Herald on effects of Electoral Finance Act
The Herald’s editorial uses the case of Andy Moore’s Don’t Vote Labour website to remind people why it opposed the Electoral Finance Act:
Barely a week into the year and the Electoral Finance Act has bared its teeth. The body charged with policing the act, the Electoral Commission, has contacted a 21-year-old about his website, named “dontvotelabour”. He was told he had to put his name and address on the site.
Is this going to be the story of the year: constant vigilance of any form of public speech to ensure it complies with all 148 clauses of the act? How absurd that New Zealanders can no longer make a political statement in an election year without satisfying a welter of petty regulation.
Indeed. The EFA extends the regulated period from around 8% of an electoral cycle to a massive 30%. It also extends what is considered a regulated election advertisement from paid advertising to basically any form of written advocacy for or against a party.
… Andrew Moore, whose site has come to the commission’s attention, would prefer not to put his home address on his site partly to protect his family. Why does he have to?
… It is outrageous that they even need to concern themselves with such rules. When people come to wonder what has happened to a freedom they once took for granted, the answer is seldom a single, memorable edict. It is more often a hundred trifling rules, requirements and restrictions, each defensible within the logic of the law but together oppressive in their effect.
Fortunately the Government’s attempt to monitor political expression will not long outlast its lease on power. But if the commission continues as it has started, the spectacle will be ridiculous.
I actually feel very sorry for the Electoral Commission. Their job is to enforce the law, not to write it. They, and the Chief Electoral Officer, acted bravely in 2005 by referring Labour to the Police for over-spending. They take their job very seriously of running fair and undisputed elections. Of course it doesn’t mean they are beyond criticism and like anyone can’t make mistakes, but I’ve dealt with various electoral agencies over the years and they try to be scrupulously fair and professional.
They’re a bit damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If a breach of the law is made known to them, and especially is very public, then if they do not take action they can be criticised for allowing people to choose which parts of the law they obey. And if they do take action, they get seen as the bad guys.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Oh David, you and your pointless scare-mongering.
Surely it would be ridiculous to even imagine that the government would trouble itslef with such a small infraction? I mean it’s not even in ‘the public interest’ to prosecute.
Why do you (sorry The Herald) continue to promote this silly idea that the government is somehow averse to criticism.
It’s about time we had a sensible law which effectively reforms the obviously corrupt electoral Act, and puts power back where it belongs. I’m only amazed that we put up with the old system for so long, now we know what we know about it.
Nothing to see here, move on.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“Andrew Moore, whose site has come to the commission’s attention, would prefer not to put his home address on his site partly to protect his family.”
And I dont blame him. A few days ago an anti-smacking supporter assulted someone who was collecting signitures for the petition to repel the bill. Lets not forget Len Richards and Trevour Mallard. These Socialists are violent people. But I suppose freedom of speech wont die by itself.
It will be interesting if any leftists are brave enough to join this thread. This is becoming a farse already and almost impossible to defend.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
No teeth indeed. It is a bit unfortunate for them that they have to not only enforce this abomination of a law that the Labour Party drafted for us, but they also have to do so knowing what happened in the last election.
Where they not only warned Labour about the overspend but had Labour’s assurances that they would include the pledge card in their returns. Which Labour then turned around and did not do.
So … no teeth, enforcing a law for the group who knowingly and wittingly broke the election laws last election. Sucks to be them, really.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am
So, given the impartiality that informs the Electoral Commission’s role, are they now for or against the government? Whichever way they act, they are piggy in the middle.
Oh the commonsenseness of it.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:13 am
This Herald Editorial is critical of those who passed the EFA, it contributes to the overall information which will decide my vote in the Election – so why does this Editorial not carry the name and residential address of the writer?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
What’s worse?
1. Someone has to write their name and address on their political campaigning.
2. The National Party collaborates with the Exclusive Brethren to deceive the public into thinking that $1 million worth of anonymous campaigning did not come from either group.
The nature of that deception has meant that we can’t trust anonymous campaigning not to secretly be funded by some special-interest group. Is there a way to ensure that wealthy minorities are not disproportionately influencing the electoral process through anonymous campaigning that doesn’t involve banning anonymous campaigning?
I’ve suggested one: have an economic system that prevents there being minorities of very wealthy people who can become even more wealthy through government policy.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Whilst I agree with you regards the Electoral Commission that wont stop me or others I hope laying complaints with them on every and any matter that we believes contravens the EFA.
Remember we didnt ask the Socialist and their bastard mates to pass it.
As Ive said before we must keep the matter to the fore so the more incidents the better.
We must keep on demonstrating the vile pettiness of this Act that allows in total hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations for favours to be made in secret to political parties.
Until all politicans are prepared to adhere to principles of good governance the fight must continue
January 9th, 2008 at 10:19 am
<i>The Herald’s editorial uses the case of Andy Moore’s Don’t Vote Labour website</i>
Interestingly enough, the whois entry doesn’t list Andy Moore as the owner of dontvotelabour.org.nz – the contact registrant is one Cameron Slater also known as Whaleoil.
Slater and DPF are both National Party activists and are also two of the cheerleaders opposing the EFB. Both of them have written about the dontvotelabour website without bothering to mention they’re the people behind it. (DPF can hide behind not so plausible deniability, Slater can’t even do that.)
This looks less like a widespread grassroots campaign against the legislation and a lot like classic National Party astroturfing.
[DPF: Danyl I stated correctly I knew nothing about it until Andy e-mailed me. I have the e-mails. My role was to supply two paras on the EFB as he asked me to. Not everything is a conspiracy. And the fact the Cameron has listed himself as the admin contact (something i was unaware of when the site launched because the whois at the DNC website was refusing service) suggests he is being very upfront that he has helped out. Wouldn't it be worse if Cameron had been helping with the site, and hid his involvement?]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Interesting news story here: Labor to lift gag on critics.
Oh, before you get too excited, this is happening in Australia.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
WHOIS information is the end of free speech and democracy! Oh no!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
If everybody flouts the law we will have a massive meltdown….
January 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I think the editor is ‘exempt’ (This time around), but the principle in Law is now about ‘exemptions from’ rather than ‘entitlements to’ freedom of expression, so, if a government should decide that political statements in a newspaper during an election year is prejudicial, we are just a baby-step away from that becoming restricted too.
Expressed at the risk of scaring the proles, of course. There are several who will post here and claim it is ‘ridiculous’ to suggest the law could be written to facilitate such an idea. Right up to the moment it happens, then they will seek to justify why it should happen…..
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
The old “either, or” proposition.
Whilst I’m not convinced there was any serious collaboration, which in any event is only similar to Union campaigning, it pales into insignificance when the public service spends money on issues that tie in with the Labour Party campaign strategy.
Re-read the stuff on Clare Curran.
Also, the $1 million dollars of EB assertion requires proof. The only factual statements I’ve seen are “a budget of up to $1.2 million and an expenditure of 480K.
You are of course assuming that
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
There are several who will post here and claim it is ‘ridiculous’ to suggest the law could be written to facilitate such an idea. Right up to the moment it happens, then they will seek to justify why it should happen…..
That’s cute. Say something ridiculous, then exempt it from criticism by declaring that anyone who points out that it is ridiculous will in fact be in favour of it at some hypothetical time in the future.
Let’s see…
Lee, people who make points like you are the sort of people who end up shooting civilians from a clocktower. Oh, sure, people may say that’s a ridiculous assertion, right up until you load your rifle, when they’ll start pointing out overpopulation problems…
January 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
..the EB brochures and advertising was enough to significantly influence the election outcome. Or did it just negate the Election Pledge Cards? I suspect the MSM through the way the position stories and their editorial powers has far more influence than a million dollars of advertising.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:30 am
It was certainly ridiculous to hear Labour saying we need these laws to stop the EB and clamp down on anonymous donations. Especially when one reads their first draft of the legislation.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Ryan – “have an economic system that prevents there being minorities of very wealthy people who can become even more wealthy through government policy”
How about a system where the government spends almost zero money, such that there’s no chance of favoritism in how it’s spent? Vote ACT.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Also, the $1 million dollars of EB assertion requires proof. The only factual statements I’ve seen are “a budget of up to $1.2 million and an expenditure of 480K.
You are of course assuming that
I’m more assuming that when Don Brash and John Key were sent an email saying, “Our campaign (a total of seven nationally distributed flyers) is direct and simple: it creates and demonstrates MISTRUST in the current Government; it builds TRUST in a DON BRASH-led National Government,” they had some inkling of the million-dollar campaign.
Later the day that email arrived, Don Brash wrote to Diane Foreman saying he had checked out ‘whether people could fund “parallel campaigns” outside the scope of the limit of electoral expenses’, that he understood that ‘that is feasible, provided that the funding and control are clearly not directed by the National Party (which would mean we would need to be careful with “arms length”‘, and also, ‘I guess the stuff which the Exclusive Brethren are doing is one example.”
There’s plenty more. How long since you read Hollow Men?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
yan don’t take my word for it just go back through the various assertions made in support of the EFA EFB in kiwiblog and The Standard.
Don’t use a lone gunman analogy with which to shoot the messenger.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
How about a system where the government spends almost zero money, such that there’s no chance of favoritism in how it’s spent? Vote ACT.
Unrestrained capitalism is favouritism of the wealthy – and more so as time goes on.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ryan , cant seem to get a copy of Hollow Men at the local Whitcoulls !!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Ryan Sproull, every comment you write in this thread is a gift to National.
thanks..
January 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Ryan , cant seem to get a copy of Hollow Men at the local Whitcoulls !!
It’s a conspiracy!
Ryan Sproull, every comment you write in this thread is a gift to National.
Your critical analysis of my points overwhelms me. I am vanquished!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
As an exercise in feverish dot-connecting while wearing tinfoil hats, Hallow Men is almost without peer. Except, of course, for anything else NH has written and the vast pile of sewerage that comprises the 9/11 “truth movement.”
January 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Who is WHOIS?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Francis,
Yeah, an email to Don Brash and John Key from the Exclusive Brethren… all the way… to… the next dot… with Brash sending an email about getting around the electoral law…
Nope, it’s too far. I’ve run out of ink, the dots are so far apart.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Jason,
It’s the administration details for domain-name registration – ie., who to contact about it for financial or technical reasons.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Ryan. You get in a huff because a third party group dared to publish an opinion against these people? Try to maintain a sense of perspective here. What the Exclusive Brethren did was to publish their political opinion. And yes, they do have one even if they do not vote.
There is one political party in NZ that deliberately and knowingly flouted Electoral Law in the last election.
(a) They received a warning from the Electoral Commission about an overspend.
(b) Indicated they will comply with the Electoral Commission’s ruling and include their pledge card on their return
(c) Negated on that promise and overspent knowingly
They then went on to retrospectively validate their illegal actions through legislation and thus defeated a private lawsuit against them. Since then they have gone on to change Electoral Law to favour themselves over other parties.
This is of course not counting the massive parallel campaigns that unions run for the Labour party. Including the blatant “Do not vote for National” brochures distributed in public hospitals at the last election. Nor those rather atrocious leaflets about evicting people from their homes.
If you want to talk about dirty tactics and reprehensible actions, you need only look at the tactics of the Labour party.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Ominously it also seems that another unintended consequence has raised its head, that of the possibility that the “blog” regulations only cover single author blogs. That multiple author blogs are illegal unless they carry authorisation. This will absolutely crack me up if that is the case because then the Union paid lickspittles at the The sub-Standard and the stalkers at Kiwiblogblog will have to state who they are.The irony of those apologists for the EFb/EFA having to annoucne to all and sundry who they are will be delicious.
Oh and DiM, assumption is the mother of all fuckups, in which case …well i don’t need to call you what everyone knows a test tube cleaner to be. Just for the record and so there is no confusion at all.
1. Andy Moore contacted me to register the domain name because you have to put address details etc and his father wasn’t happy about that.
2. I have an account with Freeparking and so did that.
3. I am also a hosting re-seller and it costs me nothing extra to host a site and so I donated hosting to Andy.
4.We are not the people behind the site, that is Andy Moore. His idea, his concept, his web coding etc. Therefore we are not as you say “behind” the site.
5. I don’t suppose we will ever see an apology from you after you got the details of dontvotelabour.org.nz so demonstrably wrong? No didn’t think so.
6. We haven’t seen your valid explanation why anyone should have to publish their name and address on a website at all, just your usual attack of the messangers…yawn…go back to test tube cleaning.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:56 am
ryan what are you so angry about? The EFA was passed. It sorted out the issues raised by The Hollow Men, and society has not imploded as was claimed by the Righties.
Surely of all of us you should be the happy one?
The only thing I can see you getting upset about is the irritating tendency of people to criticise the government despite the fact that it has been restricted by law.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“What’s worse?”
Well, one is reality the other is fantasy…. so….
January 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Ryan. You get in a huff because a third party group dared to publish an opinion against these people? Try to maintain a sense of perspective here. What the Exclusive Brethren did was to publish their political opinion. And yes, they do have one even if they do not vote.
I don’t “get in a huff”. I point out a problem.
This is of course not counting the massive parallel campaigns that unions run for the Labour party. Including the blatant “Do not vote for National” brochures distributed in public hospitals at the last election. Nor those rather atrocious leaflets about evicting people from their homes.
As I understand it, while unions, churches and any other group can campaign to their own members, “Do not vote for National” brochures distributed in public hospitals would fall under the new legislation.
I’m not a Labour supporter, Pascal. Waving your hand and intoning that Labour has fucked around too doesn’t bother me. But the million dollars of “third-party” campaigning spent in collaboration with National Party leadership (both past and present), with an intentional deception to avoid exposure, is an example of the kind of thing that will hopefully be severely hindered by the EFA.
I also asked for alternative methods of dealing with such a problem, that don’t involve people publishing their names on their campaigning.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
ryan what are you so angry about? The EFA was passed. It sorted out the issues raised by The Hollow Men, and society has not imploded as was claimed by the Righties.
It’s been eight days. Society might yet implode. What I’m talking (not angry) about is that the focus seems to be entirely on “free speech” and privacy, when the alternative is a distortion of democracy. It’s a little like getting rid of Mussolini and then complaining that the trains are always late.
Surely of all of us you should be the happy one?
The only thing I can see you getting upset about is the irritating tendency of people to criticise the government despite the fact that it has been restricted by law.
What I am talking (not getting upset) about is as above. Money equals votes, and we have very inequal distributions of money, so we have inequal distributions of political power. Massive spending and anonymous spending are two ways this distortion of democracy occurs, and this act will go some way to restricting that distortion. I’m not delighted about having to publish my address, but I don’t understand this hand-wringing about such relatively minor things when such a large issue has been addressed, albeit imperfectly.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
when the alternative is a distortion of democracy
You have a distortion of democracy now. The government has more money at its disposal than any political party out there, including third party campaigns. This act has not addressed it, it has created it.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
So Ryan you are not a Labour Party suporter, not a National Party Supporter, Not and Act supporter – what are you, a Green Party supporter?
Is that why you are so wrapped up with the EB?
Did the poor ickle Gween Party have to take an ickle bit of cwiticism duwing a genewal election? Aww diddums!
I can only imagine the Post-Tramatic Stress that must have followed.
And still they are crying in mummy Helen’s skirts about it. FFS.
sorry i couldn’t resist, my hand hovered over ‘submit comment’ then well the devil made me do it…..
sowwy.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Pascal,
It has altered it. And favouritism towards the incumbent government is indeed concern – much more the kind of concern that seems important to me than people having to identify themselves when campaigning.
Do you think that a completely level playing field is possible? And if not, should we still strive to get as close to level as possible?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Lee,
Midday’s 45 minutes away. That’s the commonly accepted time to start drinking.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Even for me.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Not according to Winston.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Ryan said:
“I’ve suggested one: have an economic system that prevents there being minorities of very wealthy people who can become even more wealthy through government policy.”
Does this system have a name Ryan? Might we all know it?
G
January 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Wouldn’t it be worse if Cameron had been helping with the site, and hid his involvement?
Sure it would, but Slater really isn’t that bright. I accept that you had no association with the site but surely you can see that it was a reasonable assumption to make?
I’d also add that if you decide to hitch your wagon to the star of someone as halfwitted as Slater then life is likely to be increasingly full of stupid surprises and avoidable misunderstandings.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ryan, the Hollow Men, and that example you indicated is very much conjecture.
Another interpretation could read like this:
Brash: The EB seem keen on running a campaign and supporting us, or at least getting the Greens and Labour out. I have a feeling they’ll do it whatever we say. Has Helen banned this yet? Can we get nailed for parallel campaigning even if we don’t have input into their material?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Does this system have a name Ryan? Might we all know it?
Well, there’s not just one. Plenty have been suggested, and I’m sure there are plenty more that have yet to be thought up. Orwell’s suggestion of legislating that no one in the country receive an income more than ten times higher than anyone else is an example. State communism is an example. Democratic socialism with 50% tax rates for the highest incomes is an example. Well, it’s basically the same as the Orwell suggestion.
Unequal wealth + wealth influencing government = unequal political power.
If inequality in political power is a concern, then at least one of those two factors must be addressed.
Here’s another idea: well-enough educated voters that aren’t influenced by political marketing. Teach civics and critical thinking in high schools. Let people spend as much as they like – a critical audience will spot dodgy reasoning and see through slick campaigning.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:31 am
FFS Ryan, take off the rose coloured specs. Shit happens and it is not a perfect world. You cannot EVER crwate an artificially levelled playing field in any endeavour and you cannot take all the balance factors into account.
Now I don’t have a lot of money but as a voter what I do have is a modicum of intelligence with which I can assess policies and people.
I have a modestly accurate bullshit detector also and it activates mainly when I am being conned.
I also have an adequate memory and can remember and judge the deeds and misdeeds of parties and people over a reasonably significant part of NZ’s rather short history.
No my memory is not perfect and I sometimes misjudge people but that is life.
I would rather have everyone telling me their story as they wish, as loudly as they wish, as often as they wish to try and by whichever means they choose to use than to have watchdogs and restrictions placed around me to “protect me” from all the nasty messages that might convince me that someone has a message worth listening to. Frankly, overtold messages put me off also.
So my reasons for thinking the EFA is a crock are precisely that I back myself and definitely don’t need anyone else telling me which messages I should be allowed to hear and which I will not.
I would rather a valid message was well told than have my attention diverted and be fearful that there were messages I should hear but which for ANY REASON I have been “protected from”.
What an insult it is to be effectively told, “you ignorant prole, you don’t have the intelligence or the attention span to effectively judge complex issues such as economic policy or foreign affairs. Leave those things to us in charge and just like Mitre 10, We’ll see you right” Yeah right
January 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
ZenTiger,
There’s far more, including meetings with the EB about wording of the pamphlets. If you’re interested, you’re welcome to borrow my copy. Do you live in Auckland?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
The PSA put out material to their members advocating voting for Labour, and then encouraged them to pass the material around to other people.
It didn’t really matter if they “collude” with Labour or not, they were going to do it anyway.
Both situations were never really the big deal they are made out to be. But if people are convinced they are, and we agree limits are worth defining, in such a way that is fair to all and doesn’t allow massive loopholes, then the approach to fixing this is NOT what Labour have done.
Their actions, as government of the day, far dwarf the issues they reacted to. We should be unhappy with the EFA, and especially the process and motivations behind it – and these examples will hopefully remind voters when the time comes to find them unacceptable, and a warning for the incoming mob to fix this.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ryan Sproull says..
” Money equals votes,..”
False, money equals more noise, the voter is the filter.
“and we have very inequal distributions of money,..”
Yes the Labour led Treasury has more than all voters counted together.
“we have inequal distributions of political power.”
You mean unequal distributions of political spending.
“Massive spending and anonymous spending are two ways this distortion of democracy occurs,..”
Yes, the CEO of a Department of State authorising a ‘political’ advertisement is effectively anonomous..
“and this act will go some way to restricting that distortion.”
False, just wait and see.
“I’m not delighted about having to publish my address, ..”
You should not be required to.
“but I don’t understand this hand-wringing about such relatively minor things..”
This is NOT a minor matter.
“when such a large issue has been addressed,..”
The issue has been addressed [In the same way that the Speaker of the House says that the 'question has been addressed'].
“albeit imperfectly.”
True but in my opinion the attempt was deliberate and disgraceful.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Ryan – That is very generous of you. I live down in the Wellington region. But it seems it would be worthwhile to read the book – I undertake to loan it from the library or buy it. I’ll report back via my blog. Cheers.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am
David,
I agree, but do you think that the majority of Kiwi voters possess your critical faculties? The legislation is indeed a clear statement that Kiwi voters are too ignorant to avoid being manipulated by campaigning. Given the correlation between campaign funding and votes, is the statement incorrect? Given the desire of special-interest groups to fund political parties’ campaigns, doesn’t it seem like they too think that voters are uncritical enough to be swayed by expensive campaigning?
We’re talking about a country that buys toothbrushes with “tongue and cheek cleaners” attached. So maybe the legislation isn’t telling you personally that you’re ignorant, but is saying that the New Zealand people in general are ignorant, with some exceptions, like yourself.
Fighting that ignorance would be a good way to fight that democratic inequality.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Ryan – That is very generous of you. I live down in the Wellington region. But it seems it would be worthwhile to read the book – I undertake to loan it from the library or buy it. I’ll report back via my blog. Cheers.
Let me know if it’s not in the library. Posting it down is not a problem. I don’t keep it by my bedside or anything
January 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Their actions, as government of the day, far dwarf the issues they reacted to. We should be unhappy with the EFA, and especially the process and motivations behind it – and these examples will hopefully remind voters when the time comes to find them unacceptable, and a warning for the incoming mob to fix this.
If the law favours incumbent governments, won’t the incoming mob have a strong incentive to keep the legislation?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
And let’s not forget that, unlike tobacco or gambling industries, unions represent thousands of people’s interests and have democratically elected leaderships. When the leadership distributes campaigning to its membership, it is distributing to a membership that has already said, “You guys represent our views.” There’s both a qualitative and quantitative difference between the represntative leaders of unions encouraging their constituents to vote for a particular party, and special-interest industry companies or wealthy individuals donating comparable amounts to the campaigns of parties whose policies will benefit them.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Pffft, I don’t know what dragged Ryan out from the woodwork but I had to laugh at this comment from him:
“”Unrestrained capitalism is favouritism of the wealthy – and more so as time goes on”"
As opposed to unrestrained socialism? What utter nonsense. I guess that doesn’t count why we see boatloads of Cubans (a record number in 07) risk life and limb to get the the US.
Slightly off topic, but people like Ryan really should actually get out more.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
As opposed to unrestrained socialism? What utter nonsense. I guess that doesn’t count why we see boatloads of Cubans (a record number in 07) risk life and limb to get the the US.
Cuba’s socialism is very restrained, by the dictatorial government.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Ryan,
That is generous of you to pass judgement on my (obviously well honed) critical faculties in such a positive manner and of course am obliged to agree with your assessment.
I agree that the political structure and operation is a fit subject for study at secondary school but hell, would you trust the current crop of teachers to impartially encourage debate and independant thought on that subject?
I do however depart from your view of the wider population. Yours is a trap that many have fallen into before in that you place yourself on a higher plane than the great unwashed as it were, and exhibit scant respect for their intelligence or life experience.
Sure there are gullible people out there but at the end of the day that is the essence of a democracy. You cast your vote and live with the outcome. If you don’t like the result you either shut up or actively try to change it next time round Any mechanism that interferes with that is abhorrent.
On the subject of your statement “the New Zealand people in general are ignorant”, I take great offence at that.
I have tried to make it a point to start any interactions in both my personal and business lives with the premise that the other party is rational and intelligent and can be a valid contributor to whatever the activity might be.
Sometimes I have been let down, but (touch wood) no-one has ever shafted me twice and those who have demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability have been given every opportunity and assistance to realise their potential ability. In most cases successfully with people finding that they are not as dumb as they have been led to believe they were.
You might say that I am now the one with the rose-tinted specs but I have been rarely let down and have discovered an amazing array of insight and intellect hidden in the most unlikely places.
I’m not sure where your superiority complex originates but may I suggest that unless you abandon it you are headed for an almighty fall at some stage.
In any event, I find your utopian suggestion of a scenario where everyone is absolutely equal and no-one has either the right or the ability to be more convincing than anyone else to be as abhorrent to me as it appears freedom is to you.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
So, Lee C, the government won’t bother itself with small infractions? Would it make any difference WHO the person was who was committing the infraction? HMMMMMMMMM………………..
January 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
David,
I did not say that the New Zealand public are in general ignorant. I said that perhaps that is what the EFA is saying – rather than that every single Kiwi is ignorant (and thus you personally).
I do believe that the influence of expensive marketing of a party – directly akin to the expensive marketing of a retail product – is inversely proportional to the critical faculties of the populace. Logos, buzzwords, push-polling… The very fact that I have met many people who will be voting for National because “Labour’s had a good go, let’s give the other blokes a turn” – as if they’re sharing around the X-Box.
I think people have been dumbed down. It’s not so tricky a proposition to amend the education system to combat this. Critical thinking is inherently objective. And one can teach the mechanics of local and national government without partisanship. Many other countries (even the US, which perhaps bodes ill for my hopes) manage it just fine.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Just to be clear, there’s a difference from saying that someone is stupid and saying that someone lacks particular skills and particular knowledge. Critical thinking is a mental tool, easily taught. Knowledge of the mechanics of government is also easily taught. In saying that many people in New Zealand lack those tools and that information, I am not saying that they are inferior or stupid, just that they have not yet acquired those tools – and that this is a failing of our society.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Ryan said
“And let’s not forget that, unlike tobacco or gambling industries, unions represent thousands of people’s interests and have democratically elected leaderships.”
I would take issue with that statement Ryan.
There are plenty of well documented cases in NZ of strike actions costing wage losses far in excess of eventual gains in settlement. Year after year the aCanterbury Rubber Workers Union (for example) struck and each year they lost more than they gained until eventually the industry was so stuffed that most of the employers went offshore or out of business. Cliff Hansen was the President of that Union and told me once,
“We don’t care if there is only one Rubber Worker left in Canterbury, but he will be paid what we think he is worth”
That, to me, sits right alongside the North Korean “diplomat” who said to me in PyongYang “We would rather a few thousand peasants die than become dependant on foreign aid”
Neither had the interests of his “members” in mind, both were representing a philosophy and the “membership” was merely a vehicle for furthering that philosophy.
I have never seen a “democratic” union election without careful screening of candidates and “deselection” of those deemed unsuitable (whether by virtue of belief or ability) and have never seen the option of Labour Party affiliation or donation put fairly before the membership. Correct me if I am wrong here Ryan, perhaps I am much maligning the Union Movement.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Well Ryan, firstly, your reponse is a breath of fresh air for sure. Take note all you other leftys, here’s one of your own that has the balls to state how he’d like things to be run, ie state communism or Orwellian utopia. Plenty of other left wing commentators on here would rather be strung up by their nuts with fuse wire than admit outright that which is deepest of their political desires, so good on you for that.
Secondly, however, I have to say that you point of view seems largely based on the theoretical and not the practical. Have you ever lived in a socialist nation, apart of course from early 21st century NZ,? I have, and I have to say that such counties don’t live up to their advertising.
I agree with one of the other posters: You really need to get out more. A lot more.
G
January 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Ryan Sproull, I don’t remember a letter from Don Brash to Diane Foreman “later in the day” (from the EB e-mail to the Nats) that referred to “what the EB are doing”. Did you make this up? I couldn’t find anything in “The Hollow men” that proved that Don Brash had “links” with the EB and was doing anything other than telling the truth when he said he didn’t know who the leaflets were from. The “Hollow Men certainly showed that a massive political hit on Don brash’s privacy had occurred, and such a massive hit that the ABSENCE of proof of “links” with the EB PROVED to ME that there WERE NONE.
The way the media went along with this fudging of the case also proved to me that they were so far up Liarbour’s arse that all you can see of them are their feet sticking out. Not to mention their silence on the subject of the Watergate-style hit on Don Brash. Imagine what they’d have said, and would say today, if the boot had been on the other foot and it was Aunty Helen’s privacy that had been breached. Eh?
If Aunty Helen’s bloody SPIES have a letter from Don Brash to Diane Foreman AS WELL AS his E-mails, and nothing has been done about it by the cops, we’re descending into Putinism. Contrast what happened to Nixon over Watergate, and it is clear where the paralells for true open Democracy in NZ lie.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
And if you LIKE USSR style communism, nothing I just said will register with you.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well Ryan, firstly, your reponse is a breath of fresh air for sure. Take note all you other leftys, here’s one of your own that has the balls to state how he’d like things to be run, ie state communism or Orwellian utopia. Plenty of other left wing commentators on here would rather be strung up by their nuts with fuse wire than admit outright that which is deepest of their political desires, so good on you for that.
You’ll note that I didn’t actually say I would like state communism or Orwell’s suggested social democracy.
Secondly, however, I have to say that you point of view seems largely based on the theoretical and not the practical. Have you ever lived in a socialist nation, apart of course from early 21st century NZ,?
New Zealand is, and has always been, capitalist. I’ve never lived in a socialist nation, no, and I can’t think of any that I would like to live in, except perhaps some of the more social-democratic European nations.
I have, and I have to say that such counties don’t live up to their advertising.
Yes? Interesting. What was the economic system like, compared to capitalism?
I agree with one of the other posters: You really need to get out more. A lot more.
Interesting. How much do I currently get out, Grant?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
If the law favours incumbent governments, won’t the incoming mob have a strong incentive to keep the legislation?
Not that they are guaranteed to be the incoming mob, but the National party has said they will repeal this legislation. Why? I suspect because they actually have some integrity and see the value in our democracy and value it higher than political self interest.
unlike tobacco or gambling industries, unions represent thousands of people’s interests and have democratically elected leaderships
Yes, and? Communicating with your members is one thing. Taking that to the public arena is quite another.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Phil,
Page 25-26. And Nicky Hager is not, to my knowledge, Helen Clark’s spy, unless things changed rather radically since the GE-corn stuff.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Yes, and? Communicating with your members is one thing. Taking that to the public arena is quite another.
Will unions be able to campaign outside of their membership without registering under the EFA?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Yeah, and Hager did the hacking and the spying himself. YEEEEEEAH, RIIIIIIIIGHT.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
NZ “Capitalist”? Eh? Compared to North Korea, perhaps. But there’s hardly a REAL “Capitalist” country in the world, not even the USA. Name one that could be said to be run on lines remotely resembling Libertarianz policy.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I have never seen a “democratic” union election without careful screening of candidates and “deselection” of those deemed unsuitable (whether by virtue of belief or ability) and have never seen the option of Labour Party affiliation or donation put fairly before the membership. Correct me if I am wrong here Ryan, perhaps I am much maligning the Union Movement.
David,
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about their voting methods to correct or confirm you there. It does seem odd that they would continue to support a leadership that was annually screwing them over. Unions tend to have constitutions that make allowances for rolling elected leaders at special general meetings, should the need arise.
I have no doubt that a lot of politicking and such goes on within unions, as occurs in any large democratic organisation.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
NZ “Capitalist”? Eh? Compared to North Korea, perhaps. But there’s hardly a REAL “Capitalist” country in the world, not even the USA. Name one that could be said to be run on lines remotely resembling Libertarianz policy.
Sorry, I should have defined capitalism. By “capitalism” I mean the private ownership of the means of production, with property rights that mean that the owner of the means of production also owns any wealth created with those means, and pays workers less than they create, thus making a profit.
So New Zealand is a capitalist economy, influenced by taxes, tariffs, unions, safety regulations, etc. But still capitalist economics and property rights.
Cuba is not capitalist – the government owns the means of production, though considering its dictatorial nature, you could basically call the Cuban government a private group owning everything.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Fighting that ignorance would be a good way to fight that democratic inequality.”
That is an absolutely marvellous idea, I’ll publicise my name and address, fill out the paperwork in triplicate, screen my utterances so that I do not criticise or advocate for any political party or politician, employ or set myself as financial officer, register all outgoing expenses, solicit donations & support from others willing to “fight that ignorance” (but not too much support) and hope I am not prosecuted for any mistakes in interpretation of this nebulous legislation. Yeah Right.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
As I’m not Gods gift to high intelligence and didn’t have the misfortune to suffer 6 to 7 years in a university I probably would be classifed somewhat ignorant and uninformed. Just a short note to Ryan, I know when I’m getting shafted up the arse and so do 90% of the unwashed in this country so please save your pity for someone who gives a damn.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Fair enough Ryan Sproull. On the scale of Capitalism to Socialism, it is undeniable that there has been a massive shift over the last 100 years in terms of government expenditure as a proportion of GDP, and the heady growth rates of 10% or more per annum seem to be limited to those eras in which a nation’s government kept its share to single figures. Growth of taxation and government expenditure has proven to keep everybody a heck of a lot poorer in the long term. The Asian tiger economies may never lose those sorts of growth rates if they do not make the same mistakes as virtually the whole western democratic world has.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Now back to the Hollow Men. Page 25-26 doesn’t say that Don Brash said “like the Exclusive Brethren” in a letter to Diane Foreman, but that he said it in an internal National Party e-mail.
MY argument about the “Hollow Men” is that it provides dots and then makes insupportable connections between them, and likewise the mainstream media. I believe that the “Investigate” magazine provided the only fair explanation of events. That is, that EB members may have seen Don Brash and mentioned their intentions, but that there was no “collusion” beyond that, and his surprise when the leaflets authors went public was entirely genuine.
This whole charade was a disgraceful example of just how deep NZ has sunk into the grip of leftwing media spin. Reverse the roles, imagine Helen Clark as leader of the Opposition having her private communications made public and exploited by a National Party government, and you can bet your bottom dollar that our media would turn it into a rerun of Watergate, culprits would have been exposed, prosecutions mounted, and resignations up to the highest levels of government called for.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
As I’m not Gods gift to high intelligence and didn’t have the misfortune to suffer 6 to 7 years in a university I probably would be classifed somewhat ignorant and uninformed. Just a short note to Ryan, I know when I’m getting shafted up the arse and so do 90% of the unwashed in this country so please save your pity for someone who gives a damn.
Trying to work out how to use the html to quote so here goes.
BTW SSB, who’s trying to shaft you up the arse?.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
and the bold
January 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I said: ..and a warning for the incoming mob to fix this.
Ryan said: If the law favours incumbent governments, won’t the incoming mob have a strong incentive to keep the legislation?
Yes. That is why I said (tried to say?) that being thrown OUT was a warning for the incoming mob that they too could suffer the same fate if they did not improve the legislation. Then again, they may be prepared to take that risk. Certainly, Labour seem to think in this way.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
New Zealand is, and has always been, capitalist. I’ve never lived in a socialist nation,
Ryan, I don’t believe that if we have capitalism we therefore don’t have socialism.
Socialism can encompass a broad array of ideologies, and it is fair to say that strong government control and distribution of wealth and resources is a feature of socialism (especially when considering Sate Owned Enterprises ) and can exist within a capitalist society.
You can loan money for others to invest as long as you pay your taxes, and play by the rules the government sets.
In other words, we lived in a mixed economy. It’s not “one or the other”.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
actually, maybe “socialism can encompass a broad array of implementations” is more precise
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“By “capitalism” I mean the private ownership of the means of production, with property rights that mean that the owner of the means of production also owns any wealth created with those means, and pays workers less than they create, thus making a profit. So New Zealand is a capitalist economy,”
What crap- neo socialists have refined their operating methods. They make it appear as if there is “private ownership”. In fact, its merely words on paper. The “owner” has no real rights , and is totally controlled by the government. NZ is a socialist country, and I for one am not going to buy such third rate commie propaganda as espoused by Ryan and his gang. Jeez, I’m surprised that they still have the gall to try this lame old argument.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Ryan Graeme Es the expert but I reckon if the Unions take out their usual one page ads in the dailies with the Message to members then thats an election advt and they come under the EFA (unless Ive missed the not surprising exemption)
So we need to carefully monitor their activity and be to lay a complaint.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Pathetic, I just got banned from the dontvotelabour site – reason: “poor behaviour stan” – so much for freedom of expression.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
What crap- neo socialists have refined their operating methods. They make it appear as if there is “private ownership”. In fact, its merely words on paper. The “owner” has no real rights , and is totally controlled by the government.
Redbaiter, correct, that is why capitalism requires the authority of the state to support it. The government ensures capitalist property rights are upheld and threatens with violence those who do not comply.
NZ is a socialist country, and I for one am not going to buy such third rate commie propaganda as espoused by Ryan and his gang. Jeez, I’m surprised that they still have the gall to try this lame old argument.
NZ is not a socialist country, because there is private ownership of the means of production, as you just said. This is not “commie propaganda”. This is what words in the English language mean.
Ryan Graeme Es the expert but I reckon if the Unions take out their usual one page ads in the dailies with the Message to members then thats an election advt and they come under the EFA (unless Ive missed the not surprising exemption)
gd, yes, if the unions advertise in newspapers, that should come under the EFA.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Ryan Sproull: “Money equals votes, and we have very inequal distributions of money, so we have inequal distributions of political power. Massive spending and anonymous spending are two ways this distortion of democracy occurs, and this act will go some way to restricting that distortion. I’m not delighted about having to publish my address, but I don’t understand this hand-wringing about such relatively minor things when such a large issue has been addressed, albeit imperfectly.”
There is no issue here Ryan. There is no evidence in New Zealand that money buys votes. The Act Party spent 6 times more than the Maori Party in 2005 and got half the MP’s that the Maori Party got. In 1999 & 2002 Act spent huge amounts (and much more than any other party) and struggled to get over 5%. The Labour Party in 2005 spent much less than National, and if you include the Bretheren spending, a huge amount less, and got more party votes.
Simply put: there is no evidence for that assertion. It is wrong, and people need to wake up to that fact.
If you are so concerned about inequalities in campaign funds then you could do worse than blame the National Party for changing the broadcasting laws in 1995? that meant political parties CANNOT SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY BUYING RADIO AND TV TIME for election campaigns. It is allocated along the number of MP’s a party has in parliament. How can a party with 2 MP’s compete equally with the larger parties with this restriction?
It is disgraceful.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
ZenTiger,
The way I had defined socialism, the two are mutually exclusive. You’re right, a broader definition can include mixed economies. But from my perspective, mixed economies are simply means by which the victims of capitalism are kept sedate enough to prevent them from demanding actual justice. That is the role played by legislation like minimum wage and social welfare – keeping people alive and dependent on the same state that enforces capitalist property rights (as Redbaiter mentioned) and therefore perpetuates their dependence and unjust distribution of wealth.
If there was “pure capitalism” in New Zealand, people would riot. In other words, “mixed economies” like New Zealand – capitalism with a few restraints and state-provided benefits – is the most capitalist possible society. Give or take. Labour gives, National takes, but the scope of variation between the two are negligible in the larger scheme of things.
There’s a theory that God must exist and must be evil, because this is the worst possible universe that could sustain human life. (I don’t subscribe to this theory.) Any worse, and there wouldn’t be any humans around to suffer miserably. That’s kind of like what mixed capitalist economies are like. They’re as unfair as they can get without imploding.
That’s why I call it capitalist, despite there being theoretical purer forms of capitalism.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Gooner,
Fair enough. Why do people spend money on election campaigns, then?
January 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ryan, what the tens to hundreds of millions the government can spend promoting their own polices before the election? That far outweighs anything any lobby group can spend??????????
January 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
You’re right, Anthony. And even without spending, they enjoy more media attention simply by being the government. Though they’re also the main target of criticism in the media simply by being the government. I’m not sure these are things that can really be measured against each other, really, which makes the whole thing terribly tricky.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I guess you are welcome to your perspective. From my perspective then, capitalism prevents the socialism you somewhat agree exists from degenerating into Communism. And we’ve seen what communism can do in China, Russia, Zimbabwe.
I’m puzzled at your use of a theory you don’t believe to offer up the gem of insight that our mixed economy, which enables almost every person in NZ to live in arguably unparalleled comfort compared to the last 100,000 years, and to most of the alternate economies in existence today is pronounced by you as “unfair as it can get”.
I know it is only a comparison, but both things appear totally hypothetical to me. I don’t accept either of them based on the opinion you have offered. I can see your point about capitalism (as you’ve defined it) though, and I’ll think on this.
There’s a theory that God exists and must be good, because this is the only universe that could allow the miracle of life, so complex the balance must be to create and sustain us. More so because we are fortunate to have every thing we need to exist. And then we were given free will. It is by using this free will that we reject God and seek to gather to us more than we need, seek to complain about what we don’t have, or seek to take from others what we desire. It might be a different moral outlook would serve as a better check on mankind than pure socialism.
Anyway – do you dream of a socialist utopia, since you seem to think that there is no socialist country in existence?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Ryan.
I have just had the chance to catch up and have read about 75% to 80% of the above and like some others seem to be I am a little confused as to where you are coming from. I don’t think anyone has asked you this question:
Do you condone what Labour did in misapproriating over $800,000 of tax payers money to `buy’ the 2005 election?
It is my understanding that this is close to double what the EB actually spent.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I’m puzzled at your use of a theory you don’t believe to offer up the gem of insight that our mixed economy, which enables almost every person in NZ to live in arguably unparalleled comfort compared to the last 100,000 years, and to most of the alternate economies in existence today is pronounced by you as “unfair as it can get”.
By unfair, I simply mean people not controlling wealth proportional to their input via labour. You’re right, we do enjoy unprecedented living conditions in New Zealand. There are a few things to consider, though:
1. In the increasingly globalised economy, the effects of the capitalism in which we participate extend beyond the borders of New Zealand. Much of the wealth we enjoy is the result of the labour of people who can barely dream of the kind of living conditions you correctly identify here.
2. Imagine that someone justly deserves half and instead receives a tenth. 100 years ago, the total wealth was 10. Now the total wealth is 500. So 100 years ago, the guy justly deserved 5 and instead received 1. Today he justly deserves 250 and instead receives 50. Yes, he’s receiving more wealth today than he did 100 years ago. He’s never had 50 in his life. But that has no bearing on the fact that he is still not receiving the fair rewards of his work.
Generally, the response to this is either that he justly deserves whatever he gets paid, and/or that the unfair distribution was necessary for the massive increase in overall wealth during those 100 years.
Anyway – do you dream of a socialist utopia, since you seem to think that there is no socialist country in existence?
Yeah, I do. But I’d settle for everyone in the world having clean drinking water.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Do you condone what Labour did in misapproriating over $800,000 of tax payers money to `buy’ the 2005 election?
I do not condone any form of election fraud or deceiving of the public.
It is my understanding that this is close to double what the EB actually spent.
My understanding is that this is $200,000 short of what the EB spent. But I’ve been wrong many times in my life. Where are you getting your numbers from?
January 10th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Ryan has not lived in any socialist country nor visited one that is actively socilist or has been socialist. If he had we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am
`My understanding is that this is $200,000 short of what the EFB spent’.
Someone may be able to clarify this but I think the EB offered something like $1.2m but actually spent about $480,000.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Someone may be able to clarify this but I think the EB offered something like $1.2m but actually spent about $480,000.
Offered to whom?
January 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ha Ryan that one is easy. They actually made the statement to the EC that they “had a budget of up to $1.2m” and were concerned that they did not impinge on any other arty’s spending caps. This was when they (very properly IMHO) sought an opinion from the EC about the impact of their intentions.
Interesting to contrast this with the hysteria about anonymous donations as well.
On the one hand you have the claim that big donations are “buying policy” so big donations are bad because no-one knows for whom the policy is being developed.
In the EB’s case they were intending to support or endorse policies which has generated huge frothing at the mouth as being bad for democracy. Remember there has never (not even by that Hager twerp) been a suggestion that they expected any policy development in return.
In the end they settled for critical analysis of policies they considered wrong and the country went ballistic as if that was bad for democracy and encouraged even normally straight shooters like Jeanette to twist the truth about her parties policies.
So the question remains, what sort of support can be good?
January 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
It is a good question, David.
Firstly, policy does not have to be developed specifically for sources of campaign funding. The funding is provided to that party rather than others because of pre-existing policies and trends. Labour doesn’t have to develop policy especially for unions in order to continue receiving their financial support, though they could certainly lose that support if they developed policy that attacked the unions.
It’s been suggested in this thread that campaign funding doesn’t equal votes. If that is so, then there’s no need to worry about donations at all. Special-interest groups won’t encourage policy through campaign donations, because parties won’t be afraid of losing that support – since they don’t need it. There’s no need to cap campaign donations, because campaign expenditure has no effect on the electoral process. Etc.
If that was the case, what sort of support could be bad?
But if campaign funding does equal votes, then, as you say, what sort of support could be good? It used to be that campaign funding was necessary to broadcast one’s policies throughout the country – and hopefully voters would find your party’s policies most in line with their own. This is no longer the case. With the Internet, or a little TVNZ time, every voter in the country could be made aware of the policies of every party in the country, if that was the goal.
Instead, campaign funding is used to market parties like a brand, hiring consultants to help write speeches and shoot promotional videos that appeal to subconscious fears and desires – it’s advertising, not information. And if a single one of those ads causes someone to vote differently than they would if they were simply informed of the parties’ policies, then it’s fair to say that it’s bad.
But we take it for granted that this is the natural state of affairs, that a functioning healthy democracy naturally includes airbrushed photos of Helen Clark or ridiculous “iwi/kiwi” ads that might as well be for the latest iPod.
The election campaigns of all parties see voters as – in the words of Don Brash – “punters out in punter land”. And our electoral system and the attitudes of the whole country are geared towards perpetuating this state of affairs.
Perhaps we should be looking at what constitutes an election campaign in New Zealand at all, rather than just how the status quo is restrained or not.
As you say, what sort of support can be good? When perhaps the whole way campaigns work is bad.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Can’t entirely agree Ryan although you are touching on some areas worthy of further thought.
Q. Is advertising per se intrinsically “bad”
A. Don’t be ridiculous David. It is an accepted and legitimate method of informing potential consumers of a choice available to them and letting them know about the benefits/downside of making a choice/ purchase/ donation.
Q. Is any advertising “bad”
A. Better question. It rather depends on the standards and viewpoints of society and individuals. So I suppose you could say that advertising anything that is illegal or immoral by todays standards is “bad”
Q. Is the fact that someone might be influenced by an advertisement “bad”
A. Silliest question yet David. Of course not.
Q. Why?
A. In the final analysis the choice or decision whether it be to purchase a Plasma TV or to tick a particular box on a ballot paper is one for the individual to make and for that individual alone. He takes the final responsibility. If he has not received balancing opinions that might cause a rethink (or technical data to prove a LCD TV would be better but I will stick with politics) then that may have been his choice or not. It may be that the proponents of alternatives were not as good at explaining their message.
Q. What is advertising in a political sense?
A. Any exposure that a party, its candidates or policies receive that is placed before the public. Obviously it includes paid for material such as leaflets, newsletters, pledge cards, Christmas cards, TV slots, billboards, newspaper ads etc but also includes “free” publicity arising from the media’s choices to print or air press releases, news items (why else do Labour MPs all have red boxes labelled “NZ Labour” on their benches in the House?), interviews etc.
Q. Should we insist that the media cease publishing interviews, press releases, news items about MP’s or politics at all?
A. I am tempted to say Yes, yes, yes but on thinking it through that would leave the standing Government with all the airtimne to inform the electorate of their marvellous policies on the grounds of it being a public service.
Q. Well what is the answer?
A. Well what is the question?
your turn Ryan
January 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
David,
Hmm. Plus, while voters can investigate policy without the assistance of parties campaigning, the media have a role in uncovering things kept secret from the public that is relevant to a critical voter’s decision.
Fair media coverage is a separate matter, but I agree an important one. For example, the media continues to treat elections as Labour versus National, which inherently marginalises other parties, implicitly encouraging voters towards Labour and National – which further encourages the media to treat elections as Labour versus National.
In the final analysis the choice or decision whether it be to purchase a Plasma TV or to tick a particular box on a ballot paper is one for the individual to make and for that individual alone. He takes the final responsibility. If he has not received balancing opinions that might cause a rethink (or technical data to prove a LCD TV would be better but I will stick with politics) then that may have been his choice or not. It may be that the proponents of alternatives were not as good at explaining their message.
I think that if we’re going to be realistic, we have to acknowledge that marketing uses tools far beyond providing information about products or parties and that this has an effect on sales/votes – and thus on consumers/voters. “Each individual has the responsibility to make their own decision regardless of what they’ve been exposed to” sounds good in theory, but in practice, an awful lot of people will be voting Labour because the colour red is psychologically associated with strength and National because clever writers have punctuated John Key’s speeches with the word “leadership”.
Neither of those are good reasons to vote either way, but they have an impact. Money is spent on making those kinds of impacts.
So, the question is, how do we encourage New Zealand democracy to be based on rational analysis of policies rather than responding to subsconsious fears and desires?
Do we continue to merely limit campaigning overall? Do we ban uninformative (most) election campaigning? Or do we give voters the skills necessary to render those marketing technique ineffective? I would prefer to give people shoes than carpet the world – and the EFA is an attempt to carpet the world.
But any attempt to “give people shoes” – to provide people with those skills – is an uphill battle, because our entire society is increasingly based upon a conception of people as consumers of unnecessary things. And rational consumers don’t buy unnecessary things. So the marketing industry needs to exist to create a never-ending cycle of superfluous desires. People grow up in this situation, and it translates directly into their behaviour as voters. There is no qualitative difference between the mindset that goes into promoting toothbrushes with “tongue-cleaners” and the mindset that goes into promoting a party on buzzwords and trivia.
I think the EFA is an attempt at putting a band-aid on much deeper problems with modern Western liberal democracies. Some critics of the EFA don’t seem to think there’s a problem at all. Some fans of the EFA seem to think it’s addressing the basic problem. I disagree with both of those groups. You see what I mean? There’s a problem, the EFA touches on it, but doesn’t come close to solving it.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
`I think the EFA is an attempt at putting a band aid on much deeper problems with modern Western Liberal democracies.’
I am not familiar with the electoral systems of countries other than New Zealand but I am sure that DPF but others may have a view on what you say.
In NZ we had a perfectly suitable base for our Electoral system until it was abused by Labour, NZ First and United Future in particular by misappropriating tax payers money despite warnings by the Auditor General and Electoral Commission. As I recall all other parties, except the progressives, trangressed to much minor degrees and all repaid the money without fuss.
National stuffed up in respect of GST for TV advertising and tactically made an error of judgement in accepting the offer of the EB despite it being cleared by the Electoral Commission.
From there it was all downhill for the following reasons:
1. People should have have been charged by the police for the misappropriation of funds.
2. Retrospective legislation was passed to legalise a previously illegal act or acts.
3. The EFA was drafted and railroaded through without the proper consultation of all parties or the public.
Until now New Zealand has a history of getting consnsus on major changes to election laws. After the next election, no matter who wins this ACT must be repealed and a proper consultative process entered into so that a better and fairer law is formulated and introduced. This should start within 6 months of the next government being formed.
New Zealand will be better for it and Labour in particular have done the country a huge disservice with the vindictave and arrogant attitude since 2005.
In case you think I am a National syncophant I voted for the Labour candidate in my electorate in 1996 and 1999 and have not given either Labour or National my Party Vote since MMP commenced.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Agree on what needs to be done in the short term pdm, but what is the long term solution to unilateral manipulation of the electoral rules? Do we find an independant body offshore that must sign-off on any changes with instructions to reject anything that shows bias? does such an organisation exist? would you trust it if it did?
AAaahhhh so many questions, so few answers.
Something like an independant Upper House of the Privy Council perhaps, or even a Constitution requiring massive and overwhelming PUBLIC SUPPORT to change it ……. now theres a thought!
January 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Sh be ” Upper House OR the Privy Council ….”
January 11th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
It’s my site – but there’s a heck of a lot of support for it.
Lets get one thing straight, eh? This is not part of the VRWC. It’s an example of a concerned citizen acting on his inherent freedom of speech.
Also from a growing number of ex-Labour supporters strangely enough.