I presume with the bill post-select committee that I can at least post my views on tax-cuts etc in general debate without any disclosure of name & address (provided I don’t mention any party, or suggest that I or anyone else should vote in any way on such an issue?)

However, I presume that without disclosing name & address that I’m not allowed to comment on specific policies by parties? (eg. Posting that I don’t think Labour tax-cuts will be implemented, or I guess even mentioning that Cullen reneged on the chewing-gum tax-cuts?)

And the prior written permission of the political party’s financial agent is required for the former.

hehehehe from piggy above .

The other version was that Muldoon, annoyed that the media seemed biased against him, took a bunch of journalists out to Pukerua Bay and in front of them walked out across the water to the second line of breakers and back again.
Next morning headlines said MULDOON CAN’T SWIM!

Ala the Sensible Sentencing Trust each election, Greenpeace etc – at which point it is caught. Does it need to be as bad as Tim’s statements and should it involve a bit more research – probably, but again not really the point

Does the law mean that someone who wants to post to an anonymous internet forum need to provide their name & address to their post if they want to explicitly say “vote labour” or “vote national”, but their name & address is not required if they want to post “vote for parties that support reducing carbon emissions”?

[DPF: Their name and address is required for both]

Those of you who are older will remember the joke when Muldoon was in power.

He was slipping in the polls (ah la Clark and Labour) and asked his advisers what he could do to restore his popularity.
One of them suggested he walk the length of Lake Taupo – on the water.
Of course he failed and had to be pulled out.
Newspaper Headlines the next day were

MULDOON FAILS TO SWIM LAKE TAUPO!!!

And he can. Without registering. Without a spending cap.

It’s only election advertising, not issue advertising, which is caught.

[DPF: A silly truism which ignores the issue of the much wider definition of election advertising than in the past.]

I thought Article 2 of the Treaty entitled Maori to full and unfettered access to all taonga, one of which I’d assume to be the taonga of oratory or speech.
So does not the EFB break the Treaty?
Is an Election legal, if held under rules which contravene the Treaty?

Gary Moore ( former mayor )says Christchurch is in “good nick.” The city is the most violent in the Southern Hemisphere . Enough of the lies liarbore !!

Thieves and scoundrels the whole bloody lot em !!

I’m sure it does provide revenue to SIT, but is more a case of providing a much needed service to meet demand, which is kind of how competition works…

Policy Parrot – whether Tim is right or wrong in what he wants to achieve is actually irrelevant; it is whether he has the right to bring it up as an issue for the public to decide upon…

If only you had a tenth of his ability to use careful analysis and reasoned argument then you might find yourself welcome.

I ask you again, will you be quite so vociferous in your condemnation when the Bilious Bitch rolls out her $40 million dollar electionadvertising campaign via IRD, WINZ and Environment, with all copy pre-approved by Heather Simpson?

Until you start answering these questions my polite invitation for to ‘fuck off’ remains.

BTW, do they give knighthoods to persistent Labour trolls as well as rich overseas party donors?

Tim (and SIT) are fighting the wrong fight. SIT still has an opportunity to remain fees-free, it just needs to use the money it is spending on an irrelevant political campaign to fund the remaining places. Perhaps some of SIT’s fair weather friends such as Peter Talley can help out there.

Bums on seats is a failed model, there is no political argument here. I still don’t understand why SIT needs to have a Christchurch campus, which essentially results in unnecessary duplication of taxpayer provided services. P