Parliamentary Party Funding
People will (or should) be aware that Labour, NZ First, Greens, Progressive, United Future and ACT are about to vote to change the law so that they can spend their parliamentary budgets on election pledge cards and the like. Even worse, the law changes works in tandem with the Electoral Finance Bill, so that all the money they spend – even if done in the week before the election – is exempt from the spending limits in the Electoral Act.
So how much money are we talking about? Well from the 1st of December the parliamentary budgets available for pledge cards and the like increases to $16.2 million.
Here’s the breakdown of MPs for each party:
The new funding formulas for each party are as follows:
- Leadership – $100,000 plus $64,320 per non Minister
- Party – $22,000 per MP
- MPs – $64,260 per Electorate MP and 40,932 per List MP
This means funding per party as follows:
Labour has less than National because they have 25 Ministers with Ministerial Offices out of which press secretaries and the like are funded. National has to fund all its non secretarial staff from its budget. Field and Copeland may not get their leadership funding until such time as they declare a party affiliation.
Now I am the last person to advocate parliamentary parties shouldn’t have enough money to fund their staff and activities. But that money should not be used on promoting parties during the 90 days before an election. Under this new law, Labour and NZ First could spend their budgets on full page newspaper ads promoting themselves even after Parliament has been dissolved.
And as if that isn’t bad enough, all these millions of dollars can be spent, without even counting as expenditure under the Electoral Finance Bill. Labour can now legally spend twice the $2.4 million limit. They overspent by $800,000 last time. This time they can overspend by millions and this little funding gerrymander makes it totally legal.
One could have two identical brochures. One for say Labour and one for Party X which is not in Parliament. They could have the exact same text – talking about how people will be better off under their economic policies. Every word could be identical except substituting party names. But Labour’s pamphlet will be exempt from the spending limit if they spend their parliamentary budget on it (and stick a crest on), while Party X will have to count the cost of that pamphlet as part of their spending cap.
Regardless of your political orientation, one should be principled enough to say this is unjust. It unfairly protects all incumbent parties and especially all incumbent Electorate MPs from competition.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Of course it is unjust.
I can’t understand why every single Labour, NZ First and Green politician is not being challenged publicaly by th media over this. Helen Clark got an easy ride from Mike Hosking this morning.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
<blockquote>But that money should not be used on promoting parties during the 90 days before an election.</blockquote>
But you’re fine with it being used to promote parties outside the 90 days.
My two biggest concerns with elections at the moment are:
1. Parties should be able to inform the public of their policies without having to owe favours to interest groups;
2. If parties do owe favours to interest groups, I want to know who those groups are.
The recent reforms (once they’ve been sorted out) are a step in the right direction.
[DPF: All parliamentary publications have an aspect of party promotion. But a brochure on health policies two years before an election is very different to one the week of the election]
November 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Helen Clark got an easy ride from Mike Hosking this morning.”
The injustice of this is so stark, its just amazing that the mainstream media are to a large extent unconcerned. If we had real media in NZ, rather than a bunch of left wing pseudo liberal lickspittles like Hosking, Klark would be under a lot more pressure. Where’s NZ’s Rush Limbaugh? Can anyone imagine this monstrous event getting such an easy ride in the states???? It looks like the only real hope is the blogosphere.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:54 am
My two biggest concerns with elections at the moment are:
1. Parties should be able to inform the public of their policies without having to owe favours to interest groups;
2. If parties do owe favours to interest groups, I want to know who those groups are.
You mean like the CTU?
November 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Bevan: at what point has CTU support for Labour been a secret?
November 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I agreed. I didn’t understand why he was being so meek.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
these bastards shouldnht have one cent of our money Good god they get to spend enough of it whilst they are the government At least they should have to raise the money to campaign.
Why should a citizen be forced to pay their taxes to a politcal party whose policies and ideas they are 100% opposed to What sort of freedom is that.
If a political party cant raise the money then it doesnt deserve to get votes.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The difference between the two fact scenarios that DPF outlines is simple: one party has received sufficient votes to be represented in Parliament in the previous election and therefore can access the parliamentary resources. The other has not. It might in the upcoming election.
This has always been the case – there is absolutely nothing new here.
Surprise surprise – Parliamentary parties will always spend their parliamentary budgets to advance their interests – get over it.
Nor has there ever been a three month prohibition on the use of those funds prior to an election. If such a prohibition were introduced on publications all that would happen is a shift in such expenditure towards polling/research or extra staffing and away from publications.
If you introduce rules that say things paid for by parliamentary funding shouldn’t look like campaign material then one affectively reduces the effectiveness of parliamentary communications.
[DPF: Chris misses what is changing. Previously parliamentary publications which effectively electioneered still had to be counted under the spending cap in the Electoral Act. There is settled case law on this. These two new laws will exempt parliamentary publications from the Electoral Act. And there has been a traditional 90 day prohibition of sorts - it wasn't a total prohibition - but it was understood that in the last 90 days you take a very conservative approach to what you publish.]
November 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Nah Bevan, Pete is chasing after the scared horses and fictions promoted by the loonies at the last elections.
Things like the Insurance Council and ACC, things like American bagmen, things like housing corp evictions and the poor left starving on the streets to satisfy the sadistic cravings of baby-eating capitalist investors and fat-cats. Things like a debt owing to the BRT as a result of Don Brash’s totally unproven and unacknowledged) “affair” with Dianne Foreman.
Things about which never a single shred of evidence has been offered, just the outpourings of an incredibly cynical and viscious LP spin machine – or is that the fevered pus-ridden outpourings of the sick imagination of Trevor Mallard acting on his own account?
You be the judge ! ! !
November 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
That sounds good in principle, but in effect it would force parties to pander to the rich.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
You are right gd
If a party cant convince enough supporters too fund the party for an election then that party shouldnt survive.
Why cant labour raise funds afterall they have 30-40%of the population in their pocket. Oh thats right those people are takers not givers.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Brash owed his leadership to “No Brash, No Cash”. You don’t think his plans to hand out government money to his rich mates were influenced by this?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
So, is successful fundraising a function of popularity of policy? Good question.
The only real answer is to ban all political advertising permanently, end of subject. Let pollies stump around the country explaining their policies from cleverly placed apple boxes. That way the true measure of “popular policy” would be obvious at the election time unhndered by advertising and the influence of money (big or small).
So why do people donate to political parties? After all the donor must have already been persuaded !
November 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
What plans did Don Brash have pete?
I wasn’t aware of something I now find I might have missd out on!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I’d go further gd, By HAVING to raise money they HAVE to keep in touch with their support base. If their policies stray from what their supporters want, their election funds dry up. It helps keep the parties in parliament honest and true to their support base.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
And BTW pete, if you are going to quote me please have the integrity to not edit the quote!
My post said ” … Things like a debt owing to the BRT as a result of Don Brash’s totally unproven and unacknowledged) “affair” with Dianne Foreman. … ”
By removing the words “totally unproven and unacknowledged” and the quotes around the word “affair”, you have destroyed your credibility more than mine.
tosser
November 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
So even ACT are porkers in the feeding trough? I guess all the parties feel if every man and his dog are sucking on the nanny state’s tit then why can’t they. Of course to any rational person the answer is obvious – its unsustainable, but we are talking about MPs here so the rules of planet earth do not apply.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
It’s not honest if they don’t tell the voters who their support base is.
And National don’t want to tell voters that their support base is a small cabal of wealthy neoliberals who want to bring back Rogernomics.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Well said Linda – and which party is said to have a cash crisis at the moment, forcing them to back away from the banning of anonymous donations? Why, my goodness, it’s Labour!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
That sounds good in principle, but in effect it would force parties to pander to the rich.
Bullshit! People vote for the party with the policies they most agree with, not because that party has more and prettier posters.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
<blockquote>please have the integrity to not edit the quote</blockquote>
DPF sets the tone for this blog:
Helen Clark’s
<blockquote>Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people.</blockquote>
becomes:
<blockquote>Tax cuts are a path to inequality… They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people.</blockquote><blockquote>
When in Rome…</blockquote>
[DPF: Actually I did no editing at all. I took the quote directly from a press release on Scoop]
November 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
DPF sets the tone for this blog:
Helen Clark’s
becomes:
When in Rome…
November 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Bevan: at what point has CTU support for Labour been a secret?
Never has, but I thought you were against political parties having to owe favours to interest groups. Do as I say, not as I do eh?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Then why do you care how they spend there parliamentary funding?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The reason it’s bad idea to force parties to raise all their money from the public is because it’s undemocratic (and before you lay in to me saying the proposed changes are undemocratic, note that I haven’t disagree with you). If the aim of a party is to develop policies to ensure it gets as much funding as possible, that will obviously skew those policies in a particular direction. Obviously policies at present are skewed by the system we have, but lets at least be honest about what the effect of such a change would be.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
david: increased privatisation of health care would have had significant financial benefits for those in the private hospital business, like Dianne Foreman.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
There’s support, and then there’s support with strings attached. Since it’s hard to tell one from the other, I want to know who’s supporting each party.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Kevin: So even ACT are porkers in the feeding trough? I guess all the parties feel if every man and his dog are sucking on the nanny state’s tit then why can’t they. Of course to any rational person the answer is obvious – its unsustainable, but we are talking about MPs here so the rules of planet earth do not apply.
I completely agree to your proposal that we should allow men and their dogs to suck on their grandmothers’ nipples. Cheese graters are definitely the best device for masturbation.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Kevin: So even ACT are porkers in the feeding trough? I guess all the parties feel if every man and his dog are sucking on the nanny state’s tit then why can’t they. Of course to any rational person the answer is obvious – its unsustainable, but we are talking about MPs here so the rules of planet earth do not apply.
I completely agree to your proposal that we should allow men and their dogs to suck on their grandmothers’ nipples, and that sex with pigs should be legalised.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Parliamentary funding has ballooned in the last ten years. It’s become far too fat.
National should pledge to slash parliamentary funding by 50%.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“And National don’t want to tell voters that their support base is a small cabal of wealthy neoliberals who want to bring back Rogernomics.”
Pete most National supporters that I know are just average kiwis who want to see a better future for NZ and their families. We are happy to contribute in a small way so that both sides of the story can be told in a fair way during an election. If National proposed the EFB then we would be just as angry.
If Labour can win an election fairly then so be it
November 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“david: increased privatisation of health care would have had significant financial benefits for those in the private hospital business, like Dianne Foreman.”
So lets make sure sick people don’t get treatment just in case someone makes a priofit from medical treatment. Fucken braindead left wing troglodytes.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
And whats so wrong about political parties developing policies that the people want rather then policies that the party must have. This is what the socialists have done these last 9 years. They have conned ‘their people” and bribed them to get votes and then shat on them from a great height.
Alas only those of us who can see thru all politicans for what they truly are can sort the wheat from the chaff.
At best they are venal feral creatures who can be trusted only as far as their arses can be kicked. And they need constant kicking top keep them in line. Witness the current topic of discussion
November 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
What on earth is ACT doing signing up to this? Are you sure you have this right DPF?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
gd
Helen will tell you whatever smoke and mirror bs to regain the treasury.
But what she delivers is a carefully thought out political ideology that has nothing to do with what we want as a people but everything to do with her personal agenda
November 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sadly yes ACT are voting in favour of effective state funding of political parties.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Where’s NZ’s Rush Limbaugh?
What ever happened to Lidsnay Periguine?
Nice one RB, yeah this country really needs foaming loonie right broadcasters espousing the virtues of hatred and fear – hang on haven’t you listened to talk back lately, that’s all what is about.
Who the F,,, if left in the media?
ACT signed up to it – oh dear how the mighty have fallen, the Hall Monitor has jumped into bed with evil incarnate, who will the right call god now?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
haha – ACT is voting for the bill. First it was Gerry Brownlie now its ACT. Who will be next? John Key? Just like the section 59 bill. amirite?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Tut tut
Cute guys – but I hardly think a kiwiblog version of a patsy question will change ACT’s position.
DPF just discovers that Parliamentary funding acts as a barrier to new entrants into Parliament – a state of affairs that has always existed. And then shock horror declares it “state funding of political parties”. Of course it’s no more state funding of political parties now than it always has been.
As I understand it ACT will vote in favour of the roll over of existing system of Parliamentary support allocations – it has been unable to convince National and the other Parliamentary parties to go for bulk funding and a full disclosure regime.
National appears as unsympathetic to bulk funding and transparency on parliamentary support allocations as the rest of Parliament. Mmmmm I wonder why that is?
According to exchange in Parliament the Nats were prepared support the rollover of existing parliamentary support allocations if Labour dropped down the 11mth restricted period in the Electoral Finance Bill.
There are two conclusions that can be drawn – either National’s opposition to the current system of Parliamentary allocations is new found principle (and therefore they will not take the money) or its purely tactical as part of its attempt to make it difficult for Labour over the Electoral Finance Bill (in which case they will take the money).
Whats the bet the Nats take the money.
[DPF: Of course the funding has always been somewhat of a barrier. But the combination of the EFB and the exemption of parliamentary spending from the EFB combine to make this far far worse than in the past.
The excuse that ACT couldn't get its way so it will vote for state funding of parties is lame. So much for principle. National's position has been to support the previous status quo that any spending in the last 90 days counts as expenditure under the Electoral Act if it is electioneering.
As for the idiotic suggestion that National should sack all its staff and refuse parliamentary funding, well need more be said. Perhaps Chris also thinks ACT were wrong to expel Donna under the Electoral Integrity Act, even though they oppossed it.]
November 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Then why do you care how they spend there parliamentary funding?
Because it is tax payers money – it is not, nor has it ever been their’s to begin with.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“DPF: Chris misses what is changing. Previously parliamentary publications which effectively electioneered still had to be counted under the spending cap in the Electoral Act. There is settled case law on this. These two new laws will exempt parliamentary publications from the Electoral Act. And there has been a traditional 90 day prohibition of sorts – it wasn’t a total prohibition – but it was understood that in the last 90 days you take a very conservative approach to what you publish”
There is no settled case law on this. “Electioneering” isn’t a word used or defined in various Electoral Acts. Parliamentary spending falling outside the capacity of an MP and those that are an “electoral activity” under the Electoral Act could be caught by the Electoral Act.
[DPF: I regard the Wairarapa Electoral Petition as settled case law. Also all the material put out by the electoral agencies and in fact even the Parliamentary Service made it clear parliamentary expenditure could end up being an electoral activity. I agree electioneering isn't defined. But previously the Electoral Act did not exempt parliamentary publications from a spending cap, and under the EFB and Approp bill it will]
The Appropriation Bill doesn’t exempt what is spent from coverage under the Electoral Act. It defines what Parliament defines as “electioneering” – this is pointed towards the Auditor General.
[DPF: But it uses the same wording as the EFB, thus exempting it under the EFB. Labour's pledge card will not aocunt towards their spending total anymore]
What is true is that any legal dispute as to what falls into the definition of an “MP’s capacity” will ultimately be a matter for the Courts in the particular circumstances of the case. Yes Parliamentary rules and statutes will be relevant but not conclusive.
[DPF: Of course, but they have written the laws to make it almost impossible to count expenditure from Parliament so long as it does not explicitly mention votes.]
Yes you are correct that MP’s have usually been more careful just prior to elections but a “prohibition of sorts” is a bit of an oxymoron. It obviously didn’t apply to Labour’s pledge card in 1999 and 2002.
[DPF: I believe the 1999 an 2002 pledge cards would have been counted under the Electoral Act had they been disclosed]
November 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
<blockquote>Actually I did no editing at all. I took the quote directly from a press release on Scoop</blockquote>
And then failed to correct your mistake.
[Good God, MPs take statements out of context every day, and this statement doesn't actually change much if you include the full statement. Those on the left twist John Key's statement on Kyoto and attribute it to climate change several times a day. Are you also demanding they correct their mistakes?]
November 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Pigs ,with their faces in the trough.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I’m not demanding anything. Just pointing out that you set the tone for debate on this site.
“in today’s circumstances” doesn’t change the quote much?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[DPF: Of course the funding has always been somewhat of a barrier. But the combination of the EFB and the exemption of parliamentary spending from the EFB combine to make this far far worse than in the past]
Not “somewhat a barrier” – actually a significant barrier. Agreed that the EFB significantly adds to this barrier.
[DPF: The excuse that ACT couldn’t get its way so it will vote for state funding of parties is lame. So much for principle. National’s position has been to support the previous status quo that any spending in the last 90 days counts as expenditure under the Electoral Act if it is electioneering]
No. ACT isn’t spitting the dummy. Parliament and New Zealand democracy would be better served if there were limited clear rules, but that the primary accountability measure was to make MPs bulk funded and subject to a disclosure regime. Most Parliaments have such a disclosure regime.
I agree that if MP’s engage in expenditure that is outside the capacity of an MP and is an candidate activity or party activity under the Electoral Finance Bill then it will be caught. However there is little change in the law here from the old regime under the Electoral Act 1993.
[DPF: As for the idiotic suggestion that National should sack all its staff and refuse parliamentary funding, well need more be said. Perhaps Chris also thinks ACT were wrong to expel Donna under the Electoral Integrity Act, even though they oppossed it.]
No. You are declaring the system of Parliamentary support allocations as “state funding of Political Parties”. National correctly opposes state funding of Political parties. National opposes the Appropriation Bill I assume because it introduces a system of “state funding of political parties”
The natural conclusion here is that National would refuse to take the money in this system of “state funding of political parties”
Yes I opposed the use of the Electoral Integrity Act – the ordinary law should have been left to handle the matter. The primary accountability measure on things done in Parliament should be electoral not the Courts. Likewise the primary accountability measure on what MP’s spend using public money should be electoral irrespective of whether the spending is on pamphlets or polling, or staffing or travel.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Chris, dont use “[DPF:”, it gets very confusing.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
If everyone is using it Chris, National would be foolish not to. Go google “prisoners dilemma” for why.
They oppose it right now, they vow to get rid of it when they have the power to do so. More than that you cannot demand.
You cant win the game by refusing to play, and you wont win the game by passing up opportunities everyone else grabs.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
And after all this I still get the occasional person saying I’m wrong about us being an international laughing stock. Perhaps this will silence them:
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2007/11/anyone-left-in-nz-practising-individual.html
November 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Are National party insiders going to propose a positive alternative we all can agree on rather than just scream and shout in the vain hope that the next election gets fought on the sane dodgy rules as the last one?
Sadly, No.
You can shout and scream about the pledge card as mush as you want |David, we all know this all about preserving the Nats 3rd party funding advantage for the next poll.
The only question left is, who are you trying to kid?
[DPF: Sonic National made clear a year ago what sort of changes it would agree to. There was in fact little disagreement between Labour and National on the big issues. But then Labour introduced this abortion of a bill which is so flawed it can't even serve as a basis going forward. Labour had every chance in the world to consult on the proposed changes before it introduced legislation. This is normally how Electoral Act changes work. Even hard left groups have condemned the Govt for not consulting on the Bill]
November 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Chris, I am absolutely against killing people by manual strangulation but I’ll be buggered if I will pander to your POV by cutting my own hands off.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
sonic
Welcome back. So do I understand what you are asking ?
You expect national to come up with policy because Labour only come up with self serving garbabge to tilt the playing field in their own favour ?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances.”
How does this materially change her statement? If it isnt material it isnt a mistake to remove it.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Welcome back sonic! Where have you been?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
burt is right. Why is it a requirement to propose an alternative to a bad law before the bad law can be scrapped?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
burt is right. Why is it a requirement to propose an alternative to a bad law before the bad law can be scrapped?
Ha ha, that would be funny. Using that amazingly brilliant analysis from sonic – the Greens would have to STFU about the Terrorism Suppression Amendment! Way to save one foot, but shoot another sonic!
November 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Sonic – there was not much wrong with the old rules. It’s just that so many people/parties chose to break the rules and then they were not prosecuted.
I’ll accept that some minor tinkering may be in order – but the old rules were generally fine.
Having said that, I still think that there should be absolutely no taxpayer funding of election advertising – not even the TV spend they have now – and no restrictions on spending their own money. Now THAT would be a level playing field.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Linda that would be called real freedom and democracy – people spending their own money the way they see fit – how dare you even suggest it!
November 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Yeah, I was expecting a serve for that.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Linda
All money belongs to the state
You are only allowed transient custody of it from time to time
This is the glorious truth
November 12th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I have a headache. I think I’ll go home and not work for the state anymore. I can always get a sickness benefit instead.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“I can always get a sickness benefit instead.”
This will give you plenty of time, but no money to spend on it.
I think you’ll find changing your projections and options are of only cosmetic value and will retain no lasting value to your life style choices.
Six month pacific cruise ??
but remember, Winston has already spoken out against pensioners using their golden years taking aqutic junkets. And after all the taxes they’ve paid too.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
[DPF: But previously the Electoral Act did not exempt parliamentary publications from a spending cap, and under the EFB and Approp bill it will]
Both right and wrong here for reasons explained elsewhere on this blog. In essence one always arrived at the MP’s capacity issue under the Electoral Act either directly via an express provision relating to electoral activities or indirectly via the authority question relating to party electoral activities.
Nor do we know the status of the pledge card under the EA93 because the matter wasn’t litigated. The 1999 and 2002 ones where known at the time. I don’t understand the absence of disclosure here – both were public knowledge.
Yes there is the introduction of a specific exemption for “parliamentary publications” under Cl 81(g) of the EFB but there is a reciting of the capacity exemption in Cl 80(d) but I actually think nothing much turns on it. I agree that the drafting explicitly clarifies that the exemption applies to party activities.
As regards to Wairarapa – its still good law – if a thing done by an MP takes it outside the capacity of an MP then it can count as a candidate activity under the EFB (or an electoral activity under the EA93) or a party activity under the EFB.
Thus the legal question before the Court in any dispute over a thing paid for using public funds and weather it is a candidate or party activity under the EFB will result in a close focus on the thing itself and weather or not the thing is reasonably within the capacity of an MP.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
The original clearly leaves room for tax cuts at an appropriate time in the future. This is consistent with offering tax cuts now.
The misquoted version implies that tax cuts are always wrong. That would have been inconsistent with offering tax cuts now.
Since the whole point of quoting her was to point out the “inconsistency”, “today’s circumstances” is certainly material.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
But it is not material if “todays” circumstances are exactly the same at a time when they are offering tax cuts.
Oh, what circumstances have changed I wonder? Another election is on the horizon, thats one.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
The quote’s from seven years ago. If you want to argue that circumstances are “exactly the same”, go ahead.
We’re going to get tax cuts soon one way or another. Given that reality, Labour have decided that tax cuts on their terms are better than tax cuts on National’s.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
“Oh, what circumstances have changed I wonder? Another election is on the horizon, thats one.”
And haven’t Labour made that so obvious.
Its so delicious commenting on this.
I fthey indeed had a cunning plan they would’ve relented a smidgen earlier in the year and made themselves appear gratuitous.
But oh no, they had to come down wit the iron fist and then relent months out from the election.
They obviously need to be sent back to summer school and learn more of the art of the devious and the basics at that. Their recipe is all bitter and so little sweet. Gordon Ramsey would be beside himself.
They’ve let every one smell the rat.
forsooth, they have learnt their lesson the hard way
Dumb people can still smell.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Pete, nice spinning. The original quote had two parts. The first sentence was qualified, the second wasn’t. The second quite clearly suggested that tax cuts were always a mistake. You are trying to make a beat up out of something that isn’t a beat up. Only yourself and your mates at the standard care about this, it has no traction anywhere else. It isn’t an issue.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“The quote’s from seven years ago. If you want to argue that circumstances are “exactly the same”, go ahead.”
When the quote was made doesnt matter, we could have had tax cuts at anytime. What has changed in the last year or two? If the circumstances in 2007/8 are similar to the circumstances of 2003/4, why didnt they cut taxes then?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
That’s incorrect. The “they” in the second sentence refers to the “tax cuts in today’s circumstances” of the first sentence.
I just used it as an example of the tone dpf sets on this blog. Clearly several commenters here (plus dpf) care enough to defend the misquoting.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The Cullen fund’s grown, corporate tax rates have fallen, kiwisaver has started. All of them more sensible than personal tax cuts given the circumstances. Kiwisaver ought to have deflationary effect, leaving more room for tax cuts.
Of course the upcoming election has an influence on this policy. Labour have been painted into a corner on tax cuts, so they’ve done the pragmatic thing.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
You’re criticising me for spinning? On Kiwiblog? You might as well tell me off for using English.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
So no surprises Pete is trying to have it both ways.
Labour has been painted into a corner by National intending to offer tax cuts, so Labour HAS to do it now to get the political credit for them
AND
circumstances have changed making now a good time to cut taxes.
So which is it really? Is now a good time to cut taxes or has Labours hand been forced?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
No surprises Kimble wants everything in simple black and white.
I don’t think now’s a good time for tax cuts. But I think now is a better time than last year or the year before.
But the electorate wants tax cuts, so whether it’s really a good idea or not, it’s probably the right thing to do.
And I’d rather have tax cuts from Labour than from National, because Labour’s will be more egalitarian.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Interesting, you support the tax cuts NOW even though it isnt a good time for them, simply because it would allow your side to benefit politically. Shallow.
Tax cuts would have been better years ago. Right now is not a better time, that is just what you have to tell yourself to justify Labours about face.
The electorate wanted tax cuts in the last electoral cycle too, what has changed? Offering tax cuts now is merely a political tactic for Labour. They still dont think it is the right thing to do, they are still ideologically against tax cuts. The only reason they are cutting them now is out of desperation.
They would never give tax cuts if they had their way. It takes until Labour is facing electoral oblivion to finally get them to do the right thing.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Sorry, didn’t see Labour’s tax cut policy yet. How do you know they are more egalitarian? Was WFF more egalitarian? (As I recall, much of it went to rich people because they had children – not really egalitarian, more social engineering).