State funding overshadows private donations
December 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pm by David FarrarSimon Collins in the Herald reports on a presentation by former Alliance staff and Otago University lecturer Bruce Edwards on money in politics:
Otago University political scientist Bryce Edwards told a sociology conference in Auckland yesterday that the controversial Electoral Finance Bill, now before Parliament, was based on a myth that corporate donations could “buy elections”.
In fact, declared donations over $10,000 to political parties at the last election totalled only $3.2 million – the same as the amount paid by taxpayers for free broadcasting time, and only one-eighth of what taxpayers paid through the Parliamentary Service for “party and member support” plus MPs’ travel and communications.
Dr Edwards said critics were correct that business had a strong influence on New Zealand politics. But he said its influence came mainly from the need for any Government to maintain “business confidence” in a capitalist economy.
“That’s where the political leverage of the wealthy is exerted – not in donations, which are utterly insignificant in comparison,” he said.
He said there was no clear relationship between party spending and votes. For example, Act spent more than any other party except Labour and National at the last election ($1.4 million), yet received only 1 per cent of the vote, while the Alliance gained its highest vote (18 per cent) in 1993 when it spent only $500,000.
On the other hand, the weight of taxpayer funding of parties in Parliament now gave a huge advantage to incumbents.
Dr Edwards said the parliamentary funding should be much more tightly controlled to make sure it was only used for parliamentary duties, but controls on donations from supporters should be loosened.
The Electoral Finance Bill makes the incumbency advantage far worse of course. It tries to exempt all parliamentary spending from the spending restrictions, while forcing a new candidate to make $20,000 last all of election year.
This is why new candidates such as Grant Robertson have started delivering their pamphlets this year. $20,000 is a ridiculously low limit for electorates of 45,000 voters. It’s 4c per voter per month. It’s less than what Councillors get for many of their elections.
Related posts:
- State Funding of Political Parties
- De Facto State Funding
- State funding of political parties
- Herald on state funding
December 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Would it be possible to make and pay for pamphlets this year before the new law comes in, and have the delivery as some sort of time-delay thing and have them delivered next year? Or does the ELB somehow prohibit something like this?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Fletch – no. The EFB, like the Electoral Act before it, covers that eventuality.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Some interesting points, but I’m not sure I agree with all of them. The declared donations numbers are interesting, but there was of course the EB ‘parallel campaign’. In my opinion this has been overplayed, but it is undoubtedly part of the reason for the EFB.
I agree with the claim about business confidence, but it oversimplifies the issues. Presumably a $500,000 donation is significant for a party. Given two alternatives policies, both of which would maintain business confidence, a party could easily choose the one that would also satisfy their backer, even if that is not in the public interest. Obviously this is a hypothetical case, and I’m not even claiming it, or anything similar has happened, merely giving examples of some potential issues with Edwards’ analysis.
“He said there was no clear relationship between party spending and votes.”
I would agree that the relationship isn’t a simple linear one e.g. one dollar does not buy one vote. But it seems silly to claim that they are unrelated. There are a number of plausible explanations for the ‘ACT phenomenon’ including that their policies are too extreme to feature in a parliament, but the funding spent manages to get them enough votes to feature. This is undoubtedly too simple an explanation, just like the one offered by Edwards, but it does give an illustration of an alternative.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Business ‘influence’ is presumably aimed at advancing the interest of its shareholders. Why isn’t this more broadly recognised and represented as another (arguably positive) form of democratic expression? Shareholders are people too.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
BeShakey – however it does clearly show that someone simply by spending $1.4 million cannot control the media nor drown out other voices effectively which is a key premise of the EFB.
Without that premise the entire reason for the bill falls flat.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Clark’s case for the EFB crumbles on any rudimentary analysis and indeed her lefties supporters any now weighing in and exposing the flaws in her argument. She has not taken big money out of politics she has put big money right into politics from the tax payer. And she hopes the public will either buy her argument with all the prejudice that goes with it or they will ignore it.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
The other day I quoted Hon RICK BARKER, Hansard
Tuesday December 4, 2007
“. . . someone in the Hastings area whom I know quite well collects pamphlets from elections. He has collected pamphlets from 1972 all the way through to 2005. He observed to me that he had a pile of pamphlets from the 2005 election that was twice as high as it was for every other election cumulatively. All the pamphlets that went into his letterbox from the 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2002 elections were half the size of the number of pamphlets that came into his letterbox in 2005. He wondered why that was. The reason for that became very clear with the publication of The Hollow Men. That book made it very clear what was going on: the Exclusive Brethren was funding the National Party’s campaign, and it was doing so covertly.”
If this is true, the Exclusive Brethren obviously spent $ 1.2 million of their own money far better than Labour spent the $ 800,000 they misappropriated of our money, and they should be damned for that . . . in addition to stealing the funds in the first place.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Where is the evidence (or even the suggestion) that the clumsy Brethren campaign persuaded even one voter to switch from Labour or the Greens to National?
National just wouldn’t be that dumb to endorse them, nor did they.
The ads that did the most damage were Labour’s ‘Can you trust them?’ ads in the last few days.
They were the only Labour ads that worked, coming straight out of the Saatchi UK attack manual.
They only needed to shift one percent of voters, and they did.
They were paid for by money stolen from the taxpayer.
What was Ms Clark’s point about big money again?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
So Rick Barker is alleging that the EB’s produced as much literature as all other parties and candidates combined??
As Yvette says, they got exceptional value for their money if that’s the case.
But of course I doubt it is – like most mindless soundbites from politicians this in fact tells us nothing, because there’s no detail given as to the source of this vast mountain of literature… we’re asked to assume the increase in pile size is due to EB spending. It could just as well have been due to all the candidates opting to use a heavier grade of paper.
And what sort of individual collects political pamphlets? I thought the saddest political tragics (myself included) gathered right here, but that takes the cake. Barker should be taking this poor sod out and getting them laid, not encouraging such an unhealthy obsession
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
iiq374,
Yes, that is something that would seem quite obvious, but still doesnt seem to get through to supporters of the bill.
The bill is supposed to prevent excessive influence of third parties on the debate, but, to any reasonable person, the limits as set go way beyond that.
I think it is an insight into what they consider excessive influence, drowning out, controlling the debate, etc. Nome has said that he considers the act of spending more than anybody else to be evidence of excessive influence. It doesnt matter to him (and I suspect many other Bill supporters) that the practical influence is negligible even for a ‘massive’ overspend of $150k vs $120k. (25%)
I made the point over an over again that spending $150k vs $120k means you can air ONE TV ad in primetime per month in the 9 months to the election. Surely a single TV ad per month cant be excessive?! But I just kept hitting the road block of “If they spend more it is excessive”. They just cant get past this.
That is why this is not a debate we can win against them. If their opinion ignores the practical reality of the situation, then any argument based on reality is going to fall flat.
They just dont listen. We are constantly told that we dont support any spending limits. Often immediately following comments by us stating that we do. They dont care what our position actually is. They have their paper tigers to fight.
I repeat, we cannot win though logic or a discussion of practical realities, because our opponents will not accept any argument based on them.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“What was Ms Clark’s point about big money again?”
I have raised this previously and it appears to be such a wacky idea that some have fallen just short of telling me I am a flake. But I am used to worse, so here goes.
Time is money. One hour’s work-time by one union member in support of a party = $11.50 at minimum wage.
Why is there no formula to ascertain what all the ‘free’ time and effort that Unions ‘give’ to Labour can be calculated?
say 1000 union member give one hour free per week for 48 weeks of the election year – Do the math.
But there is nothing about the influence of this ‘transparent’ asistance and what it is ‘worth’ in cash dollars, to Labour, in the reform.
The CTU specifically recommended that such asistance not be subject to review or reform in their submission to the EFB Select Committee.
Nor indeed has it been discussed.
I understand there are limits in the Canadian and American systemes on unions. Why not here, if we are truly looking at a ‘level playing field’ as the end result of electoral reform?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Ansell, given your role in the disgraceful and racist iwi/kiwi campaign I’m surprised you show your face in public. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Tane,
Given your role in apologising for this torrid Labour Government, I’m surprised you show your face in public. Oh, that’s right, you don’t. How does it feel being part of a government supporting racism, Tane? I haven’t heard you come out and call for that Maori-basher, Trevor Mallard, to be sacked yet.
You should feel ashamed of yourself, Tane.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Typical Tane – attacks the man, instead of debates the issue. And hey John actually posts under his full name – he’s not afraid of standing behind his opinions.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Tane, by calling Mr Ansell a racist you only display your own disgusting racism.
Just because he is white, you assume that the differentiation between Iwi and Kiwi is racially based and that he considers Maori an inferior “race”.
Iwi is a subset of Kiwi, so calling for people to identify themselves by a title that crosses racial barriers, asking them to identify themselves in non-exclusionary terms, is a uniting message not a divisive racist one.
He is calling for the amalgamation of the “races” under one title which is completely at odds with the traditional call of racists for separation. But because he is white you call him a racist.
Learn to look past the colour of people’s skin, you disgusting bigot.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I can’t help but feel if you are looking to whip up an air of disapproval towards a right-wing political strategist, doing it on a right-wing blog might be, well, a bit redundant.
But, in the spirit of the post, I’ll go along with it: perhaps some kind of badge can be made for Ansell, so that everyone can see what a disgraceful racist he is.
Like in that book by Hawthorne, only Ansell could wear a red ‘R’ for ‘racist’ on his chest.
Thats’ how the puritans dealt with that kind of sinful behaviour, and you know, I think the puritans had a lot to offer us in terms of keeping within the one true faith.
Or something.
By the way, apropo the actual subject ofthe thread; what does anyone else think of the idea that a Royal Commission looking into all aspects of electioneering and big money interests in our democratic process would be a valuable forst step towards the ‘Level playing field’ that the EFB appears to be failing to establish?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Golly, did the lefty trolls have some bad sushi for dinner last night? They’ve been even more bitchy today than usual.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Also, as tane had successfully distracted us from the issue I raised before by accusing someone of racism; what about the roles of the unions in NZ elections – how might they be brought into the fold, in a meaningful way that does not preclude them simply acting as a propaganda organ for one party?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I would have said ‘feral’ Craig…
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Hey Tane – since you played the race card – do you reckon Parekura and Nanaia are going to be in strife with Aunty Helen for not toeing the party line and supporting their bro Clint Rickards?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Some other possibilities Lee C:
‘D’ – For global warming denialists, or just for those people that ask uncomfortable questions about the relevance or efficiency of the Kyoto protocol to achieve its stated goals.
‘C’ For capitalists, or anyone who has even though for a second that smaller government ISNT the worst idea since Aids.
‘F’ – For fascists, which is anyone who considers the return to the old days of excessive Union power to be undesireable, or if you simply object to any Labour party policy ever.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
John, myself and others have asked that question and the left have not once produced an ounce of proof to back up their assertions.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Tane is in a cranky mood tonight. She’s just blamed Kate Wilkinson for a Chinese mining disaster.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The Chinese government has more money flowing through its doors than NZ will see in a decade, but for some reason they require our donation to improve the safety of their mines.
What about Russian oil rig workers? What about Alaskan crab fishermen? What about Columbian police?
These are dangerous jobs too, surely we should be helping them as well!
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Forget ‘toeing the party line’ – WTF was Nanaia Mahuta smoking to make any (semi-)public statement of support for the man? I wouldn’t be surprised by Parekura Horomia – the man who has the dubious distinction of being able to speak gibberish in two languages – doing something this stupid. But I really thought Mahuta was a little more astute.
Both Nanaia and Pita Sharples have really gone down in my estimation.
Anyway, looks like the Ninth Floor cleaners are hitting the spin cycle already:
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481530
I think they really need to get OSH in at Parliament, and start checking out the air conditioning ducts for amnesia-causing viruses or bacteria. Recently, there seems to be more than the usual number of cases of people losing and recovering memories when political convenience dictates.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Ah yes Craig, but remember – Aunty Helen has decreed that “forgetting isn’t a hanging offence”! So it’s the new “out” clause for anyone who’s in it up to their eyeballs!
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Labour are broke because they broke the law.
As Denny Crane would say:
It’s…
…that…
…simple.
Stole one election. Got away with it. Felt great.
Time to go out thieving again.
Step one: purify the public’s memory.
What do you mean, it’s our own damn fault and fair enough?
Nonsense. This is a no-fault government. Faults are to Helen as lesbians are to Iran.
Carry on in this vein. Get huffy.
Make like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
Wait for the people’s collective to develop collective amnesia.
Step two: Cry poor.
Howl inequality.
Find some ‘rich pricks’ to blame.
Cue the Brethren.
Unleash hell. Better still, unleash Helen.
And Trevor. On the hapless, chinless scarf-wearers.
Labour’s new Jews.
As for the public, they’ll wear anything.
Remember Adolf’s advice: if you’re going to tell a lie, lie in unison.
(At least, I think it was Adolf.)
Lie about the Brethren.
Lie that they gave money to the Nats.
Lie that their pamphlets actually worked.
But for God’s sake, don’t debate whether the claims in their pamphlets were true. Truth, like Al Gore’s hockey stick graph, is inconvenient.
Now sit back and watch the public swallow these lies.
Of course they will. Hook, line and sinker.
Labour voters are goldfish. Five second memories.
Now what was I saying? Oh yes…
… our supporters. Hardly a brain between the lot of them.
They’ve voted for us three times already, remember?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Good post John A – but so many spacings? It looks like something phill u would be proud of!!!
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
John – Come on, stop waffling.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I need to invent a syndrome.
The John Ansell verbal diarrhea syndrome. Instead I don’t think it really came out from that end.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
John A,
Enjoyed your last post, it gets at a key point about Labour. They now play on negative stereotypes.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
good stuff John
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
At least he thought it up himself and it wasn’t a cut and paste job.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
No your right.
But remember I said that it was sourced from the mouth of Russel Norman.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Well done John Ansell.
Great points.
Plus you’ve proved that non-rhymeing poetry is not the exclusive domain of trendy lefties!
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
James Sleep – what are you doing, hanging around Russell Norman’s mouth? Or were you speaking figuratively?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
you know, National LOST the election. If any of the rhetoric Labour and the Greens are putting forward had any merit, National would have WON the election. The argument seems to be that the vote was too close, that half of New Zealand couldn’t possibly be opposed to Labour and the Greens unless they were somehow unable to resist the influence of a particular set of advertisements. If you think that’s the case, you don’t get just how fed up New Zealand is with the coalition. And that’s probably something that can’t be debated rationally.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Bryce had the original on his blog a couple of months agowhich is here.
PS Sleepy, don’t you know it’s bad netiquette to give Sam Dixon your login?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
‘Ansell, given your role in the disgraceful and racist iwi/kiwi campaign I’m surprised you show your face in public. You should be ashamed of yourself.’
I guess I’m shameless, Mr Wilton.
No dammit, I’m worse than that.
I’m actually proud.
Proud to have played a role in a campaign that, but for a minor matter of Labour thievery, would have rolled the most corrupt government in New Zealand history.
(No sorry, I take that back: there was the Hall Ministry in the 1880s…)
Beaches/Iwi/Kiwi was a billboard, Mr Wilton.
A billboard is not an essay. Your market is hurtling towards the medium at 100k.
(Or 180k in some cases, Tane.)
Our message had to be distinctive. It was certainly not dishonest.
Most people without red or green blinkers on understood perfectly what we were getting at.
I know this, because that particular billboard scored the highest degree of acceptance of all our billboards among floating voters.
The fact that so many irrational lefties hated it merely confirmed that we were on the right track.
True to form, people like Nandor Tanczos, Brian Edwards and Nicky Hager chose to invent meanings that were simply not there.
Nandor said it should be banned like marijuana shouldn’t.
Hager of all people – a guy who in The Hollow Men took four verses of a silly poem I’d dedicated to Helen Clark, Winston Peters and Rob Muldoon and rearranged the verses, wittily characterising the result of his deception as my ‘epitaph to Don Brash’.
Makes you wonder what else in that book was distorted.
But back to the billboard…
What ‘Beaches/Iwi/Kiwi’ said to most people was that Labour was biased towards Maori on foreshore and seabed issues.
That was true. They were. Proudly so.
National, meanwhile, has this zany idea that the government should be equally concerned about the rights of all New Zealanders.
(Not “all other New Zealanders”, as Brian Edwards tried to tell me that ‘Kiwi’ meant in an interview on National Radio. Crucial difference there, Brian.)
The foreshore and seabed legislation was strewn with fishhooks.
Labour didn’t want people to know that.
We did.
At the time, Maori were kicking up merry hell about Labour’s unfair removal of their right to test the legislation in court.
Most people took this to mean that their wonderful government had secured for all time their access to their cherished waterway.
No so. There remained many fishhooks in that legislation. Fishhooks lying in the small print that could become major snags if they weren’t sorted.
That’s all the Nats were trying to point out.
As Kimble says, we chose the word ‘Kiwi’ because it includes all the letters of the word ‘Iwi’.
Iwi is exclusive.
Kiwi is inclusive.
Now Tane, do tell: how is that insulting?
Oh and Mr Wilton please, we’re wise here to the Four Laws of Lefty Debate (I’ve added one since yesterday):
1. Abuse. (tick)
2. Confuse.
3. Lie.
4. Mock.
So how about:
5. Answer the question.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Oh bravo, John Ansell! Bravo!
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Oh waffle John Ansell – Waffle
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
James you disagree with John Ansell how about rebutting the points he makes with some concrete opinions and ideas? Saying it’s waffle is rather bland.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Sorry about the simple style Mr Inventory, but I’m trying to write for the lowest communist denominator.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Oh this is fun. Now there’s three loony lefties who can’t get past 1.
(No, sorry: Mr Sleep made it all the way to 3 yesterday.)
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Labour said after the 2005 election that the extra $800K made no difference, perhaps they were right. OK, so it made no difference, so WTF are we doing the EFB? Please explain why we have wasted so much valuable parliament time changing laws for something that makes no difference?
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Burt – they had fuck all else on the legislative programme and needed to fill it up before Christmas? Just a thought…
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“EFB does not stop anyone saying anything anytime’
james , for future reference this is what waffle actually looks like.
BTW
Vote:I hear that Dr Cullen is releasing a documentary “An Inconvienent Rich Prick”.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“Oh waffle John Ansell – Waffle”
James Sleep has nothing.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
One of the issues with rushing the EFB through The House is noted in this comment from a briefing paper to the Minister of Justice:
The Bill must be passed by 31 November 2007, to enable the electoral agencies to prepare for the 2008 general election.
The department will also only have a very short time to get the documentation and guidelines etc ready and printed. Another example of what a bloody shambles this really is.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Don’t be silly Lindsay – it’s gummint job creation at work. That job alone will employ at least another 100 paper pushers…experts like Tane Tutae might get a (sort of) proper job…
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Buggerlugs,
Good point, it will be a farce with the Justice Dept trying to write guidelines etc for a piece of legislation no one really understands. For example if in a court case in 2008 the judge makes a ruling that disagrees with the Justice Departments guidelines what happens then? Rewrite the guide books etc?
Sounds like Yes Minister.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
james Sleep
I do not think your heart is in it tonight, your waffle and persiflage is even lmore silly than usual.
As per you advance no logic, no case and expect everyone to yield to your stupidity.
John Ansell like others has yet again demolished your pretensions.
Bye Bye
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Yes Minister was a well-run operation compared to this disaster. Nope, I still like the comparisons with Chavez.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
You are all correct. Tonight, I offer nothing.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
It’s just any other night. Labour good – National bad – welcome to sleep.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
John Ansell
Can be more concisely put as the “3 D’s”.
Deny
Delay
Denigrate
Completely sums up how Labour have managed every single crisis.
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” George Bernard Shaw
Vote:December 10th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Perhaps this from George Washington applies to the EFB:
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:19 am
If big money does not matter why does the National Party spend so much time and effort trying to raise it, and why does Mr Farrar spend 90% of his life trying to ensure they still can?
Who are you trying to kid David?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 4:53 am
You’re so full of it Sonic.
DPF has repeatedly stated that he supports the abolishment of anonymous donations, which incidentally Labour (ie Dear Leader) has decided to keep, while at the same time legalizing their pillaging of the taxpayer in order to hang on to power.
Who’s really grubbing for money, eh??
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 6:14 am
The Exclusive Bretheran are Labour’s new jews.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Craig: Golly, did the lefty trolls have some bad sushi for dinner last night? They’ve been even more bitchy today than usual.
Desperation. And kudos and wildebeest to John Ansell. I don’t think I’ve seen so much humour blended with such a delectable dish of truth. They’ll be having even more bad sushi
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Nah Pascal, you forget the first “D” – Denial
For a true debate, you need to have an opponent who thinks, who understands and who responds with facts or counter-arguments.
Show me where there is ANY indication of these features in the postings of the defenders of the indefensible.
What we get is close to what used to be (and probably still is) the definition of a lecture … Information goes from the notes of the lecturer to the notes of the student without going through the minds of either. Trouble for Tane etc is that there are a few around here who have been around long enough not to accept the trite BS that he spouts.
It would be much more pleasant if he would confine his messages to James and other socialist syncophants to that other blog he inhabits.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 8:48 am
This was a great read.
Mr Ansell, great stuff. Love your work.
Tane, maybe trying to debate the issues instead of pulling out an unwarrented race card may help you to make a point – well that is if you ever attempt to try and make one.
Sleep, my god you are pathetic.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Money does matter, Sonic. And there’s no bigger money than the public’s.
The more you have, the more you can buy the things you want.
But you still have to have your brain engaged when you spend it.
In the case of the country, more money would enable us to hire more literate teachers, unclog Aucklands roads, provide Herceptin for our mothers and sisters when they get breast cancer.
But all the money in the world won’t give you those things if the people charged with spending it can’t think straight.
Witness Labour’s negligent mismanagement of the health system. Money to burn and no improvement in surgery rates.
That’s our problem, Sonic.
Mismanagement.
It’s time for MissManager to move on.
And I don’t mean Margo Mains or Judith Aitken either.
I mean the Prime Moneywaster. The one at whose desk the buck never seems to stop.
It’s time Helen Clark took responsibility for the chaos her short-sighted thinking has brought to every corner of our country
Time to get rid of Wastemaster-General Cullen too, whose Freudian slip about rich pricks speaks is such an eloquent distillation of the Clark Labour Government’s attitude to achievement.
Money, Sonic, is nothing more than a fair reward for giving good service to others.
Yet Labour people hate people who have money. They hate people who give good service to others.
The more the money you earn – the more outstanding the service you give – the more your government will hate you.
It should be unsurprising that these screwy thinkers are taking us on a one-way trip to the bottom of the OECD.
They have no plan to get us more literate teachers or better roads or Herceptin for our mothers and sisters.
That would involve money. And they hate money. And when they get money – your money – they would rather spend it relocating endangered snails (which turn out not to be endangered anyway) than spend the same amount on endangered women.
(I refer to the $25 million it cost to relocate the West Coast snails – the cost of a year’s Herceptin for our breast cancer sufferers.)
As regards buying elections, you need enough money to make your argument, sure.
But elections are won with the argument. Not the money.
In 2005, Labour had more money to make their argument in the last week. Money that they stole from you and me.
But in the end, that argument struck enough of a chord with enough people to get them over the line.
Labour won the 2005 election with their argument, but the stolen money allowed them to make that argument when in most mattered.
In the advertising industry, there’s a saying, “Nothing kills a bad product quicker than good advertising.” Similarly, even the worst advertising rarely kills a good product.
Labour’s problem is not, and never was, the Brethren. That’s a smokescreen, and I’m pleased most people can see that.
Labour’s problem is that National’s ad campaign last time revealed inconvenient truths about them.
In Helen Clark’s world, that is sacrilege. Something to be stamped out at all costs.
In this morning’s DomPost, she’s railing against the media for having the gall to criticise her arrogance in steamrolling through the Electoral Finance Bill.
True to my Four Laws of Lefty Debate, nowhere in the story does she even attempt to demolish said media’s arguments. Only their reputations.
Abuse, confuse, lie, mock.
We might have to add ‘threaten’ to that list.
Listen to this from our beloved PM…
‘Fairness and balance is in the eye of the beholder and … we put up with quite a lot, especially when newspapers are in full campaign mode as the New Zealand Herald is at the moment.’
No mention of what we’ll all have to put up with from her tame departments when they’re in full campaign mode next year.
‘There have been weeks, if not months, with full-blooded attacks, front page headlines, editorials, attack stories, cartoons, you name it’
Sounds disturbingly like a Fijian army chief before breaking out the troops.
But here’s the doozie:
[Helen Clark said] ‘Journalism was a profession that carried with it a duty to act professionally and TO ADHERE TO AN ETHICAL BASE.’
The capitals were mine. I just couldn’t contain myself.
This from Helen Clark of all people.
Ethics, to this woman and her fellow travellers, is a county in England.
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I think there were several reasons the EFB is so important to Labour.
Firstly, they can’t allow anyone to remind the public how shafted they all were with the changes to s.59 of the crimes act. So this will allow them to shut down any dissent on that.
Then they will use it to shut down any politicking on the merits or otherwise of the EFB and how it was rammed down out throats.
But perhaps most worrying is the thought about what other bills they may plan to ram down our throats in election year, thereby stifling any decent public debate about them?
Vote:December 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
If the Socialists are sooooooo concerned about the so called level playing field why dont that set the same spending limit for themselves AND everyone else.
OH I forgot Socialists never have the same rules or laws as the rest.
Vote: