What does that have to do with what I wrote?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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]

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…

Funny how the tide of public opinion has turned so dramatically and quickly today!

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.”

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? !

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.

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.

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.

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”?

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.

Surely National Radio’s Panel?

(If National are in charge of RNZ then I’m very surprised as it’s awfully left-wing!)