Fisking the fisking of the fisking of the Greens
December 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm by David FarrarThe Greens complained about the Herald’s editing of their 200 words on the Electoral Finance Bill. Graeme Edgeler fisked their 200 words (as did I)
Russel Norman has now fisked his fisking (and kudos to him for responding). And in response Graeme Edgeler has fisked the fisking of his fisking. I think Graeme is well ahead, as he resorts to that awful trick of quoting the clauses of the Bill.
One sad part though is when Russel plays the man, not the ball, and says:
Edge, I’m sure that you are not duped. You don’t support campaign finance reform. The right and the anti-greens are winning the PR spin, as you were sure to do with the Herald backing you.
Graeme is in fact a strong support of campaign finance reform. His submission to the Select Committee on the Bill was quoted by officials more often than any other (I think I was second!). He, like myself, supports the principles of more transparency and not having an arms race with fundraising. I think overall he even supports the Electoral Finance Bill as an improvement on the status quo (I strongly disagree with him on that). He just doesn’t like it when people get their facts wrong on what the Bill does or does not do.
But this shows the mindset of supporters of the Bill. Anyone who points out its gaping flaws is an enemy and tool of the vast right wing NZBR/CIS conspiracy blah blah blah.
Related posts:
- Greens on Electoral Finance Bill
- NZ Herald on effects of EFB on broadcasters and Internet
- Fisking Maharey
- Greens to oppose EFA Repeal
December 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I should add here an apology I listed in the comments.
I have berated the Greens for not supporting an amendment of Chris Finlayson’s to clarify the definition of the party spending limit (which I believe had been entirely unintentionally cut by $1m).
Hansard here: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/4/3/3/48HansD_20071205-Volume-644-Week-63-Wednesday-5-December-2007.htm
records their vote against the measure.
I was in the gallery for the debate, but wasn’t sure at all times exactly what amendments were being voted on at different times. I have since cop across this Hansard: http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_12_05.htm
Which records the vote differently.
This is obviously confusing – one place on Parliament’s website says the amendment passed, and another does not, but I believe it is the latter Hansard which is the more accurate, and therefore the Greens (along with everyone else) supported the amendment to make sure clause 84, which sets the party vote spending limit, is crystal clear.
I apologise to anyone misinformed by that particular comment, and to the Greens for accusing them over this matter.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Russell seems to take more issue with the ‘spin’ than the actual fact of disagreement. The Greens have pointed out flaws at various times of this debate themselves.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The powers that be within The Greens should read that thread and take a long hard look at where they’re going with the EFB.
Pretty obvious they’re standing on the edge of the abyss, it’s just whether they’re stupid enough to jump.
How many voters can they afford to lose before it’s ‘bye bye Greens’?
And DPF have you been mean to phule again? Poor little blossom.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
As a test case for the EFB, I propose erecting a billboard which states “vote for the party which protects freedom of speech”
It would be interesting to see which party objects and why.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
No I haven’t been mean to Phil. All I have commented on has been a fight between two commenters here where one alleged the other said something on Phil’s blog and somehow hacked it to make it disappear. I was unaware that his whole blog is now down or gone.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Russell Norman appears genuinely concerned about what he calls “parallel campaigning with collusion” between National and the Exclusive Brethren. This is something that has always seemed odd to me about the proponents of the EFB. Labour and the Greens seem to believe that the Exclusive Brethren campaign lost them votes, Labour maybe nearly the election. Whereas I thought there was a strong case to be made for the Exclusive Brethren campaign loosing National votes, maybe even the election.
Have any of these people seen the EB pamphlets? Seriously, anyone who read those things and thought. “Well, I’m not going to vote Green now” was never going to vote Green, or even Labour, in the first place. The only people those pamphlets would convince were already voting Christian Heritage.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
On campaign finance just where is the real problem. We do not have a big problem with private individuals giving political parties lots of money – why would they. Getting political access in this country is very easy fopr the weel healed. Companies regard the political begging bowl as a damn nuisance and find they have to give something to keep the politicians quiet – a bit like protection money really. The real problem is the abuse of the Labour Party of taxpayers’ money and this legislation opens the door wide open on that.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
David Farrar: I was unaware that his whole blog is now down or gone.
As many of us pointed out to philu, his blog was not gone.
He’d somehow managed to lose his sidebar off the main page, but if you clicked through to any entry it would be back along with all his entries.
He must have restored his template or something because everything appears back to normal on the main page now as well.
It was funny though.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I see on the standard, there is a post regarding the endorsement of Barak Obama by Oprah Winfrey http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=854
Now from what I have seen and heard of Obama he would be a worthy candidate but he is not yet ready. Now that Oprah has publically endorsed Obama, could someone give an indication of how such behaviour might be covered by the EFB if a similar set of circumstances occured in NZ?
Given that Obama is a darling of the left, it might be a good illustration of how the left might be hoisted by their own petards.
[DPF: The endorsement is fine under the EFB. But it does show that money is not the major factor in politics - Oprah spending a week with Obama probably is worth more than $10 million of ads.
On Obama I think he might be a very good President one day, but 2008 is too early for him - he is very inexperienced and it has shown on the campaign trail.]
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
DPF.
The endorsement may be fine under the EFB when taken in isolation. But what about the numerous stories about Obama that Oprah has featured on her show?
What would a republican lawyer make of that if it was an election year in the US subject to the same laws as the EFB? Given that Oprah now publically endorses Obama, could all the programming with obama now be seen as a political broadcast as part of a third party campaign?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
(oh BTW, I have the same opinion of Obama as you do, and I have a lot of respect for the man. I just think he’s putting his hand up too soon.)
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
A bit off topic I see the Greens have lost their Appeal Court challenge to have ” Climate Change’ included as part of the RMA as regards the new power station in Rodney.
Thank God the Court of Appeal havent bought into the “earth is flat” argument.
Maybe just maybe there is hope for the judicary in NZ afterall
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
You know, phil’s claims of blogo-espionage aren’t that incredible guys. Hacking’s just one of the things they teach you at environmental law school, along with lock picking, garotting, parachuting, karate, and how to turn your watch into a walky talky.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
So Helmet – How DO you turn your watch into a walky talky?
And who do you talk to?
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
slightlyrightly – If you can talk Oprah into endorsing the Greens next year we’ll probably be happy to see how it runs as test case for the EFB.
gd – I think that case was with Greenpeace, not the Greens. Not that that makes the HC decision any less distressing. But I think it is interesting you link climate change to the flat earthism. I guess if the earth were flat we’d be in even more trouble because heat rises/cold air descends – so presumably the cold air would all fall off the edge of the earth and things would warm up even more quickly.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I could tell you chicken little, but I’d have to kill you.
Vote:December 12th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Damm, I’m not quite ready to die yet Helmet so I guess I’ll just live and not know how.
Theres always a catch isn’t there?
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 7:02 am
OOh ‘the catch’! He’s worked it out by mistake. Now he must die….
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 7:03 am
sorry ‘or she’ must die.
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Damn, the frog actually made me laugh and it wasn’t even a Green Party policy announcement I was reading!
Vote:December 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Cold hard facts: Our media certainly aren’t to blame – i’m sure this has been linked to before.
Reporters without Borders press freedom index – NZ sits at 15th.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025
where will we be next year i wonder?
Vote: