big tick for informative radio commentary.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I’ve addressed this point on another thread today. You’ve probably seen it.
If Audrey Young is half-way correct with her predictions, then the SC will recommend two sets of amendments to the bill. Some amendments will respond to public submissions. And other amendments will introduce new areas of policy altogether, on which the public hasn’t been consulted. And you’re content for the Bill to be railroaded through Parliament under those circumstances?
If the Bill related to something that you were philosophically opposed to, say privatisation, I very much doubt you’d be running this argument. So why do you make an exception for a Bill that goes right to the heart of democracy?
What you are advocating is a “trust the government”. This is indefensible when the Bill is the product of political horse-trading.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
National Socialist Radio;
Has anybody else noticed that the left wing bias that used to plague this station has toned down.
In the past I had to change to commercial radio when I heard some bludger bleating that their pet, useless organisation could not get enough taxpayer funds to pay for their pet hobby.
And the teacher unions like the P.T.P.A. and NZEI do not seem to get so much coverage.
No, that is not a typing mistake. It was Jim Hopkins who renamed them the Paid Teachers Propaganda Association.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
roger, you have stated previously (unless I am very much mistaken) that you think the Bill needed ammending. Did you make a submission?, Did you suggest ammendments?
Frankly unless you have demonstrated sufficient concern to have done either or both of those things your opinion here is worthless, nay worse than that. Expression of your opinions are disingenuous and meaningless, but then you know that don’t you? !
November 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
liq –
You used this quote:
“The EFB that comes out of the Select Committee is going to be almost unrecognisable
Which makes it critical that it goes back through consultation; otherwise we are putting through legislation that effectively hasn’t been consulted on…
This will make the people who said the EFB couldn’t be substantially changed in SC (DPF is in this camp) a wee bit red faced…”
I think my little saying probably sums up the whole Select Committee and re-drafting situation:
“You can’t polish a turd.”
November 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
As if Roger knows what’s happening in the select committee. Dreamer.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Well said Lee C – although it was roger nome who made the comments about the Bill coming back from the SC – iiq was just quoting back to him.
Funny how the tide of public opinion has turned so dramatically and quickly today!
November 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Golly, Tane and Mr. Nome have reminded me of one of the many reasons why I stopped drinking: A paranoid conviction that everyone else is out to get you is not a pretty head space.
Also, if money buys electoral outcomes then how do you explain our current electoral system? If my memory serves, the pro-MMP campaign was out-spent by a significant margin. At least, that’s how I remember Rod Donald telling the tale…
November 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
<i>I am really shocked how many student unions are in favour of the bill.
A shocking indictment of studied intellectual stupor.
Remembering though, many marxists and dictators came from universities.</i>
Don’t confuse student unions with universities. They are not the same thing. Most student unions represent less than 1% of the student body. Furthermore, they do not represent the university.
[DPF: Most SAs just sent in the submission NZUSA asked them to do, without thinking about it for themself. One brave Association actually read the Bill and did a submission that actually reflected their views]
November 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Craig:
You clearly don’t subscribe to the Chris Trotter principle: as long as we have a left-of-centre government, the end justifies the means? Or the Gnome doctrine: reality has a left-wing bias?
Applied to the EFB:
(1) Democracy is good (an aspirational goal).
(2) Democracy is bad if people vote for National (a disastrous outcome).
(3) Democracy is good people vote correctly (promote the aspirational goal and avoid the disastrous outcome).
(4) Democracy is also good if it promotes equal opportunity politics – levelling the playing field for left-of-centre candidates.
(5) The EFB promotes correct voting and equal opportunity politics (the end justifies the means).
(6) Ipso facto, the EFB is good for democracy.
And so the usual trendy leftie folk console themselves that (leftist government) justifies the means (brute legislative force).
November 12th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
This means doesn’t justify any end, and Key better be serious about repealing the EFB (if it passes) and coming up with the serious package of campaign finance reforms – including getting MP’s trotters out of the public purse for once and for all – that should have been put up in the first place. That includes giving ‘the other side’ a genuine voice in the process, while having the courage and smarts to ignore the inevitable self-interest of political parties, including his own.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
IIQ
ben – in otherwords you were relying on the disingenuos nature of the double negative, allowing the inference of do support it.
Eh? My point, if it wasn’t clear, was surprise that something as odious as EFB was not opposed by more organisations. I was surprised that so many organisations were listed as sitting on the fence.
Pull your head in, bro.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Hey David, you were on with Martin Hirst, that guy you smeared that time. He seemed rather polite to you, all things considered, eh?
November 12th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Also Tane – I suppose you think the Sensible Sentencing Trust is a corrupt National institution?
or Outdoor Recreation NZ?
You’re a joke. SST is very close to the National Party. If Outdoor Recreation is the political party then they’re that bunch of reactionaries who amalgamated with United Future back in its crazy fundamentalist days. Yep.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am
[DPF: Most SAs just sent in the submission NZUSA asked them to do, without thinking about it for themself. One brave Association actually read the Bill and did a submission that actually reflected their views]
What does that have to do with what I wrote?