The cunning plan to exempt parliamentary spending
This post will be a bit difficult to follow, but it is an important one. It will show how the Government’s actions on this bill are those of naked self interest and to legalise their previously illegal actions.
It all revolves around Clauses 80(d) and 81(2)(g) which exempt from the definitions of party activities and party election expenses by stating:
does not include anything done in relation to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament
Now when I first read this, my interpretation was that Labour had done this so they could argue that anything paid for by The Parliamentary Service was exempt. The reason I suspected this was their motivation, is because Heather Simpson argued (incorrectly) that this was the law when they over-spent in 2005. And as we know, their companion law has now re-legalised their pledge card and similar activities as ok for taxpayer funding.
Labour broke the law in two ways in 2005. They over-spent under the Electoral Act, and illegally used taxpayer money on their election campaign. Changing one law without changing the other doesn’t help them much.
But they made one mistake. Instead of writing the law so it explicitly said that anything approved by the Parliamentary Service could not be considered an election expense (which would help get around the case law from the 1988 Wairarapa Electoral Petition), they just made it implicit. They did not want the public odium of stating their intentions quite so blatantly.
But they then struck a problem. The Electoral Commission said that they did not know what these clauses meant, and the credibility of the law was seriously threatened. So Annette King panicked and came up with a definition of what this clause is meant to cover. She said:
“MPs acting in their capacity as members of Parliament” excluded statements they made outside the House on policy that was intended to be enacted by a future Parliament.”
Now this satisfied the Electoral Commission. It drew a line which obviously excluded from the exemption things such as pledge cards. They withdrew their damaging objections.
But just because Annette King is Minister of Justice, doesn’t mean she can’t be over-ruled. Annette was summoned to the 9th floor and chastened by H2 no doubt. She was told that her definition was unacceptable and she was told she had to go and back down on her definition, even if it means humiliating herself. And so she did:
I want to mention clause 80(d), which covers a member acting in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament. The Electoral Commission has asked Parliament to give it some clarification as to how we interpret that. We are not going to put it in law; the commission has asked for an interpretation. That is what it has asked for—it wants an interpretation.
Well, I gave my view 2 weeks ago. I gave my view, and my view, I have to stress, is my view. But what the Electoral Commission is interested in is what this Parliament thinks, what the members of this Parliament think, and it wants to be guided. The Electoral Commission said that it wants to be guided by what this Parliament says. I am prepared to say that my interpretation could be wrong. I might be wrong. In fact, I am prepared to admit that I could be wrong. I read the comments of Bill English today in a question to the House. He might be right in terms of that interpretation.
Now my first reaction to this was Annette King was being incredibly stupid. In fact I yelled at the Hansard something alone the lines of “You stupid xxxxx, you are stating that the Electoral Commission wants to know what Parliament thinks, yet you are refusing to amend the law – which is the proper way to signal what Parliament thinks.” I thought how on earth can the Electoral Commission work out from all the different views expressed in the committee of the whole stage, what the intended interpretation should be.
But then upon talking to some MPs and lawyers, I became aware that there was method to her madness. They explained that courts, where statutes are unclear, may look at the Hansard to gain clarity on the intention of the law. And the one view they most take into account is the Minister’s.
So Annette King had no choice but to make herself seem like a blithering idiot (which she is not). She had to firstly state her previous opinion was wrong, and that she now has an open mind.
Then she needed a flunky Labour MP to put forward a view during the committee stage that the proper way to interpret these clauses was that anything authorised for payment by The Parliamentary Service was exempt as an election advertisement. And Charles Chauvel I am told did exactly that (Hansard not yet available).
So the final stage is for Annette King as Minister to place into Hansard what her view of Clause 80(d) now is. And I can guarantee you it will not be to stay with her previous definition. But instead she will say having listened to the many fine speeches, she has agreed with Mr Chauvel, and the intention of 80(d) is that anything approved by the Parliamentary Service means that it automatically can not be considered electioneering, and hence exempt from the spending caps.
This NZ Herald article makes it clear that King will give another interpretation of the clause before this bill is passed”.
King will do this either at the conclusion of the committee stage, or at the third reading. Once it is too late for people to object.
And they will have achieved their double goal. To allow their election campaign to both be funded by the taxpayer, and secondly not to count as an election expense.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Good post DPF.
Devious, dishonest scumbags. And it’s okay to say that ‘cos Cullen says it.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Surely they are not this devious? It’s really indefensible if they are.
How could anyone morally support this?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:16 am
DPF. Thats a very good post. Well done.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Of course they are that devious. In fact that’s what I thought would happen when King first gave ‘her’ definition.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 am
This is a good example of just how cynical and complicated government controls on political finance become. The very nature of attempting to have a highly regulated system of political activity is naturally fraught with problems that require endless legal manoeuvrings, tricks, and silliness.
Personally, I’m not often in favour of laissez faire operations, but when it comes to political activity, I think we need to have as deregulated a political system as possible.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Excellent post DPF. Educational.. in a kinda horrifying, if not unexpected way.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:22 am
As I mentioned in an earlier discussion, I admit I know little of New Zealand law but I seem to avoid breaking it because most things still fall between fairness and common sense, and I guess the general public’s lack of knowledge concerning most laws is similar to mine but they get by because of the same reason – reasonableness.
But the EFB is neither fair or common sense, so how does the average New Zealander not offend, even accidentally. Especially now it would seem that even reading the appropriate law will not be enough, you will also have to refer to Hansard for an ‘intention’, like Annette King’s, which requires then a further reference to where that ‘intention’ is clarified by patsy Chauvel.
This law gets more stupid each day, but the ultimate stupidity I suppose, will be that after it becomes law you may not be able to complain you don’t understand it because that would be an implied criticism of those who wrote and passed it.
God Defend New Zealand ! – while it is still legal to say that.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 am
They will do absolutely anything to get what they want.
They do not care the slightest about the people of this country.
They care only about retaining power and changing the world against the will of the people.
More people need to have the courage to speak out against this regime.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I’d say these scumbags are broke. Anybody got any inside info on the real state of Labour party finances? I’d say the words gone out to the comradeship- if we don’t get this through, we’ll have nothing to fight the next election. Its clear that the whole intent of this dishonest sneaking slimy act is to allow the Labour Party to loot the public purse for its next election campaign. They got caught out stealing last time, this time, they’re trying to make it legal. ..and they have to succeed, for I reckon without the public purse, they’ve got nothing.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am
This relies on a fair bit of guess work as to what is happening behind the scenes, but I think it is reasonably accurate. Labour clearly thinks that it has an entitlement to public money to get itself re-elected.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Redbaiter,
I think you’re right about the state the Labour Party is in, there are persistent rumours doing the rounds that the membership numbers are rather low.
This whole issue is why we need a proper and fair written constitution in NZ.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Redbaiter,
That’s pretty close to the money. The Labour party membership has dwindled down to 4,000. That’s about 15% of National’s membership. Of course they’re struggling. That’s been obvious from the start.
Labour still has a pretty large property portfolio, though. It could always sell one of the properties that it leases back to Parliamentary Services.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:38 am
DPF: A fabulous post.
IP, out of curiosity, where do you see party membership stats?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:39 am
A question for anyone for who knows:
What does the law say about political parties making full disclosure of their financials? And how often do they have to make a disclosure?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 am
typo….
Should say ‘for anyone who knows’
December 10th, 2007 at 10:43 am
What’s also interesting is that when the courts come to the task of statutory construction in deliberation, they will find first off an exceptionally clear marker about what the bill does NOT mean. That will limit the flexibility of their assessments and provide considerable guidance about the Chauvel interpretation, which might otherwise be seen as lacking precision if the debate gets muddied when the Minister speaks again to the clause.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am
I wonder if those leases are at *ahem* market rental rates… or carrying a little premium here or there? Perhaps a quick tax audit for the sake of transparency? I’m mean, they’ve got nothing to hide right?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am
stayathomemum,,
every one’s simply going to wait patiently for next November asd the general election.
Labour is going to be very quiet next year. Their campaign will focus mainly around tax cuts and nothing wil be said to remind people of the false terroist arrests. Diplomatic will be the key theme, except the other KEY will hopefully and should keep pounding the electorate with the evils of the EFB. The very fact the govt can’t keep the opposition gagged on this matter means it’s imperative for National to hit the issue until it hits home with the electorate.
National has been given so much ammunition to fight with they actually have nuclear strike capability. H1 & H2 should be very old people b4 Labour is allowed access to treasury seats again.
Let us hope National’s attacks on these issues are full frontal and undiluted. Let us also remember National was abandoned by the rural sector in recent elections, the very sector they are supposed to advance and advocate for.
One of the biggest political jokes I have ever heard was when the National finance minister under Jim bolger said he wanted to leave politics because he smelt a rat.
Let us hope MMP will prove to be a major tool in keeping future govts half way honest.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Anyone else see the coincidence in Winston Peters declaring he will stand for Tauranga again on the back of this thieving?
He can spend as much as likes through PS to win the seat back and no one can do anything about it.
Except Bob Clarkson that is.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:51 am
So, we’ve got a new load of *cough* strategic ambiguity to add to the truckload we already have. If this is Annette’s idea of ‘common sense’, I’d hate to see what passes for lateral thinking on her planet.
OTOH, the politics are smart don’t you think? If the inevitable court case comes out to your liking, no harm and no foul. If it doesn’t, then there’s plenty of froth to whip up about biased ‘judicial activists’ who are obviously sock puppet whores of the forces of reaction – and never mind that you wrote the legislation that caused this mess in the first place. Next step: Rinse and repeat with an even worse Electoral Finance Amendment Bill that throws even more *cough* strategic ambiguity into the witches brew.
Feh… Could Mrs. King please go back to torturing school children in the ‘Murder House’, and leave the rest of us alone?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Yvette said:
God Defend New Zealand ! – while it is still legal to say that.
Good point Yvette!
If Copeland and Baldock’s Party takes a position on Christianity’s place in New Zealand society will it be illegal to sing the National Anthem in election year with out the necessary authorisations?
If not, what about placing the words on a poster for others in a group to sing?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I doubt the High Court will put too much weight on the contribution of Mr Chavel on this issue. However he was correct that the “MP’s capacity” exemption has long been a part of the law.
I heard Annette King say rather rashly that an MP’s capacity for the purposes of the EFB did not extend to statements made outside the House regarding future policy intentions.
My recollection is that this was an answer to a supplementary question – it seemed a bit “off the top of one’s head”. It is no wonder she hastily retreated from it.
Whether something is or is not within the capacity of an MP under the EFB will always turn on the facts. Being lawful (under the Appropriation Act or any other enactment) will always be necessary for something to fall within the capacity of an MP under the EFB but it will not always be sufficient.
It is possible to conceive of behaviour that might be lawful but the things done fall outside a reasonable understanding of what is within the capacity of an MP because what is done is novel, or because of the scale of what has been done or issues of timing and proximity to an election.
If Parliament meant to exempt all things lawfully done by an MP under the EFB then it would have said this. However by using “capacity” this suggests a wider inquiry by the Courts.
Clearly the litigation risks associated with this area of the law are now much higher with the year long regulated period as opposed to the previous three month period.
This suggests that MP’s will be on the whole more cautious particularly those in marginal electorates who are expecting a hot campaign and a close result.
In the end MP’s themselves will largely determine what is within the capacity of MP’s exemption under the EFB in the regulated period by their patterns of behaviour. The trick will be no to get too far ahead of the pack.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am
“What does the law say about political parties making full disclosure of their financials? And how often do they have to make a disclosure?”
Lindsay- fair question, but there’s no way this gang of cronyists crooks and thieves could ever make a full disclosure about anything. They’d bodgie the books and get some cronyist bean counter to sign off on it. What we need is some good investigative reporting.
A headline that screams-
“BROKE LABOUR PARTY DESPERATE FOR TAXPAYER’S MONEY”.
“The Herald (for example) has learned that the reason for Labour and Helen Klark’s stubbornness in proceeding with a bill that has been savagely criticized by most credible legal sources, is that without it passed, the party will be bereft of the finances they need to fight the next election. Whilst the Klark Labour party has promoted the bill as designed to curb improper use of election advertising funds, the real motivation is to ensure the party, increasingly unpopular with the public and with an extremely diminished membership, survives financially until and after the next election.
What do you reckon the chance of that would be?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Good piece of analysis DPF. We shall see………..
Keep the bastards honest. Nah, Impossible.
I keep saying this , but these secular amoralists just can’t grasp that what they’ve done or want to do is not only wrong because it is illegal, it has been illegal for generations BECAUSE IT IS WRONG.
Regarding the suggestion that we get a constitution, the problem NOW would be that the same people as who wrote the EFB would be writing it. Really great constitutions get written by people as the first thing they do AFTER casting off the shackles of repressive government, not when they’re in the advanced stages of succumbing to it.
Maybe once NZ has had a few decades of Marxist dictatorship, it will have a revolution, and after that a damn good constitution will get written.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 am
RB,
It’s been obvious all along that the crowing about the EB’s is just a smokescreen to try and hide their own rorting of the system to stay in power.
Re the financials there seems to me to be a double standard. Every wage earner and business owner has to keep his affairs in order otherwise the IRD etc jump on you. These political parties are much less accountable. Surely they should have to make a full public disclosure annually like any public company does?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“What does the law say about political parties making full disclosure of their financials? And how often do they have to make a disclosure?””
My understanding is that political parties aren’t required to disclose their financial accounts. Having said that Labour handed out copies (including to journalists) at their conference, while National is more secretive on this.
The above isn’t from primary sources, so I’m happy to be corrected. Or alternatively I’m sure people have an explanation of why this is simply a conspiracy by the socialists to force everyone on to benefits.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
“It’s been obvious all along that the crowing about the EB’s is just a smokescreen to try and hide their own rorting of the system to stay in power”
Obvious to those of us who understand how corrupt the Labour party is. The man in the street, the mainstream voter, who might watch Tv One news for five minutes three nights a week, is still pretty much in the dark.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am
“Surely they should have to make a full public disclosure annually like any public company does?”
This is incorrect, publicly listed companies have to make disclosures. But it isn’t required of every company. If a political party was listed (which I’m not sure they could legally do, at the least it would seem a bit wrong) they would be required to make a public disclosure.
Of course, political parties aren’t the same as companies (National supporters I’m happy to be corrected), but the disclosure requirements aren’t that different – private organisations, private records.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am
“Or alternatively I’m sure people have an explanation of why this is simply a conspiracy by the socialists to force everyone on to benefits.”
Funny, I haven’t seen anyone allege this. As I understand it, the complaints are about freedom of expression and Chavez style political corruption. Maybe you can give a source for your claim?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:11 am
hinamanu – “Let us hope MMP will prove to be a major tool in keeping future govts half way honest.”
Like Winston and the Greens’ support for the present EFB?
MMP in its present form is what you get from leaving rabbits in charge of the lettuce patch, just as the EFB is turkeys setting the date for Christmas.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Lindsay Addie is right. I have held the view ever since this nonsense started that the EB hysteria and talk about anonymous donations and rich pricks and buying elections was and is a distraction. Their goal is our money and it is on this matter they should be hammered. Never mind ‘attacks on democracy,’ just get focused on branding these people firmly in the public mind as thieves and embezzlers on a grand scale, for that is what they are.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Let me see. Hysterical gay Maori National party members, people called “adolf” and a couple of private schoolboys wasting time in the computer lab… Business as usual in the kiwiblog echochamber then.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am
DPF I think it may be time for you to get those 500 signatures together . Also comrades I think we should mount a letter writing campaign to the papers to keep the EFB issue alive thru 2008. The Socialist scumbags will as others have opined want to keep the matter out of the news.
Also suggest someone keep a running total of the Socialists spending from 1st Jan on electioneering posing as “information dissemination” and make sure its in the public domain.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:29 am
how’s the national tour coming along toms? firmed up dates yet?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Let me see. Hysterical gay Maori National party members, people called “adolf” and a couple of private schoolboys wasting time in the computer lab… Business as usual in the kiwiblog echochamber then.
Might I enquire why you think it is worth mentioning whether a commenter here is both gay and a maori?
Why does ones sexual orientation, and/or skin colour have do do with the validity of their opinion?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I am neither a National Party member nor gay nor am I a schoolboy. So what was your point Toms? Oh that’s right as per usual you don’t have one.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Great post, David. Best post I have read, in fact.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
*sigh* The only echo-chamber I see around here is the yawning void keeping Tom Semmens’ ears separated. And how many times do I have to tell you, tom, that nasty talk doesn’t turn me on? I’m just not into you, so move on.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Bevan, not just gay, but hysterically gay.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Like Nathan Lane I guess.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Bevan and AGJ: Just a typical toms drive-by on me – who is an openly gay mixed-race Tory who can handle the abuse from wingnuts of all descriptions. Don’t sweat it, folks, becuase its just more evidence that a wingnut can’t see a belt without hitting below it.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:45 am
A critically-praised, commercially-successful and award-winning actor who is constantly in work (unlike most)? Yeah, if only I was just like Mr. Lane.
Anyway, time to move on from tom’s typically lame and nasty thread-jack?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Craig, I am trying to get funding together for a movie script pitch to Mr Lane. I think this would be the perfect break out role for him. It is an action movie along the lines of Die Hard and Enter the Dragon, but the main character is gay. Birdcage gay.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
toms: Typical Labour leftist looney. Pulls his empty head out of the sand for one moment just to get in a personal attack and then sticks it right back in. Crawl back into your hole Tom.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
KK
apparently toms is waiting for parliment to break up so he can tour with Winnie, Dunny and Jimmy
December 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Very successful Threadjack toms was the main topic getting a bit hot!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Adolf Fiinkensein at 11.14, RIGHT ON.
I just posted this at “The Standard”. They are not liking this line of argument.
PhilBest
Dec 10th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Kent, my main argument is that if you read the “Hollow Men”, you will find that Hager had a staggering amount of detail about who Don Brash was seeing and when, and who he was communicating with and what he was saying. I don’t deny Don Brash’s links with Ruth Richardson or the Business Roundtable – Hager presents ample evidence of this, not that it needed proving.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that 1) There was one helluva successful espionage job done on Don Brash by SOMEONE (and NZ’s fine non-partisan cops are doing a WONDERFUL job investigating, yeah, right) and 2) Hager had NOTHING that proved “links between Don Brash and the EB”. He had 1 e-mail FROM the EB TO the Nats, but NO REPLY, no other communications, and no meetings apart from “someone THINKS they saw some EB bump into Don Brash in a marketplace or something”. How did they set up the big plot to do leaflets “on behalf of the Nats” to circumvent the spending laws? Carrier pigeon?
Do you see my point? If there HAD been ANY evidence, Hager would have had it. You can bet your boots that whoever was behind this did their darndest to get some BEFORE the book was published. But they found they couldn’t, because there was none, but they went ahead and printed the book anyway, fudging the point re the EB, and relying on a highly compliant, brethren-hating media to do the rest for them, and a gullible NZ public to swallow the lie uncritically.
The time we’re in in NZ is akin to the era of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the mid 1930’s. We’ve got a government taking dictatorial powers to itself based on lies about minorities who can’t defend themselves, because the MEDIA has helped to whip up public odium against them. It is NOT a good look for the direction of the country.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
PhilBest careful the usual suspects will come out from under their rocks and invokes Godwin Law.
But of course your are right and students of that particular period of history can see the subtle and not so subtle similarities in the language and political actions.
Demonising your enemies. Passing laws to limit their ability to speak up and speak out.
Attacking whistleblowers by either undermining them on spreading down right lies about them.
Using public funds to disseminate propoganda dressed up as information.
The list goes on and on.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
But it is wrong to equate this with the rise of Nazism, because the same conditions which enable te Nazisto rise do not exist. All you do by making this comparison is spread more comfort arnd the left who support the EFB, because they can use the nazi analogy as proof that those who dispute the EFB are nutters.
Everytime you use ‘Nazi’ you make the EFB supporters a little more comfortable and secure.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Explain LeeC.
Nazism was a popular movement in Christian Germany that utilised latent antisemitism as an excuse to dismantle the institutions of democracy.
The nutters of the 1940s were the popular heroes of the early 30s.
The only major difference now is that we have witnessed the horrendous result of allowing the perpertrators of religious and racial hatred to run unchecked.
No doubt the Nazis of the 1930s would have comforted themselves in the in the psychiatric instability of any that compared them to Genghis Khan’s Mongols only to find that within 15 years they had managed to surpass their genocidal capacity.
It is only by constantly reminding one another of the end of tyranny that we can be assured that it won’t be repeated!
December 10th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Lee:
Don’t bother, if they’re irrational enough to hand the Sub-Standard boys and weak arse EFB apologists a stick to beat them with, I guess all you can do is hope they enjoy it enough that its worth the damage it does to their own casue. How does the saying go: “With friends like this…”
December 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Don’t bother, if they’re irrational enough to hand the Sub-Standard boys and weak arse EFB apologists a stick to beat them with, I guess all you can do is hope they enjoy it enough that its worth the damage it does to their own casue. How does the saying go: “With friends like this…”
Says one who played a part in the biggest political capitulation of the right to the left in NZ’s history. If you had any kind of record of success, you may have the right to criticize. As it is, all you’ve ever done in respect of right-left politics in this country is allow the opposition to walk all over you. Find somewhere else to bitch and moan. We’ll beat the bastards back without your “help”.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Toms go back to read your Noddy books like a good boy.Comments like that just show your below average IQ
This evil EFB has stirred a lot more punters that most can imagine. As an observer and not much more for many years I am only one who is now determined to get active.
Daily media reports from what we all considered left wing , and bugger me even Kerre Woodham, is slowly be surely educating the public and I get comments daily from swinging voters about who they WILL NOT vote for come 2008.
All is required is that we continue to recruit more concerned punters to become active.
From where I sit this has already started and our challenge is to keep it building. It get the very strong feeling that whilst it has taken a hell of a effort to stop and turn the Queen Mary around you guys have done so and I see a this speeding at a great rate of knots unseen in NZ before.
Keep pushing all you concerned Kiwi’s because success is ahead.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Craig and Lee:
I realise the Nazi comparison is an extreme one but what we are discussing in the EFB is the “thin end of the wedge” and it is perfectly valid in open and free debate to hypothesise as to the end result of course of action based on historical precedents. Especially when that action is prompted by illogical prejudice rather than the power of reason.
The Standards marginalisation of Kiwiblog contributors is the classic left-wing strategy of the pseudo-intellectual intimidation of those holding an opposing view point to restrict the parameters of the debate to their own advantage.
They have played this card successfully in a number of areas including:
1. Global Warming. To be a Climate Change denier is to be a intellectual outcast.
2. Any issue involving the practice of the Christian religion.
3. The role of the US in world affairs- To advocate for the US currently is heresy in almost every social circle in the country.
4. Any criticism of branches of the Islamic faith that have a doctrinal disposition to violence.
5. Any inclination to support the right of Israel to act in it’s own interest to protect its citizens.
And any number of other issues you could name.
What the left fear most is a frank and free debate. Can anyone remember the Labour party ever debating the contents of the EB pamphlets. They never did because the couldn’t argue with the bare facts so they shamelessly destroyed the reputations of the messengers.
Labour has been very adept at making the EFB look like a small technical tweaking of Electoral law to bring a greater sense of fairness to the system.
By ceding to intimidation to restrict our opposition to the EFB we are merely surrendering to “peer pressure” from the intellectually vanquished.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Redbaiter:
Well, let’s pitch it in language you’ll understand. What the fuck has a demented screech-monkey like you achieved besides puffing up your ego, paranoia and tendency towards hysterical pissy-fits whenever anyone doesn’t bend over and kiss your arse? Even your entertainment value is pretty limited, most of the time.
Whatever the hell you’re doing, please feel free to leave me out.
Reg:
Sorry for leaving the grown-up response to last. In the end, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I’m sure you sincerely think the Nazi analogies are quite valid, but they’re not to me – and I think I’m more than reasonably well-informed on what the real Nazis did. In the end, you can convince more people by lowering your voice and moderating the rhetoric. I know folks like Redbaiter are never, ever going to get it but I’m beyond caring. I’d just rather he doesn’t take what I love, and what I’ve worked hard to achieve, with him.
Some of us have to function as political activists in the real world where people find RB and his ilk fucking creepy loons. Sorry, RB, but there are people who don’t find your vitriol and cultic ravings inspiring, and instead dismiss everyone on the right as more of the same.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Craig, I don’t care. You’re yesterday’s man, and you capitulated. You lost. Big time. You let the left snow you, and they’re still snowing you. I appreciate the fact that you might like me want freedom from the left, so go for it, but shut the fuck up with your criticisms of people who want to do a little more than lovingly kiss the arse of every leftist totalitarian out there.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Redbaiter:
For someone with a handle like yours, you do an eerie impersonation of a Maoist Red Guard still sniffing out and denouncing ideological deviation at the top of your lungs. I do actually care about you, because you’re just stupid enough to do some real damage to the reality-based center-right.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I don’t care about any “centre right”, a euphemism for politically confused losers who can’t make their minds up. I came back to NZ in late 1999. You people were so cowed by the left, that I was admonished by all comers for using the term “leftist”. It was categorised as “offensive”.
How could you let such a state of affairs come to be??
You were totally defeated by the leftist strategy of political correctness. You ought to be hanging your head in shame for your weak kneed capitulation, not abusing those who have decided to fight the battle you were too dull to even perceive as necessary.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Yeah, well said Redbaiter…
I recommend you read Bernard Goldberg’s book “Crazies To The Left Of Me … Wimps To The Right”. It sums it up the current state of affairs all TOO well.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Craig – you might get out of your depth here. There is so much bullshit swilling around Master Baiter that it might be better just to come back to shore and leave him to fight his fantasy battles alone. No danger of drowning in it then.
Perhaps he will eventually understand that we live in a democracy. People voted in 99 for the people they wanted to lead them. The fact that they were misguided is now history. In 2008 the cycle will go back to centre right. They are unlikely ever to vote for authoritarian abusive nutters and a good thing too.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Along comes Sagenz and proves again the accuracy of Reg’s comments above. Like we’re short of proof?
The Nats have run around for decades like headless chooks while the left have run the farm. We’ve decided its time for new ownership Craig. Either help us get tid of these vile power obsessed control freak totalitarians, or get out of the way. We’re going to say it as we see it, not the way the left approve of.