The Herald Front Page
What a great cover for 200,000+ people to wake up to this morning. Not great because it will damage the supporters of the Bill. Great, because it may stop those supporters from doing permanent damage to NZ’s constitution by turning the Electoral Act into their private plaything.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Act
November 12th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Please note there is a protest march organised for next Saturday starting at 10am from Auckland Town Hall down Queen St to Britomart. lets get out there and show the Bilious Bitch and her cohorts that freedom loving Kiwi will no longer tolerate her undemocractic facist government
November 12th, 2007 at 9:26 am
gd: that will be illegal next year. You’ll have to register, make statutory declarations, ensure material has notifications. By the time you get all that organised, the issue and the media will have moved on.
Protest now while you are still allowed to!
November 12th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Could have done without that photo though… serious enough issue, and an extremely strong editorial even if it wasn’t on the front page, that surely the last bit of photographic ‘sexing up’ wasn’t necessary?
November 12th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Talkback discussion now [9-12 noon] Michael Law on Radio Live
November 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Did they mention that Nationals Gerry Brownlee was all for this ‘threat to democracy’ as long as the pre election peiod was set at 3 months and not from the beginning of the year.
Makes sense actually as national was the big winner from the funding
November 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
surely the last bit of photographic ’sexing up’ wasn’t necessary?
I think it nicely illustrates the fact that the Herald’s little exercise in propaganda today was exactly that. They just can’t help themselves.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
for several weeks I have had a feeling that opposition to this corrupt bill was gathering momentum. I had to laugh this morning as I remembered a comment from my socialist cousin who said the bill is way under the radar because it is only a beltway issue and too complex for the average voter. That all changed this morning.
Congratulations to all those in the alternate media who have kept the pressure on and made this an issue to fight for. I certainly believe the criticism on blogs such as this of the MSM has raised this to such an issue.
Now the hard part – keep it a major issue for the next month and in the lead up to christmas. That way Labour are going to be rightly punished for their disdain of democracy and will go into the 2008 election year 20points behind in the polls.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers.”
Foot soldiers.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Ah, the desperate thread jacks continue as Tane, Ghostwhowalks and cohorts try to deflect from the issue.
Why am I reminded of nothing as much as a kid in pre-school shouting: “Look!” and pointing over your shoulder before making off with your lunch.
Come on guys. Let’s focus on the issue of this deplorable, anti-democratic legislation that your party is trying to foist on the country.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“lets get out there and show the Bilious Bitch and her cohorts that freedom loving Kiwi will no longer tolerate her undemocractic facist government.”
And lets get NZ flags back on prime ministerial cars!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:01 am
The comments about this story from readers are here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10475428
More mud in the eye for Labour and friends.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Tane said “I think it nicely illustrates the fact that the Herald’s little exercise in propaganda today was exactly that. They just can’t help themselves.”
But then you would say that, wouldn’t you Tane! I think it’s a magnificent front page – I even bought a copy of the Herald today (it even gets down to “backwaters” like Wanganui!!).
Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB is all over this today – I’ve just had a chat with him. Dear Leader is doing talkback with him tomorrow after the 9am news – 04-472-1035 if anyone has a question for her.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Good morning Main Stream Media!
Now perhaps the beltway is a little wider than anticipated Helen!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Right on Pascal What we need is a big turn out and a quiet orderly protest march to show the BITCH and her supporters that we are over her and the arseholes that surround her.
You just have to depise people who sneer when the fact that our grandfathers and fathers fighting for freedom is raised. I recall in the past several Socialist posters on this site sneering at me in the contempable way only Socialists and their supporters are capable of doing.
These aresholes dont deserve any freedom however in the words of Monseuir Voltaire I will defend their rights even though they dont defend mine.
The Revolution has arrived Time to storm the Bastille!!!!!!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
And neither can you, ay Tane? I don’t throw around the f-word lightly (that’s ‘fascist’, so calm down), and won’t start now – but can you get it through your numb-skull that people who disagree with your precious Labour Party aren’t stupid, evil or pushing some evil secret agenda?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Looks like the National party has paid for the front page !
Just like Singapore Airlines paid for the front pages of newspapers to have their A380 inaugural flight with photos
November 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Would the Greens have supported this legislation if Rod Donald was still with us? Somehow, I doubt it.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I think [the photo] nicely illustrates the fact that the Herald’s little exercise in propaganda today was exactly that. They just can’t help themselves.
Tane must be wondering if there is some way to prevent this sort of image from appearing, perhaps a bill could be enacted to gag the press.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
ghostwhowalks – take your punishment like an man, and stop trying to change the subject!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Tane,
You’re feeble efforts of trying to sidetrack this issue ain’t working.
It isn’t a right wing only issue, look at the list of organizations in John Armstrong’s piece in the Herald today who oppose this crap law. Jeez not all them are supporters of the National Party.
Re the overall issue John Key MUST take this up in question time tomorrow with the great dictator.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Let’s hope the bill gets the arse kicking it deserves.
The complete mess that the government has made means it looks like 2008 will be under the old rules and then a major rewrite will be done.
I am pretty confident that either Labour won’t have the balls to pass it or Labour will pass it and go down further in the polls because of it.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Folks, just ignore ghostwhowalks – it’s been exposed so many times as a pathological land malicious liar anyone who takes it seriously is beyond help.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
The Herald fancies itself as the paper of the New Zealand business establishment. Its hardly a surprise that its consistant editorial line is to get rid of Labour. Its hardly surprising that it will shamelessly campaign against something which threatens the power of the wannabe plutocrats who still pine for FPP and loath real democracy. Make no mistake, the EFB is seen as another blow at big business buying votes – an attack on their version of how democracy should work. And given that the Herald adopted National’s position on the pledge card issue lock, stock and pay-it-back slogan barrel it isn’t a surprise that the powerful business elites it thinks it represents see Labour as vulnerable on this issue and sees the whole area of electoral finance reform as an attack on its privilege.
Anyway, the Herald has overplayed its hand with this crude & hysterical piece of political bias masquerading as news. Yawn. Move on. The EFB will be law by Xmas.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:16 am
G said “Let’s hope the bill gets the arse kicking it deserves.”
G – the sad reality is that the EFB and its companion legislation will pass into law, with Labour, The Greens, NZ First and Jim Anderton’s support. As will an urgency motion after Question Time tomorrow, if that is the government’s intent.
If I may rephrase your quote: Let’s hope the Government of Helen Clark and her support parties get the electoral arse-kicking they deserve.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Thought Chris Knox’s “Way Better” was a really neat song apart from the lyrics, music and the sentiment behind it.
I have come up with a better version entitled “Song for Helengrad” or (“Are They Singing My Song Peter?”).
It can be sung to almost any tune you wish. I think it goes well to that old Marxist lullaby “The Red Flag”.
Now if only I could sing, play an instrument,find a backing group and a record company I could be at no.1
by Xmas and censored off the air by Jan 1st when the Suppression of Freedom Bill becomes law!
Thought this song would go well on the march!
We’re the sheeple of New Zealand
Once were proud and free
But the socialists who rule us
Want to pass the EFB
All animals are equal
Old Orwell once told me
Except for Aunty Helen
And the Labour Partee
Chorus
Lets do away with Labour
Lets get shot of the lot
Lets do away with Labour
It’s the only chance we’ve got
Old Michaels got our money
He’ll never give it back
“I can spend your cash more wisely”
He would swear that on the rack
Health and education are nothing but a joke
And the best that Trev the duck can do
Is give big Tau a poke
Chorus
Lets do away with Labour
Lets chop out all the rot
Lets do away with Labour
It’s the only chance we’ve got
Our brightest are all leaving
As our business’s close down
Despite her lies we realise
Dear leader is a clown
She’d like another term
But that we could not stand
Lets vote her out without a doubt
And regain our free land
Chorus
Lets do away with Labour
Don’t put up with their rort
Lets do away with Labour
It’s the only chance we’ve got
November 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
toms
Why do you hate free speach?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:20 am
toms said “Anyway, the Herald has overplayed its hand with this crude & hysterical piece of political bias masquerading as news. Yawn. Move on. The EFB will be law by Xmas.”
toms – your arrogance, and that of your beloved Labour-led government is there for all to see. The Herald adopted the position it did on the pledge card because the Auditor-General found that Labour had cynically broken the rules, defying and lying to the Chief Electoral Officer in the process.
Still, big ups to you for continuing to defend the indefensible – your loyalty, however misguided, is commendable – almost Kamikaze-like!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Lance, you silly boy, criticising the government isn’t “free speech”; it’s the whores of the corporate elites trying to wrap their dead hand around the throats of the enlightened. Do try and keep up, that’s a good chap.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am
The big question here isn’t whether Labour will u-turn – they won’t by choice. But the Greens and/or NZF could probably be convinced to remove their support. United Future make no difference to the outcome, so Dunne will more than likely vote against – no point in him harming himself for no benefit.
Will Winston vote for it purely out of spite? Are the Greens so far in bed with Labour that they cannot see what is good for them? There are voter on the left that don’t like this bill, those votes might move to a party that showed some principle.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Make no mistake, the EFB is seen as another blow at big business buying votes – an attack on their version of how democracy should work.
Plutocracy – rule by an established elite, who direct a puppet legislature to enact their laws. Plutocracy is facillitated by the direct purchasing of politicians and political parties in secrecy.
Democracy – the open form of government reliant debate of all issues amoung the wider population and with competing political parties. Democracy is only possible in the presence of free speech and free press and freedom of association.
The EFB enables plutocracy and denies democracy.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Don’t forget readers- The Herald is coming to the party more than a month late. This is down to the blogosphere, and Mr. Farrar in particular. Well done all. Viva la resistance..!!!!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Toms, you get your free speech, same as everyone else, but ask yourself, if equality is the aim of the EFB, why are the Trade Unions exempt! If you can answer that question with one shred of common sense or intellectual honesty, then I may be tempted to begin to listen to your side of the argument a little more.
Can you Toms, can you explain that to me?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Typically, Helen plays down the whole Herald story.
Helen Clark said that three-month period had been “rendered null and void” because the National Party had been able to raise “such a huge war chest that it could just spend like a drunk in a drink shop right through the year,” Miss Clark said.
“I think public opinion wants big money out of politics, that’s my gut feeling.”
Helen Clark said the bill had been changed during the select committee process.
The select committee had been looking at a lot of issues, including the definition of election advertising and issues about the various thresholds.
“So, I think you’ll see quite a lot of change in the bill.”
November 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Ranapia is still touchy about his support for pedophile congressman Mark Foley
[DPF: And that's 20 demerit points. Accusing people of implicitly supporting pedophilia is out of bounds]
November 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Ignore Toms.
Sometime ago he pleaded with Jordan for the Labour Party to introduce legislation that would control the media.
He’s out there.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Stick to the topic ghost – there is low tolerance for trolling and thread-jacking today!
November 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I e-mailed John Key, Bill English & Gerry Brownlee on Friday to get reassurance that National still opposed the EFB (and to counter the trolls who were alleging flip-flops), and got this reply from English’s office:
“We are opposed to the government’s legislation because its anti democratic and we will repeal it if we are the government. The media are now getting interested in it – expect more coverage over the next few weeks as the legislation comes back to the House.
Regards
Bill English”
The bit about “expect more coverage” seems especially prophetic today. National has a gilt-edged opportunity to climb into the government, and I really hope they exploit it and milk it to the max.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Crap. I was hoping that publicity like this would come after the bill reported back. Now Helen is heading exactly where I feared “yes there were concerns in the past, but the bill that is coming back to parliament is entirely different from the first draft, so all those concerns have been addressed.”
Of course, to those audiences that want another round of public consultation, the answer will be “but the bill has already been consulted on, it hasn’t changed that much…”
The Herald may have scored an own goal.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“The Revolution has arrived Time to storm the Bastille!!!!!!”
The mood of the electorate and the timing of ‘terroism’ raids speak volumes.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
WTF? Keep telling lies about me Ghostie, because I won’t stop telling the truth about you.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:47 am
About time the MSM woke up but I still smell a rat. Ten to one this was a deliberate ploy tight from the start, and the “revised” bill will be made to SEEM more palatable only because this over-the-top one has been touted first. In fact, what’s the chances National are in on it and we’ll see another statesmanlike bipartisan maneuver by John Key like on the antismacking decree? Perhaps thats why they’re relatively quiet on this issue?
A mutual Exclusive Brethren bashfest, perhaps, with David Farrar, Richard Long and Co. lining up with Helen Clark to moralise about how we are morally obliged NEVER to let such creepy, dangerous people try to hijack democracy again? Nice to see loyalty to the concept of free speech running so deep in the “right wing” of N.Z. politics.
To Tom and the other lefties who whinge about big money buying the political process to the disadvantage of leftwing political parties, I say: George Soros. Ted Turner. Richard Branson. The Rockefeller foundation. MoveOn.Org.
You can stop your whining and participate in the process of freedom and democracy as it exists in the real, prosperous, first world, or you can try to stand athwart history and wind the clock back to nasty, brutish eras. Like Chavez, Putin, and Helen Clark are trying to do.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Even with all this excelent documented publicity against the EFB, I just don’t trust Kiwis.
They make all their decisions for the wrong reasons.
Over 60% of kiwis have no idea about the EFB let alone its significant attack on democracy.
I am truly worried the EFB will not be an issue to Kiwis at the polls.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
CR words about Foley were ” Mark Foley sending sexually suggestive – but not actually illegal – IM messages to teenage male interns.”
Now if Foley didnt see that as “support ” I dont know what is .
Ranapia as anybody would know, doesnt himself favour teenage boys.
But a bit of advice ‘suggestive text messages ‘ comes under the category of grooming
November 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I see Clark says the public service will be very careful about the stuff it puts out especially in election year.
Yeah right For the past 9 years the public service has been just an extension of the 9th floor. Only those who believe in the tooth fairy cant see the millions that the departments have spent to keep their mistress and her mates in power.
Like all Marxists the Bilious Bitch believes the end justifies the means.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
ghostwhowalks,
WTF does that post have to do with what was on the front page of the NZ Herald today?
November 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
PhilBest said “In fact, what’s the chances National are in on it and we’ll see another statesmanlike bipartisan maneuver by John Key like on the antismacking decree? Perhaps thats why they’re relatively quiet on this issue?”
Phil – Justin duFresne on Newstalk ZB in Welly has just read out a statement from John Key – can’t find a link yet, but I’m working on it – however it reaffirms that National is opposed to the EFB, and will repeal it. I don’t think there’ll be any deals cut on this one!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I just wish I believed the Herald actually woke up to the threat this is to Democracy, as opposed to their advertising revenue…
http://iiq374.blogspot.com/2007/11/thumbs-up-herald-and-yet-cynic-in-me.html
November 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Go away Ghost
You are creepy
November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Found it!
National will dump draconian law
Monday, 12 November 2007, 11:03 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
John Key MP
National party Leader
12 November 2007
National will dump draconian law
National Party Leader John Key says a National Government will scrap the draconian electoral finance legislation.
“Today, a major newspaper devoted its entire front page to the Electoral Finance Bill and the danger it poses to our democracy and freedom of speech.
“National has been campaigning for months against this travesty of a bill, because we recognise the very real threat it poses to New Zealanders’ rights to freely express their political opinion.
“New Zealanders should be deeply worried when a government is starting to put its own preservation ahead of long-observed bipartisanship on electoral law.
“In a desperate bid to retain power, Labour is planning to regulate political debate for an outrageous one year in every three – by extending the election period to the very first day of election year.
“Third parties – in other words everybody who isn’t a political party – will be subject to tough regulation of how much they can spend and when. They will even have to make returns to a government agency to participate in democracy.
“Meanwhile, it seems that government department advertising that pushes Labour Party policies, like KiwiSaver and Working for Families, will not be restricted at all.
Mr Key says Labour is also preparing this week to ram through an appropriation bill that will legitimise election advertising like Labour’s infamous pledge card, and mean incumbent electorate MPs will be able to spend four times more money than unelected challengers in election year.
“In other words, there will be two standards of free speech – one for politicians and one for everybody else.
“The Electoral Finance Bill and the appropriation legislation are all about saving Labour by screwing the scrum in its favour.
“In its select committee submission, the Human Rights Commission called the Electoral Finance Bill a ‘dramatic assault’ on fundamental human rights.
“The Law Society said the bill was complex and vague, and made it dangerous for anyone to participate in elections for fear of unknowingly breaking the law.
“But Labour doesn’t care about these submissions – or any of the others pointing out the obvious dangers to our democracy.
“The select committee considering the bill is meeting again today, and the question is whether the Labour and smaller party MPs are listening to the concerns.
“The smaller parties who are supporting this draconian bill should hang their heads in shame, and I call on them to reconsider their support.
“In a couple of weeks’ time the legislation may be law and it will be too late.
“Labour will have written self-serving rules governing political debate in election year.
“That is a disgrace.”
Ends
November 12th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I defy Tane, Sam Dixon, roger nome et al to analyse that statement, and provide proof of their allegation that National supports the EFB. They can’t, but like Dear Leader, they believe that the more they repeat the lie, the more likely that others will believe the lie as well.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I feel invigorated today. This has been the event that those who oppose the bill have been waiting for and the Herald is to be congratulated for taking this stand.
I note that the Left approach to such argument is at the fore, with arguments being expressed against the herald not for what it has printed, but for what the Left feels the Herald represents.
These are facetious arguments. The left do not seem to want to debate the issues and seem to want to dismiss those who might think differently as inconsequential. This is the effect of this bill. I note that it is on the lips of many more people this morning.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Are all of you joking.
This editorial is just to protect the income that the herald will derive from election spending, which is a huge boom for the paper.
Why is it that the paper with one of the largest declines is making the loudest sounds?
It’s a bad bill, but if you think that the Herald has the concerns of the core of democracy at it’s heart, think again, it’s thinking of it’s bottom line.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:26 am
“They can’t, but like Dear Leader, they believe that the more they repeat the lie, the more likely that others will believe the lie as well.”
Goebbels, Goebbels, Goebbels!!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Paul – really ????
November 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Ghostie:
Thanks. So you admit you original comment was a lie, and IMO a grossly defamatory one? I think most people can tell the difference between grostesquely inappropriate and offensive workplace sexual harassment of teenage staffers- if arguably not illegal under District of Columbia law – and paedophilia. I do not believe any reasonable person could interpret any comment I made here on the Foley affair as support for a pedophile.
That seems to be your MO, Ghostie, tell a lie, and when you’re called on it just repeat it and throw in even more lies – that I somehow condone workplace harassment or pedophile ‘grooming’.
Pull your fucking head in, Ghostie, because you’re not going to intimidate or bully me; and don’t think I won’t take legal action against you and/or DPF.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am
“Why is it that the paper with one of the largest declines is making the loudest sounds?”
If you could prove that statement, you would sound very credible.
if you can’t , you sound like nothing.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Ghostwhowalks:
You’re a nasty piece of work. Any chance of you retracting your multiple defamatory posts from here:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/facing_off_at_11.html
November 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I tackled Lianne Dalzell about EFB on Saturday and got the party line back: ‘surely you don’t want a re-run of the EB pamphlet’. She was adamant that the Bill is substantially re-written, has now had input from HRC and LawSoc. But wouldn’t accept that we, the great unwahsed, need another submissions round to test the re-write. Or alleged re-write. Told her that I and many others had zero faith in the Gummint to get it right, and best thing was KillBill. Think she heard that, but they are definitely hell-bent on passing it this sitting sesh, anyway.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
LMAO @ “huge boom for the paper” – that would be “boon” but it really is a huge boom for the paper in another sense altogether
November 12th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I note from Key’s statement that the Select Committee is meeting today. Which begs the question – how can Helen Clark state that “”So, I think you’ll see quite a lot of change in the bill.” when deliberations of the Select Committee are confidential? Has someone been talking out of school?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Or has school been taking instructions from someone else?
November 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Ah, the old “if you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger” approach!
Stock standard approach from the left there. If it disagrees it must be evil!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“Please note there is a protest march organised for next Saturday starting at 10am from Auckland Town Hall down Queen St” thanks, thanks, thanks gd, will see you there.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
POC.
Nick Smiths convictions and court appearances are on the public record. Him being a poster child for the Researched Medicines Industry is my opinion.
John Key has his signature on Companies office documents and the Electoral roll for Helensville in 2002 shows his “home’ ( but not the current one which shows he lives – for now- in Parnell)
All public records!!
havent you heard of political research, thats where you look up real records , George Bush had most of his removed from the files.
Normally the national party uses investigate magazine for this sort of stuff. Whats the bet the funding for that magazine drys up if national wins and it folds within 3 months of John ‘house key’ Key becoming PM.
‘House key’ Key . Is there a billboard in that one!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
RoW – somehow I don’t think that Tane, Sam, Robinson, ghost et al sitting round in a circle and chanting “Left good, Right bad” will cut it today.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Craig, GTW has had very good teachers in your “do you really think they are that powerful?” SS, D****y in Welly la la land. Man am I looking forward to THIS protest!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
gd, others is there a website or other official notification of the protest anywere? I’ve got a big email list these days.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Oh, Ghostie lies again… So, what ‘real records’ do you have to back up any of the above?
Oh, that’s right. None.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Extract from the Auditor-General’s duties
“The term fraud refers to an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.”
The question of whether a fraud has been committed may only be finally
determined following a decision by a court of law.
Background
Fraud, by its nature, always attracts a great deal of interest – irrespective of the scale of the fraud. Invariably questions are asked about how the fraud was perpetrated and whether the controls designed to stop fraudulent activity were operating effectively.
In the public sector the interest in fraud is heightened because public funds are involved, and because those individuals entrusted with public funds are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
N.B.1.6 The high standards of behaviour expected of individuals entrusted with public funds mean that when a fraud is committed the same high standards must be applied to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice and that there is an accompanying level of accountability and disclosure.
(This latter process was prevented by Helen Clark with her validation Act
November 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
casual watcher, of course they are concerned about the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of election advertising.
Sure they may have the concerns of the public at heart, but they have their accountants concerns equally at heart.
I love it, if this bill is as bad as they say it it, why the hell aren’t you all out on the streets. I mean your very lives are going to be destroyed buy this bill.
For the record I think the bill is bad, but it also has some merit in that the path we were going down where any private interest with deep pockets and an issue to push could skew the political debate greater than what it would have other wise have been merited. I mean the Brethren’s attacks on the Greens were pathological, who’s to say that the loonies wanting to attack race or religion, abortion etc etc can’t hijack the debate as the brethren did last election.
the bill is bad, but if it can stop this, then good.
Otherwise put down the keyboard and do something about it.
The Herald has our democracy at heart (nice – violins in the distant), but they have their bottom dollar even closer at heart.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
the march is being organise by John Boscowan and i understand he has other groups who are ralling their troops to make sure its a good turnout. We must show Clark and her socialist cronies that the citizens are revolting ( mind you she thinks that anyway) As Ihave said before its time to storm the bastille
November 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Because if America and dollar driven election spending has proven, he (or now she) with the deepest pockets, shouts the loudest = wins the office.
This is not good politics.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
gd.
Nice, about time the passion actually spread from the cybersphere. Bit of a shame it’s about money, but then that is the want of the right.
Rise up brothers and sisters, I look forward to seeing the images on Canadian news.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
If Labour outlawed sex Ghost, Tane, Paul etc would all be explaining why that is a good thing with lots of moral equivalents, distractions and drivel.
Bloody pathetic effort, defending the indefensible.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Its an opinion CR, same as your opinion about Mark Foley.
Remember too, DPF had an opinion about Blair being questioned by the police over the cash for peerages. Well I can use the same tactic over Key being questioned by police over the foreign currency scam in the 1980s.
Wishart ran with a Peter Davis ‘kiss’, so whats good for the goose is good for the gander
November 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Paul The incumbent government of what ever colour has the resources of the taxpayer to call on. So perhaps thye first thing we should do is insist on a dollar limit for the government to spend.
What is information and what is advertising ? What I think and what you think could well be different.
Do you really want a future government you dont agree with able to outspend any opposition using you taxes and calling ‘information” when you damn well know its propoganda.
And being able to raise vast sums of anonymous donations in return for political favours?
Cause thats what your going to get
November 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Ghostie:
Just try making one comment that isn’t full of blatant lies. I dare you.
And did I really see you trot out the “Ian Wishart does it too’ defence? So lame, if that comment was a horse it would be taken out behind the stable and shot as a kindness.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Craig R – shame that the moderators aren’t here today – ghost has done enough for a life-time ban!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
gd,
no I don’t want minority groups (left or right) with special interests hijacking the political agenda. I am all for the pro choice people being able to advertise, it is a free country, I just don’t want them to be able to hijack the political debate the same way the brethren did at the last election.
Just like FPP allowed the one with the least votes to retain power because of draconian poling systems, I don’t want those with the deepest pockets to be allowed to buy office either.
It was a very real road that we were going down.
Now don’t get me wrong again, I don’t like the bill as it stands, but the principal is good, the text is crap. Still nice to see the revolution is coming.
About time because NZ politics is so bloody boring, the same crap day in day out. He said she said is all we hear from these guys (politicians and the media), with regular poll results. Who the hell needs to know a poll result 28months out from an election – it is meaningless. It’s about as useful as a weather forecast for polling day next October, and only creates fear among those who to be frank, don’t need that sort of stress in their lives.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Inventory2, what are you talking about.
Ghost has only expressed opinion and hasn’t resorted to the foul and depraved antics of Dad4J. If you don’t like his/her opinion tough, but to ban would only amount to censorship and remove any and all credibility of this place as a pblic forum of opinions.
Life time ban my arse- censor.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Ghostie-you are just blatantly threadjacking and are surely due additional demerit points for that as well. Just focus on the issue of the EFB for 1 second if you can. Craig-ignore Ghost- its just a wind up especially the gay/pedephile innuendo.
Its great to see the Herald come out so strongly. I am struggling to recall a front page editorial that has been so unequivocally condemning of any potential legislation. The only time that comes close was the shabby deal Muldoon did with Beetham over the passage of the Clyde High Dam fast tracking.
If I were in Auckland I would be marching. PLease post details of the march and I will email all my Auckland based contacts and family to be there. David- you have tirelessly driven this issue and have always led the media. Lets hope their belated involvement is not too late.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Ghost has only expressed opinion and hasn’t resorted to the foul and depraved antics of Dad4J.
Really? You must have skipped the really offensive posts.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
See you all Saturday ,Queen St 10-00 am. If you don`t do it for yourselves do it for your kids and grandkids. wonder if Air NZ will offer cheap flights from Wellington.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
KIA:
*sigh* Good advice, and to be honest I’d be more worried if Ghostie had anything nice to say about me.
Still, I think any reasonable person – left, right, whatever – regards Wishart and Insinuate with untempered contempt. I just hit a point where the stench of bullshit gets hard to bear.
Time to go for a nice long walk, I guess…
November 12th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Ghost: “Wishart ran with a Peter Davis ‘kiss’, so whats good for the goose is good for the gander”.
Is your argument really that, if one right winger acts despicably, you are entitled to behave in the same way towards an unrelated person on broadly the same side of the spectrum?
Would this entitle me to shoot union leaders and catholic priests citing the atrocities of Mao?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Paul wrote:
Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that. You will pardon me if I regard being accused (inaccurately and dishonestly) of giving “support” to a “pedophile” pretty ‘foul and depraved’?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Paul Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“gd,
no I don’t want minority groups (left or right) with special interests hijacking the political agenda. I am all for the pro choice people being able to advertise, it is a free country, I just don’t want them to be able to hijack the political debate the same way the brethren did at the last election.”
Paul, what is the difference between “being able to advertise, it is a free country”, and what “the brethren did at the last election”?
If you’re not in favour of free speech for the people you disagree with, you’re not in favour of free speech. So go back to Cuba.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I see someone’s been passing out the talking points to the Herald’s “Your views” correspondents:
Anna (Auckland) [waah waah waah waah]What is this? Fox news all of a sudden!
Mark (Auckland) [waah waah waah] What is this, Fox News?
Brad (Auckland)Wow, never in my life did I think I would see a New Zealand media outlet stoop to the one-sided, biased levels of Fox News.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
PhilBest – there is no difference. All the EB did last election was they put their point of view to the public via some flyers. That’s all.
If they had been attacking the National Party’s policies, we would not be seeing this reaction from Labour, NZ First and the Greens.
But they had the nerve to blindside the left with an attack they didn’t see coming. It most likely didn’t affect the election result at all, but even if it had, so what? No one ever questioned what they wrote, just their right to publish it!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Paul said “Inventory2, what are you talking about.
Ghost has only expressed opinion and hasn’t resorted to the foul and depraved antics of Dad4J. If you don’t like his/her opinion tough, but to ban would only amount to censorship and remove any and all credibility of this place as a pblic forum of opinions.
Life time ban my arse- censor.”
Paul – this thread is about the Herald front page. The copy of the Herald sitting next to my desk doesn’t have anything about Craig R, peadophilia or US Senators, therefore ghost is way off topic. He’s also repeating falsehoods that have been exposed as such on other threads. Strange that he goes on like that on a day when the news in NZ is being dominated by the Herald’s front page! BTW – I don’t like dad4j’s language and literary style, and have challenged him about it – but that’s off-topic on this thread, and in the interests of good debate, we all need to stick to the topic, don’t you think?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
dc – that’ll be the Labour “phrase-of-the-week” – last week it was “faux outrage”!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Because if America and dollar driven election spending has proven, he (or now she) with the deepest pockets, shouts the loudest = wins the office.
Exactly – and yet the combination of these bills would restrict this to only having the 2 main incumbents having any voice whatsoever.
Don’t forget that even discussions on websites like this are currently within the purview of the bill. So this discussion probably won’t even be legal 12 months from the election. Now you feel so good about it?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Inventory2,
cheers mate, still not ban worthy really is it? I agree Dad is so so wrong for the blogosphere.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Paul – so what in the Brethren pamphlets was factually incorrect?
What (specifically) about their content (rather than their source) was so offensive they shouldn’t be able to put out a pamphlet?
As opposed to running a $15 million dollar TV advertising campaign?
You would ban the former and continue to allow the latter because the first was buying an election?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Having edited a newspaper or two I suspect Paul and others who’ve impugned the Herald’s motives as being more centred on their wallet than their heart are probably correct. At least that’s probably what awakened them to the issue.
But who cares?! Having come back from two weeks holiday to find the MSM have finally picked up on this issue, the cloud of despond which had descended upon me when opening my inbox has dissipated. This is one instance where the media’s pathetic pack-hunting behaviour will actually benefit democracy: the Herald having “exposed” this “attack on democracy” the other outlets will automatically follow the established line. Purely by happenstance, they’ll be right for once.
And kudos too to the organisers of the protest. Hopefully there’ll be similar events scheduled for the other centres and maybe even the provinces.
And Craig Ranapia – we don’t always agree but I never fail to find your contributions thought-provoking, well-considered and never needlessly inflammatory. Take it from me, when your enemies start accusing you of paedophilia they are getting truly desperate. That they’d let someone’s politics – no matter how vehemently they may disagree with those politics – drag them to such vile depths says everything about them and a lot about you, in terms of your effectiveness in debate.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“So this discussion probably won’t even be legal 12 months ”
and you are going to stop blogging. I agree the bill is wrong, and if the govt isn’t removed and if national doesn’t repeal it in all it’s glory, are you really going to shut up.
I’m sure as hell not, and if anyone of you people are true to your convictions, there should be 10,000 people all blogging after the law comes into affect. Come on stand up for free speech, it’s your life right.
As I said, I don’t agree with the bill at all, I agree with the sentiment that bizzaro minority groups should not be able to hijack the political debate, to the detriment of valid and equal weighted debate. What if some millionaire with a green finger decided to hijack and dominate the debate next year with snails under attack by coal conglomerates, you’d really like that.
I don’t like the bill, but i hate $$$ being the bottom line of political power seeking even less.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Paul Phil Best sums it up You are either in favour of free speech or against Its like pregnency You cant be a little bit.
I am in favour of free speech even if I dont agree with it .And thats where Ms Clark and I disagree. She also disagrees with me that politcial parties should have to raise their own election funds and that I should know where the money comes from so I can see whose buying her off.
Its really very simple . Ms Clark wants me to pay for her to get elected and stay elected and to stop me speaking up and speaking out when I disagree with her.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
What if some millionaire with a green finger decided to hijack and dominate the debate next year with snails under attack by coal conglomerates, you’d really like that.
Actually – I’d say that if they tried the advertising companies would do well but unless it was actually important enough for enough people to care it would be money down the drain.
The EFB only became such a central thing because Labour attacked who put it out, and then tried to link National to them. Has the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Outdoor Pursuits Trust, Greenpeace, CTU, etc all of whom regularly spend just as much ever derailed the debate?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Im waiting for clarks communist red shirts to make an apperance in the election year. David will this blogg exist next year , will sonic, tane and the other soft handed leftists complain to the communist watchdogs, about dissent ???. there could be police raids ,(Who Knows)bloggers in the mist(ha). John
November 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Of course if we got rid of the stupid advertising that tells everyone to just go out and tick a box it wouldn’t matter as much anyway.
The advertising only matters because of the numbers of dumb asses who think they have to vote, without taking on the responsibility of actually figuring out who they should vote for and why…
November 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Paul
Labour said after their $800K theft was exposed that the $800K didn’t make any difference to the outcome of the election – but they would ay that wouldn’t they….
So either we are currently living under an undemocratically elected govt that seeks to enshrine it’s undemocratic rule via twisted and corrupt legislation or spending makes no difference and this who debate about election spending is a smoke screen – but for what ?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Paul: As I said, I don’t agree with the bill at all, I agree with the sentiment that bizzaro minority groups should not be able to hijack the political debate, to the detriment of valid and equal weighted debate.
Bizzaro minority groups? I’m going to ignore your slur on a religious group there by relegating them to a bizzaro status, but I have one question for you Paul. Answer this as honestly as you can.
What about the key points their pamphlet raised were inaccurate? Which were not valid points in the political debate?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Rex no one has ever ‘said’ that CR is a paedophile. But his ‘support’ of the snot rag Mark Foley who clearly was grooming teenage boys for sexual encounters is on the record.
If you play the hard politics then dont cry if comes back to bite
[DPF: And that is another 35 demerits. If you play the gutter politics don't cry when you get suspended]
November 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
John Key should consider adding to his promise of repealing the EFB to conduct a binding referendum to decide if it is appropriate to make the repeal retrospective and render those who voted for it personally liable for expenditure then illegally incurred with an additional penalty of 2+ years jail – automatic home detention of course – to ensure they are removed from being MPs and the loss of their parliamentary pension. Just announcing it would make the corrupt supporters consider emigration to Zimbabwe a good option
November 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
ghost – WTF has that got to do with the front page of the Herald, which just happens to be the topic for this thread. Stick to the topic boy, stick to the topic! Or is the truth too much to bear?
November 12th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
“John Key should consider adding to his promise of repealing the EFB to conduct a binding referendum to decide if it is appropriate to make the repeal retrospective and render those who voted for it personally liable for expenditure then illegally incurred with an additional penalty of 2+ years jail – automatic home detention of course – to ensure they are removed from being MPs and the loss of their parliamentary pension. Just announcing it would make the corrupt supporters consider emigration to Zimbabwe a good option”
Good idea – I’d definitely campaign on this. Retrospective legislation to outlaw what Labour made legal. It has a wonderful symmetry with that law they passed last year to retrospectively legalise their theft/spending of $880K of taxpayer money in 2005.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Sorry – that should have been $800K. Slip of the finger.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Ghostie you are truly disgusting but I guess that is to be expected from your side – decades of practice of false allegation and using their “establishment” to destroy people.
“If you play the hard politics then dont cry if comes back to bite” – I hope your beloved SS in Wellington rememers that later this year….
Craig if you want a contribution to legal fees…
November 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Paul: As I said, I don’t agree with the bill at all, I agree with the sentiment that bizzaro minority groups should not be able to hijack the political debate, to the detriment of valid and equal weighted debate.
I’m afraid I missed your reply or you might have missed the question, Paul.
What about the key points the EB pamphlet raised were inaccurate? Which were not valid points in the political debate?
Or is this simply a case of deeming any speech opposing the government to be inaccurate and not valid points in the debate?
November 12th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The Kiwi Herald had an even stronger piece this morning
November 12th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Pascal, Humblest apologies for not getting back so soon.
Sunday night here in Vancouver, I choose to spend it with my family rather than wasting my time blogging.
I am sorry you may take offense from this but the Exclusive Brethren are a bizzaro religious group. Any group, Secular or Religious that treats it’s members with such contempt as EB does is bizzaro. But we could debate that for ever an never agree. I tend to go with the view that wacko misogynistic secretive groups with too much money to sway the debate beyond what is balanced needs checking, just as if a eco socilaists tried to hijack the limelight.
Too much time and energy was wasted by and on the EB’s.
As for the debunking their handouts, I ust can’t seem to put my hand on a copy of it over here, sorry about that, wasn’t really on the essential travel documents.
However I do remember the tenor of the article was that they were trying to breed a fear of the green party that was built on individualised points that were high lighted to show how evil the greens are.
My point is that if we are going to allow such large amounts of money from interest groups dominate the political debate I doubt very much if we will ever get informed debate ever again, and as state earlier, He/She with the deepest wins office.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
As for informed and balanced debate,
Kevin, “SS”, yeah right.
John “communist red shirts”
Wow you people are paranoid and look like dickheads for want of a better word.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Burt,
How did the National refusing/stealing GST issue resolve itself. My understanding is that the party wanting to be the party who understands money (trust us we are the money boys), cocked up a GST bill, not only landing itself in the poo but dragging in private companies.
NZ First spent how much?
The Greens spent how much? etc etc etc
National paid the GST? Mr Tax man got the GST? Companies were recompensed the GST? I was out of the country for that fiasco. Hmm treasury benches, my arse. It looked like drunk school kids playing monopoly – poorly.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Paul
That’s a 5 year kids logic. It was OK for Labour because other parties did it as well. Then rant about all the other bad things the other guys who also did it did as well and suddenly it’s not looking so bad that Labour were doing it.
Problem is this site isn’t inhabited by 5 year olds.
Yes National stuffed up their GST, NZ1 overspent, ACT did and so did some others. Sadly though Paul the crooked lot that have the numbers passed retrospective validation and now we’ll never know why the retrospective laws went back 14 years. That is of course unless National pledge to repeal the validation legislation and replace it with retrospective penalties, UOMI interest and the normal stuff that joe tax payer needs to pay when they help themselves to tax money as a form of finance.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Toms; not the quote of the day, but a runner, all the same:
“Anyway, the Herald has overplayed its hand with this crude & hysterical piece of political bias masquerading as news. Yawn. Move on. The EFB will be law by Xmas.”
November 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Lee, leave poor old toms alone. he’s a comedian and is working on his lines for his forthing national tour. should be a blast. i’m still waiting for ticket sales to open.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Krazykiwi,
Let me guess, Toms is going to open this tour in a phone booth?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
That’s the one Lindsay – and he still won’t get a full house!!