No Right Turn wrong on the law

January 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm by David Farrar

Normally I would just leave a comment, but as you can’t comment any more on No Right Turn I should point out that he has it quite wrong when he says about the Don’t vote Labour website:

Where the site does violate the law is in not carrying a statement setting out the name and address of its promoter (s53 (1) (a) EFA). But that would have been true under the old law as well. Section 221A (1) of the Electoral Act required advertisements relating to an election to carry such a statement, not just within the regulated period as at present, but at all stages of the electoral cycle.

The old law did not require any authorisation statement because the old law did not define a personal viewpoint on a website as an election advertisement.  To quote Graeme Edgeler:

It would not have been. The provisions of the Electoral Act relating to names and addresses only applied to advertisements (not “any form of words or graphics”), and only applied when those advertisements were published in a newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill, or were broadcast on radio or television.

And don’t think this is a mistake.  It is deliberate.  Labour and the Greens (and poodles) voted against the following amendment to the exemptions from Chris Flinalyson:

the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her political views

If they had voted for that amendment, then this problem would not be here.  Make sure at the meet the candidates meetings you all ask the Green and Labour candidates why they voted against this amendment.

No tag for this post.

220 Responses to “No Right Turn wrong on the law”

  1. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    DPF the amendment which allows the electoral commission to not prosecute “insignificant” breeches of the Act, so “non-commercial” election advertisements will not be prosecuted. You never seem to mention this fact. I can only conclude that you’re being more than a little disingenuous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Spam (588 comments) says:

    DPF the amendment which allows the electoral commission to not prosecute “insignificant” breeches of the Act, so “non-commercial” election advertisements will not be prosecuted. You never seem to mention this fact. I can only conclude that you’re being more than a little disingenuous

    And who decides what is “insignificant”? Philipjohn? Labour? I personally am not a big fan of “its illegal, but we won’t prosecute” law-making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Should have been…

    DPF:

    The was an amendment added which allows the electoral commission to not prosecute “insignificant” breeches of the Act. So “non-commercial” election advertisements without names and addresses attatched will not be prosecuted. You never seem to mention this fact, so I can only conclude that you’re being more than a little disingenuous here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “And who decides what is “insignificant”? Philipjohn? Labour?”

    Read the comment again. The electoral commission will decide. This means that only serious campaigners will be effected by the Act – everyone else won’t have their freedom of speech curded any more more than it was under the previous legislation. So while NRT may have been wrong on some details, he is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    You are right, of course, nome. The prospect of a prosecution for something like this (particularly when people know who is behind it) is very remote.

    The question of what the law requires is a different matter, however, it is not appropriate to tell people that the law says something that it does not. Much more honest to accept that the law does make X illegal, or does require you to do Y before you can Z but point out the prosecution is unlikely. You seem to be doing that – in this case I/S did not.

    Your suggestion that “non-commercial” election advertisements are all safe because they’re insignificant probably goes a little far, however. The pamphlets released by members of the exclusive brethren were probably non-commercial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sam (501 comments) says:

    Insignificant is a subjective term (in the absence of any definition of significance provided), and thus could be interpreted at varying degrees by the ‘common-sense’ of different regimes. What is deemed insignificant to one party may not be to another. This is the problem when undefined ‘common sense’ becomes law. (Common sense is usually that held commonly, but in this case the common people have had little input, and will have no input into the actual key interpretations – the Electoral Commission isn’t even an elected body…)

    This is one of my issues with the absurd drafting of the Act – that it leaves the door open for some pretty unsavoury interpretations to become law by stealth. Common sense tells me that well-defined interpretations for key aspects of the Act should be part of its drafting – in the interests of open and honest debate at the very least, but also to prevent legal creeping toward unsatisfactory situations…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sam (501 comments) says:

    rogernome: …So “non-commercial” election advertisements without names and addresses attatched will not be prosecuted…

    Why does the Act not just simply state this? It would make everything much more transparent and meaningful if the intentions were clearly recorded rather than just encompassing everything with the broadest possible brush…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I personally am not a big fan of “its illegal, but we won’t prosecute” law-making.”

    That approach to legislation is intended to cut out loop-holes that may otherwise be exploited, while sparing people who make minor breeches from prosecution. I agree it isn’t without it’s problems, as it arguably gives too much power to non-democratic institutions, yet unless the commission wants to create a whole lot of unnecessary work for itself (it prosecutes hair-brained sticker campaign by the likes of D4J and Burt) I can’t see it being a problem in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. JC (956 comments) says:

    Rn,

    When the Vietnam war was going badly for the US, a general advised that it should just declare the war was won, and go home.

    I see no reason why the EC and Govt won’t do just that with all sorts of breaches of it’s new act. But it’s now on the books and can be pulled out for an early election.. which I expect will be more palatable than face a year of derisory tactics or a humiliating backdown on aspects of the act forced through by a very nervous Green Party. Dunne has already walked away and Peters must be winding up for a much publicised walkout.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Much more honest to accept that the law does make X illegal, or does require you to do Y before you can Z but point out the prosecution is unlikely.

    The problem I have is how “unlikely” is “unlikely”? What really does constitute and “insignificant breach”?

    A few years ago, travelling 51 km/h in a 50 km/h zone was “unlikely” to result in a prosecution. Try that near a school, and you will be prosecuted.

    I watch my speed, but am quite happy driving at what I estimate to be just under 50 km/h based on my assessment that by erring on the side of caution, I am “unlikely” to be prosecuted, but even if I am, the fine will only be $30.

    However, when the fine is up to $10,000 (as it is with the electoral finance act for a private citizen), then people need to be very cautious – especially when the “insignificant breach” clause has never been tested with the electoral commission, nor in the courts.

    I actually prefer NOT to break the law, rather than be told “yeah, go for it, its illegal but its UNLIKELY that we’ll prosecute”. Which is why I really dislike laws like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Hair brained” from a Mason clinic retard called gnomer pile, surely you jest ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Isn’t it disingenuous to accuse someone of being disingenuous?

    I mean if someone is misrepresenting known facts, pretending to be sincere, or acting dumb when he isn’t, wouldn’t ‘hypocritical liar’ fit them better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. francis (712 comments) says:

    It seems to me that one important measure of “significance” is bound to be the reach and effectiveness of an ‘advertisement’ done in breach. An anonymous video that goes viral, for example, might pass the threshold – and that’s something authors have no control over. What we do know is that the EC is actively looking for violations – it will be very interesting to see their first group of findings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Can anybody explain to me why No Right Turn does not allow comments ?

    Hardly fair is it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The spruikers of the EFA do have a point. Lots of things are illegal in NZ yet the prosecuting authorities (usually, but not always, the Police) pick and choose who’ll they’ll prosecute, who they’ll warn and who’ll they completely ignore.

    The first danger in this is the potential for corruption within the prosecuting authority. We’ve seen evidence of this in the Police but not, so far, in the Electoral Commission.

    The second danger is in political pressure being brought to bear on the prosecuting authority to ensure that certain individuals are targeted while others are ignored. That already occurs in other legal arenas, and there’s no denying the potential exists for it to occur with the EFA – the only point of debate is whether it will, if so to what extent, and how the Electoral Commission would react.

    That’s why clarity in statute law is so important. If an offence is tightly defined, the potential for the statute to be used selectively as a weapon against those whom the prosecuting authority or the government of the day don’t like, is reduced or removed.

    Whether or not someone is convicted of an offence is often the least impact the process has upon them. Expensive legal fees, sometimes loss of employment (would a government department continue to employ someone charged with an offence under the EFA I wonder?), family stress… all this has an impact on the accused person.

    Saying “sure the EFA is ambiguous, but so are other laws” is to countenance the adding to the statute books of another flawed piece of legislation that can be misued at the whim of those in positions of power. I’d have hoped NZ was better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Your suggestion that “non-commercial” election advertisements are all safe because they’re insignificant probably goes a little far, however. The pamphlets released by members of the exclusive brethren were probably non-commercial.”

    Ok – I misinterpreted the meaning of “commercial” – in any case, I stand by my interpretation, that only serious campaigners will be affected by this law. i.e. it won’t be in the public interest to prosecute every peter burns, burt, leeC etc … who chooses to vent their spleen at a protest march.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Ok – I misinterpreted the meaning of “commercial” ”

    Back for less than an hour and you are caught out lying already. Look everybody the stint in the Mason clinic did not change Phillip John !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Ok – I misinterpreted the meaning of “commercial” – in any case, I stand by my interpretation, that only serious campaigners will be affected by this law.

    I’m reminded of a technique used to treat people with fear of heights. Have them stand on a ladder.

    Move up one step.
    Is that too high?
    Move up another step
    Is that too high?
    Move up another step
    Is that too high?
    Move up another step
    Is that too high?

    The problem is that no-one can really define which step is too high, or more importantly, why this particular step is any more problematic than other steps.

    Can you see the parallel here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    I love heights, that reminds me Batman is going to do some air drops as he carpet bombs cities with pamphlets urging people to move away from the darkness of Labour, that is, DON”T VOTE LABOUR .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    And of course, now, we have the term ‘serious campaigners’ brought into the equation, because we really need a league-table of deservedness to describe how valid any individual’s right to make a political expression is, don’t we?

    And we judge action taken against ‘serious campaigners’ of course, based on whether it is – (drum roll) – ‘in the public interest’.

    Just a rerun of that old chestnut – ‘There’s nothing to see here, move on’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Just imagine when a “serious campaigner ” fronts up to court . I think I can get New York Time Reporters to witness that .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Spam:

    Let me out it to you like this. If you want to run a “significant” election campaign, then I’ve no problem with you being required to put your name and address to it. And of course the people who are running these campaigns should be aware of the law – they have no excuse.

    These are the people who will be effected – not the armatures marching down the street, or chalking the sidewalk. Sure, just where the line is will take some working out in the courts, as with most new law, though i suggest that if your election advertisement is anything like “significant” you should be aware of your requirements under the law – ignorance in that situation is certainly no excuse.

    Also, the paranoid fears expounded by some here, that the Electoral Commission will become some kind of secret police organisation used to subjectively prosecute every anti-government minion seem a little far flung to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Also, the paranoid fears expounded by some here, that the Police will become some kind of secret organisation used to subjectively prosecute every anti-government protester with a tractor seem a little far flung to me…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    “Serious” campaigners?

    Right… so what if we all march up Lambton Quay with “Don’t vote Labour” t-shirts and placards. But we make sure we’re wearing funny hats and riding unicycles?

    Interesting terminology… in other words, if you’re effective and people are taking you seriously, watch out. As I said, selective application of the law at the whim of whoever has the power to prosecute.

    Kafka would love NZ in 2008. In fact a more contemporary writer, Ismail Kadare, captures the “rule through uncertainty” principle beautifully in The Successor. Recommended reading for anyone who doesn’t understand how legislation like the EFA exerts control without needing to be enforced. And for those who do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Will “serious campaigners” be able to find safety from prosecution in the American Embassy? Please help us George because the Klarkism revolution is set to resemble the Stalin era of mass citizen arrest .Maybe Klark has done a deal with Putin and it’s off to a Siberian Labor camp for punishment .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Spam:

    Let me out it to you like this. If you want to run a “significant” election campaign, then I’ve no problem with you being required to put your name and address to it. And of course the people who are running these campaigns should be aware of the law – they have no excuse.

    And here it is again.

    If only “serious” or “insignificant” could actually be defined.

    In the meantime, anyone who just wants to obey the law, and doesn’t know where a faceless third-party will draw the line (a line that hasn’t been drawn before), will have their rights of free-speech muzzled.

    But that’s apparently OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Spam: Spot on.

    roger nome: I think the Electoral Commission, as it’s presently established, will try to be fair. Want to have a small wager on how long it will last in its present form if it declines to prosecute cases brought to its attention by the present government or the Labour Party hierarchy, though?

    iiq374: The Police regularly choose to subjectively prosecute those against whom they have a grudge. If you haven’t had that fact demonstrated by you, your friends or your family being on the receiving end of such prosecution I envy you your luck. The question is not whether they selectively prosecute but whether they’d selectively prosecute under the EFA. Given their track record, and their willingness to be a tool of the government (of whatever hue – the Police are concerned only with extension of their own powers, not with politics per se) I think it at least possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    armatures???

    a somewhat electrical expression there from phillipjohn, who is clearly tightly wound on this issue. So now we have to define:

    “insignificant”
    “non-commercial” and now to decide if the breach was by a “serious campaigner”

    yup that seems like excellent legislation to me.

    But its OK because “Sure, just where the line is will take some working out in the courts, as with most new law…,”

    all most reassuring, nothing to see here, move along…

    Just as well that young P/J was able to spare his precious time to clarify things for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Would having certainty about electoral law be ‘in the public interest’ I wonder?

    Or would any position or debate about it be labelled ‘disingenuous’, ‘paranoid’ or based on a subjectively concluded definition of what constitutes a ‘significant campaign’?

    The evidence so far suggests that the EFA is so badly constructed that it can only spread uncertainty – sorry ‘paranoia’.

    Is it the job of our government to provide leadership rather than confusion. Unless of course to do so, in some way serves their purpose all the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “The Police regularly choose to subjectively prosecute those against whom they have a grudge.”

    For example Peter Burns who has spent over 7 years on police bail for various trumped up charges . Happy New Year – yeah right Klark !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. C-Rat (10 comments) says:

    I/S says in his blog: “It does affect those who want to spend big money in an effort to influence an election – and so it bloody well should.”

    This bugs the crap out of me. It is an oft repeated mantra by EFB/A supporters, it was stated more formally in the bill itself as a goal, but not once have I seen any evidence that big money can influence an election or any reasonable argument that even if it could; it would be “undue”. It is mindlessly repeated over and over, that free speech is not under attack, but that democracy is being protected from (big) money. The fact of the matter is that after a point, money spent voicing an opinion for or against parties or ideas, has little effect once that “voicing of opinion” has reached the ears of people who, given the opportunity to hear those opinions, respond favourably toward them. (Bringing me to another point, namely that this bill not only denies a right to full and free expression. yes FULL, that’s also important, it denies recipients the right to hear and assess that message themselves.)

    So is influence in and of itself “bad”? I don’t think so, influencing other people, especially for the sake of how a country is run (if you’re convinced you know the best way and want to encourage people to vote like you) is perfectly legitimate and moral behaviour. So, is spending money to affect/effect (help me out here grammar police) that influence “bad” because it is “undue”? Well I don’t know, I never have been told what’s “undue” about it. The fact that some groups and individuals have more than others? SO what?! Individuals and groups have more man power and/or time than others too. Must we then legislate time caps and man hour caps to the dirty influence of “big time” and “big popularity”?

    Lies that must be swallowed to accept the EFA:
    1) That votes can be bought against principle by advertising your views.
    If not 1) then 2)
    2) That the influence gained by reaching people who, given the opportunity to hear your view, would respond positively to it, is “bad”.
    3) That the influencing of others, gained by spending money airing your views is “undue”, simply for the sake of it being money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Yeah I was thinking of you when I wrote that D4J – and a hell of a lot of other people, some of whom I’m spending most of my free time working on their defences – but didn’t want to single you out.

    You’re a prime example of someone whom they push beyond their limit, causing them to “lose it” and push back. And to sometimes allow – understandably – a huge reservoir of emotion and resentment overflow into their communications.

    Bingo, you’re able to be labelled a “troublemaker” or a “nutter” or, yes, the favourite ad hominem label, “paranoid”, and can be safely sidelined. “Nothing to see here (but a man broken by the State). Move on, people – or it could be you next”.

    Kia kaha, as they say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Rogernome says “Also, the paranoid fears expounded by some here, that the Electoral Commission will become some kind of secret police organisation used to subjectively prosecute every anti-government minion seem a little far flung to me.”

    So you admit our socialist government has turned the Electoral Commission into a Star Chamber? Par for the course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “And here it is again.

    If only “serious” or “insignificant” could actually be defined.”

    Not that difficult to work out really. i.e if i make my own placard for a protest and neglect to put my name to it, that would be viewed as insignificant (if that isn’t “insignificant” then nothing is). Conversely, if I spend $1000 on a pamphlet run, I run the risk of being prosecuted – though anyone putting that much time and money into a campaign should know the law – ignorance would be no excuse.

    As for the punters crying out over the requirement to list a name and address on an election advertisement, well it’s no different to the old law in this regard. The only difference is that the meaning of “election advertisement” is broader. Yet as i’ve tried to get through to you, clearly the minor communications of small players won’t be considered “significant” and “in the public interest” to prosecute – that’s if they are even reported to the electoral commission in the first place (highly unlikely). So when it comes to “restricting freedom of speech” this law, in practice, isn’t any worse than the old one.

    Also Rex – the idea that this law will make everyone too scared to voice their opinions in an election campaign is ridiculous. For that to happen the electoral commission would have to been seen as punitively prosecuting “insignificant breeches” of the Act – which it won’t be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    Ah the oracle phillipjohn has spoken. He is of the one true way and is able to determine definitions of “significant” and “serious” as they will be applied by the electoral commission.

    How helpful. Now we can quote him and safely continue our officially insignificant and non-serious “armature” protests against the government’s attempt to criminalise criticism and steal the 2008 election.

    what a relief, thank you phillipjohn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Bingo, you’re able to be labelled a “troublemaker” or a “nutter” or, yes, the favourite ad hominem label, “paranoid”,”

    Um – I don’t think the police are the only ones who would give D4J those labels. Anyway we’re talking about the electoral commission here, not the police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    True Rex and mind blogging that both the PM and Children’s Commissioner have both had tried to have me imprisoned – several times . Over 200 court appearances since 2001 , all based on lies? How could this happen defies belief. I have beaten many of charges without the need for a twisted lying lawyer . Who said lies cannot run far because they short legs was fucking wrong . I can tell you Rex that injustice makes a man bitter, as you know, but there is nothing I can do about it, as our justice system is pure filth, just like our criminal government .

    This country is a cess pit of lies and corruption .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Conversely, if I spend $1000 on a pamphlet run, I run the risk of being prosecuted – though anyone putting that much time and money into a campaign should know the law – ignorance would be no excuse.

    So $1000 runs the risk of being prosecuted.
    What about $500?
    What about $200?
    What about $100?
    What about $50?
    What about $10?
    What about $1?

    Now:
    * Tell me where you judge “significant” to be.
    * Then tell me why that is significant, but the value below it isn’t.
    * Then tell me why we should believe you – why will the electoral commission just significance in the same way as you do.

    Because I don’t think you’re actually any more knowledgable than the rest of us. You don’t know, and all you can do is keep parroting “insignificant” without really giving it a meaningful definition (although at least you tried with the $1000 mark).

    …And how do you actually feel about knowing that you’re breaking the law, even IF prosecution is unlikely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    Roger Gnome – how long have you been a spokesperson for the Electoral Commission?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Adam Smith (890 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler Says:

    January 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
    You are right, of course, nome. The prospect of a prosecution for something like this (particularly when people know who is behind it) is very remote.

    THIS is where this legislation is at it’s most pernicious. The idea that law will not be applied depending on who is behind a comment is so offensive and so indicative of a totalitarian state of mind as to render one bereft of speech.

    Indeed it is the very uncertainty that is so insidious and where this apalling piece of legislation has the most impact and affects us all, for many people will not comment on issues for fear of breaking the law. Thus we have a law which many, especially Labour and their fellow travellers will say does not penalise free speech, for insignificant beaches, but in fact the law as written does precisely that. Plus it manifestly invites us to inform on our fellow citizens – shades of the Stasi and East Germany.

    It is so totally wrong that one’s ability as to speak one’s mind in any context whatsover, especially in this context should be subject to review or assessment by any organisation especially a government one.

    A formal constitution is an absolute essential with entrenched rights of free speech.

    This law is clearly changing the nature of society and leading us down the path of state control of thought, unless of course it is approved thought. Though of course we are already there with the media’s broad acceptance of Nicky Hager’s puerile writings as ‘holy writ’ and Creative NZ funding of the play based on his turgid and tawdry ‘book’. Note Marilyn Waring wrote a laudatory preface to said book.

    Big Sister is watching us. Ensure we all use Helenspeak and only think permitted thoughts .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Spam:

    If you’re running a “significant” campaign (by anyone’s definition) you should know the law – that’s the point. If you’re carrying your own home-made placard down the street, who in their right mind is going to consider that a “significant” election advertisement, and in the “public interest to prosecute”? It just isn’t credible to say that they could be prosecuted – they won’t be.

    Really, you guys appear to have yourselves all in a lather over nothing. Although this is kiwiblog I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “you guys appear to have yourselves all in a lather over nothing.’

    Just like the dozen or so parents alienated from their children over Christmas because of the Chester kiss Sue anti smacking law . I think someone on death row would have more credibility than you rogered gnomer !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Spam asks:

    …And how do you actually feel about knowing that you’re breaking the law, even IF prosecution is unlikely?

    Damn fine, thank you :-) Mike Moore said it better than I could: “it’s the solemn duty, even obligation, of citizens in a democracy to take on the powerful”.

    If a law is wrong, I’ll go out of my way to break it – it’s the only catalyst to have it changed. Like most people, I used to have respect for the law, law makers, and those who enforced it. Experience has taught me otherwise. And thus by their actions have the powers that be created a grumpy middle aged anarchist :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Really, you guys appear to have yourselves all in a lather over nothing. Although this is kiwiblog I guess.

    I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    Roger Gnome – does “anyone’s definition”(4:51) trump Annette’s “law of common sense”?

    Are you self-appointed as the Electoral Commission spokesperson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Rodger and his ilk have all the flash words but when it all boils down they are only snake oil salesmen. Rodger is saying “trust us”, I say fuck that. If you are asking the people to trust the corrupt, bent, steers, queers and deviants of the present administration then you have rocks in your head. This country is slowly been killed and EFA is but one of a thousand cuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Spam (588 comments) says:

    If you’re running a “significant” campaign (by anyone’s definition) you should know the law – that’s the point.

    And if its insignificant (by anyone’s definition), you’re still breaking the law.

    If you’re carrying your own home-made placard down the street, who in their right mind is going to consider that a “significant” election advertisement, and in the “public interest to prosecute”? It just isn’t credible to say that they could be prosecuted – they won’t be.

    What if I (say) want to spend the better part of the year discussing policies & which parties support them on usenet? Significant? not? I don’t bloody know. And neither do you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Look, who makes the decision on whether any individual or group breaks this law ? Is it crown law, which is just another liarbour controlled tentacle of deceit ? Helen will decide, as she is above the law, just ask Judge John Strettell.

    [DPF: Ultimately a Judge. To get to a Judge the Police have to decide to prosecute. Generally they will only do so if the Electoral Commission or Chief Electoral Officer has referred the issue to them]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Oscars Grouchy Mum (83 comments) says:

    I/S says in his blog: “It does affect those who want to spend big money in an effort to influence an election – and so it bloody well should.”

    So effectively this bill tells us speech is only free to those who are happy to sit on the side lines and let incumbents go to town spending tax payer money on giving us their view of how good they are.

    If you wish to publish a contrary view – sorry people speech is not free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    DPF: Ultimately a Judge.

    Not quite, DPF – most electoral law breaches (including some that only carry fines – like those relating to failing to put your home address on an electioneering website) can only be heard by a jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Graeme ,
    I am a bit confused here mate . Are you saying that electoral law breaches will be a matter for a jury trial ?High Court or District Court ?? Oh please, surely not, as the justice system has a backlog of 18,000 cases now . This absurd legislation will further add to the quagmire of unresolved cases . I presume police will serve summons ? I would have thought this was the last thing in the world that this country needs at present ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Okay – I’ll try to clear a couple of things up.

    The Electoral Act required the Electoral Commission (and Chief Electoral Officer) to report to the police any time they suspected a breach of the Electoral Act had been committed.

    They didn’t. If someone had committed a minor breach, they’d help them follow the law – did you realise you had to put your name on this/ that you had to file this form? etc. Even though an offence had been committed (when the billboard went up without an authorisation statement, for example), if it was fixed (the billboard changed to include the statement) or the small technically illegal behaviour not repeated, they tended not to worry about it – if you’d put up a hundred A4 posters on billboards at university telling people to vote one way or another without an authorisation statement the chance the Electoral authorities would refer you to the police was exceedingly low

    The EFA effectively codifies this practice, and states that the Electoral authorities do not have to refer to the police offences that are so inconsequential that there is no public interest in them being so referred. The potential inconsequence relates not to the campaign, but to the offence.

    An offence is inconsequential if it’s a mistake – e.g. you put up a billboard without realising the printing company had got your address wrong.

    An offence is inconsequential if you fix it or stop it when you are asked to – e.g. you spend $20,000 on election advertisements without registering, your campaign comes to the attention of the Electoral Commission who tells you you should have registered, and then you register.

    Certainly a heck of a lot of minor breaches won’t be acted upon because they are never brought to the attention of the authorities, but for those that are, the standard of inconsequentiality at the initial stage (i.e. with electoral authorities) is likely to be tough sell in situations where the offender won’t fix the problem.

    Again, that is not to say that once the electoral authorities report a matter to that police will prosecute – just because an offence is suspected by the electoral authorities doesn’t mean the cops can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and the test for there being sufficient public interest to prosecute is going to be a lot harder to overcome than something being so inconsequential it doesn’t investigation by the cops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    d4j – yes. District court.

    Most electoral law offences have to be heard by a jury – some serious ones don’t – like bribery or [im]personation – but many minor ones – for things like failing to put a name and address on an election advertisement cannot be heard by a judge alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Graeme is it or is it no the case, that notwithstanding the basis upon which a prosecution might be undertaken, that the EFA ‘criminalises’ breaches that prior toits passing, were not criminal acts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Graeme – I presume the alleged offender will be eligible for criminal legal aid lawyer representation – presuming they met qualifying standards regarding income ? That is, if the person charged can find a lawyer in New Zealand who understands this disgraceful law ? I do wonder how the judicial system will interpret this law when they don’t understand it ? Is NZ a place for grey law or a breeding ground for Black’s law of psychosis ?

    How the hell can seven dudes from the EB’s sect create so much fuss and worry for a clearly corrupt government is beyond any sane persons comprehension . No -one can dispute that, surely ? This stinks. This is why we need clear direction from a government that does not revolve around implementing legislation that is just shameful survival at all cost mentality . Clearly this country is on the edge of destruction regarding freedom of expression, which is a clear breach of the many human rights covenants that we have endorsed ?

    Why worry eh ? She’ll be right – Aunty Helen will fix it all .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome now Dad, the Act is law, and now it is carrion for the lawyers to pick on.
    A royal Commission into Electoral reform is needed. This Law is plainly corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    So correct Lee C – lawyers once again look the big winners here and I would not be surprised if we have more lawyers per head of population than any other country ?

    Lawyers should be pubically stoned !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Let’s all get worked up about nothing.

    For instance.

    It doesn’t take much sleuth work to find out that someone called Andy Moore is behind http://www.dontvotelabour.org.nz. He has a link to his Facebook page where you can see photos, find out his age, his likes and dislikes, more than enough to satisfy the electoral commission. THis ‘courageous’ man is ‘defying’ the law:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10485100
    Yeah right! Have another Tui.

    The same would apply to any blog. You can look up the owner of the IP. It is very hard to remain anonymous on the net.

    Also Graeme’s argument of pubic interest applies.

    DPF, you are certainly on a ‘rabble rousing mission’ with this one!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    I could have said publically stoned but those pubic lawyers are parasitic turds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    See even Kent has got “pubic” worries about this :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Interesting to note that Philip John artfully dodged the questions that would expose how very flawed it is. How did Spam put it?

    So $1000 runs the risk of being prosecuted.
    What about $500?
    What about $200?
    What about $100?
    What about $50?
    What about $10?
    What about $1?

    Now:
    * Tell me where you judge “significant” to be.
    * Then tell me why that is significant, but the value below it isn’t.
    * Then tell me why we should believe you – why will the electoral commission just significance in the same way as you do.

    Although I suspect that last just should be judge :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Kent Parker: The same would apply to any blog. You can look up the owner of the IP. It is very hard to remain anonymous on the net.

    Ok …

    DNS Admin (NIC-1467103) Google Inc.
    1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 US
    dns-admin@google.com +1.6502530000 Fax- +1.6506188571

    So … who does that Blogger.com site belong to? Not anonymous? Try this one for size. Register a domain. Did you have to put any real contact details? No. Not at all. You can leave them all blank. In fact, you can do most things anonymously. If you’re clever enough.

    And Kent, after seeing how the “public interest” line is used in favour of the Labour party for any number of activities. After seeing how Labour retrospectively changed the law to suit themselves. After seeing how Labour changed Electoral Law to benefit themselves.

    Do you really, honestly believe that they will not be keeping a close eye on their opposition while exerting political pressure for their own breaches to not be prosecuted?

    Remember – this is the political party that knowingly and wittingly defied the Electoral Comission in the last election. To believe they will not twist things in their own favour again is looking at it from a closed mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    (Them all for certain fields. I’ll have to double check which ones when I register my next one tonight ;) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Adam Smith (890 comments) says:

    Pascal, perhaps we could look at the significance test this way,

    if the issue is related to a candidate, where I understand there is now a limit of $4k in spending, then maybe 10% ie $400 is significant

    Yet many regard that in the context of electoral spend as piffling.

    This where this is all so wrong.

    And throughout people are dependent on the exercise of discretion, by political appointees and members of our politicised public service.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Yes, what if someone were to ask for donations on a blog for some money so a person could voice strong and unrelenting opinion against labour that will guarantee impact ground zero ? I mean to say with oil at US$ ton green backslap a barrel – fuel for plane drops will be expensive, helicopters ( if only ) etc… Let me think hard now . Bingo; at the very root of this political system is secrecy and Helen has devised a cunning plan to keep her critics in perpetual anxiety .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Hmmmm… we are invited to believe eger moron on the basis that;
    He has a rather snooty literary style and, well, that’s it really.

    Practically every time he visits kiwiblog (and then has the cheek to down-rate it in his rather humble opinion) he posts a glaring flaw, or makes something up to suit his own needs at the time.

    If he is called on it, on a good day he will retract, otherwise, he will insult whoever has the temerity to cross him. How many intellectuals do you know who would countenance, let alone engage in a discussion which is suggests that someone is a paedophile? Such is his calibre.

    His literary style is full of personal slights and offensive little jibes, all designed to turn the spotlight onto him, rather than on the issue at hand.

    My theory on this is that he is essentially an attention-seeker who only visits kiwiblog to wind people up. Not interested in the issue, rather in his ability to nail his credentials to a mast, like a prospective employee, or ambitious creep. A bit like an elderly James Sleep. except Sleep perhaps has a career ahead of him.

    And remember how eger moron assured everyone in a slightly pompous manner that the issues raised here about the EFB would be fixed at the Select Committee? Seems they weren’t, yet, rather than admit that the errors he claimed would be fixed are still errors, he now accuses those who point out the continued existence of various flaws and vagaries of ‘paranoia’.

    But from someone who plainly deludes himself into thinking he has a ‘hotline’ to the minds within Labour Party Strategy, and who has an immutable knowledge of how the police and electoral commission are motivated, I suppose paranoia, would merely be the other side of the coin he is flipping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Yes Lee C , a few of these lefty’s communists including Russell Brown, “eger moron”, rogered gnomer, Dulley , Creeper Cell etc… like to play silly wee pc war games . This is a well-known military tactic, used in the interests of rapid dehumanization .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Pascal, the IP address is just one of many ways to track someone down on the net. Essentially you have to go out of your way to make yourself truly anonymous.

    This particular individual, Andrew Moore, has his identity glaringly open to the world, but then he is just a 22 year old student who is part of a rabble that has clearly been aroused. The electoral commission would not be bothered with his case for more than a millisecond. Let’s get real.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Kent can you stop referring to Andy as “rabble ” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Kent – is it not a sign of the times that we are actually having this discussion – I mean about whether the Electoral Commission would be interested in Mr. Moore?

    A 22 year old student who is angered by a law he sees as an affront of his rights?

    I mean, when we are actually discussing the merits or methods or necessity of tracing an individual on the basis that he or she has made a political statement?

    And we are all ‘cool’ with this are we?

    Can no one who supports the EFA actually step back and reflect on how this Law has cast an ominous shadow over our lives?

    As much as the supporters of the EFA will try their damnedest to promote the idea that the furore over the EFA is a storm in a teacup, of concern to a small minority of righties who want to ‘buy’ elections etc. (yawn) blah blah… This is certainly not over, and it will not be until it is put right.

    So I suggest it is those who keep trying to minimise the oppostion to the EFA who need to ‘get real’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Kent is right though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    No James, Lee C is right. You and Kent Parker and your ilk are no better than the apathetic Germans of the 1930s who somehow found that everything the government of the day did to remove their liberties was ‘right though.’

    The only trouble was the government of the day was a gang of crooks. Just like our government of this day is a gang of crooks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    D4J. If you ever put your case forward with some degree of sense, i might have more sympathy for your plight, but you go on like a deluded banshy and wunder why people hold you in such distain.
    When your’e on your meds you come across with some good points, unfortunetly it doesn’t last long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Kent is not right James . Mr Parker thinks he is rather smart referring to anybody who opposes this terrible government EFA crap as ” rabble ” . Look in the cracked mirror you delinquents . Mind you, you are that indoctrinated you don’t know right from wrong . Both of you young chaps should get real or spin the wheel outta here, because the regime is coming down .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    And , Dalley go #### a camel !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    With all due respect to young master sleep, his “poltical knowledege base”, includes the remarkably confident assertion that the electoral commission approved the theft of $800,000, of taxpayer money to fund the 05 Labour party election campaign!!!!!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/a_new_website.html#comments

    I think that little whoosing noise is what remnant of what respectability said master has, flying out the window.

    Surely its a nice night out there in the Wairarapa. Come on mate your only 16 once, go out and act like one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    dad4justice says:

    Kent can you stop referring to Andy as “rabble ” ?

    And while we’re at it, Kent, Andy and similar rabble become “roused” – as in “rabble rouser” not aroused. Well I suppose he does occasionally become aroused, but if that’s due to politics then he has more problems than a potential EFA prosecution to worry about :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Cheers, Rex. It is easy to string a 22 year old along, yeah and it’s got nothing to do with certain hormones.

    I think that the EFA is a load of bollocks, but at the same time I don’t agree with the Al Farrar approach to it, endless posts, anti govt preaching, creating a training ground for bricks through windows. It’s an extremist reaction.

    At least the National Party has more political nouse than to donate money to DPF’s cause or in any way be associated with it.

    More time with Auckland girl better spent.

    [DPF: You are a nasty little creep aren't you. I wondered who would be the first person to stoop that low to blame the brick attack on me. Well done for winning cretin of the year.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “the Al Farrar approach to it, endless posts, anti govt preaching, creating a training ground for bricks through windows.”

    Oh Kent, you a real nasty piece of work aren’t you . First you try to accuse David of promoting stupid brick throwing acts, but you fail to understand he has said he is totally against such action .

    “Training ground ” – what a comment – get to my age boy before you start slinging such shit !! We ALL know the responsibilities and consequences of our actions boy!!

    Your types are the people who should be held accountable for the sit on the fence back stab approach . Nice one Kent and by the way when you coming back to MENZ to put the knife in ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Kent Parker assumes a patronizing tone – Kiwiblog is the incubator for brick throwers.

    The problem is Kent the EFA is obscene on so many levels. Some faced with what they consider unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental freedoms will act in rash ways – and some of those will face the full weight of the State in dealing with these new “political crimes”

    In terms of the mischief the Act is supposed to address there is no credible evidence that money can buy elections – money is but one factor in political success or failure.

    The EFA attacks fundamental rights to free speech in order to address a mischief that does not exist.

    Those who breach any of its technical provisions must rely on the discretion of the Electoral Commission and or the Police not to pursue the matter.

    Such all encompassing provisions regulating political competition and the freedom of expression coupled with broad bureaucratic discretion regarding prosecution is usually the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

    Worst of all, Labour has now made fundamental electoral arrangements the play thing of those that can summon up the barest of Parliamentary majorities. Despite National’s pledge I am not sure they can actually put the genie back in the bottle.

    Regulation once established tends to grow upon itself. For example National might achieve a liberalisation in some areas of the law but opt for say special prosecutorial arrangements (special prosecutors always seek to justify their existence). They were certainly keen on this last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. calendar girl (1,232 comments) says:

    Kent Parker: “… creating a training ground for bricks through windows.”

    That comment is gratuitous, unjustified and highly offensive.

    You don’t have to agree with our host’s views, but you do owe him an unqualified apology for this baseless, personal slur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    I bought a tee shirt before the last election with with the words bye bye Helen on it . It was of course perfectly legal when I bought it.

    Would I be breaking the law if i now walked along the footpath on Queen Street? I have a spare if anyone wnats to tes the law with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Calander are you DPF’s lady?

    Just interested in knowing. All your comnents seem to around correcting people and standing up for DPF.

    [DPF: James - don't be a prat.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Rex W is right in most of what he says. When people cannot understand the law, and are prosecuted or not prosecuted depending upon how much they might irritate the government, you have tyranny.

    Most people with have any knowledge of history know that tyranny is usually the end game of leftists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Chris Diack

    Such all encompassing provisions regulating political competition and the freedom of expression coupled with broad bureaucratic discretion regarding prosecution is usually the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

    Well said.

    It’s time for a change. History is littered with examples of what happens next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Hey James

    You wanted to debate the spin that the likes of David Farrar, Cameron Slater, Mike Moore, Andy Moore, and John Boscowen have “wrongly” put on this bill.

    Surely that’s more interesting than if DPF is banging calendar girl, unless of course DPF wants to share it via his web cam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. dave (988 comments) says:

    Without wanting to get involved in silly debage with kids like JS here, if you want serious comment My comment is here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    “Most people with have any knowledge of history know that tyranny is usually the end game of leftists.”

    But Redbaiter, the Lefties have an ACADEMIC PAPER which shows that authoritarians are most likely to be right wing.

    You see, what those on the right actually say doesn’t matter, they all lie anyway. It is what they don’t say, and more importantly the way in which they don’t say it, that PROVES them to be the real authoritarians.

    Whereas those on the left, who defer to authority far more readily and call for the strengthening of authority with much more vigour, are doing it for the good and proper reasons so it doesn’t count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. john (478 comments) says:

    I have noticed a trend ,When young j sleep is abusing posters ,he sounds like clark when her backs up,you know the look ,taunt,red bloodshot eyes,vemon in her voice and you know some low level plebe jobs been flushed down the bog. .Do you reckon the plebe left posters on this blogg practice vemon by,watch TV1 clips of witchy helen in full cry or arseholes like mallard destroying someones career

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Richard Hurst (857 comments) says:

    If prosecutions do take place under the EFA this year and during the election, is it conceivable Labour could have any chance of winning? If somehow they did scrape back in with the help of the Greens and the Maori Party to give them a one or two seat majority would you accept such a result as legitimate? If not, what do you do then….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. dave (988 comments) says:

    REVOLT!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    John are you saying that the cadaverous supreme leader has the sleeper cell hooked up to a sophisticated and highly expensive liarbour robotic network ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Richard Hurst (857 comments) says:

    Yes dave that is one possible outcome. However there are alot of ‘ifs’ in my comment so I don’t think we are about to become Kenya.
    I think Mike Moore is right- the EFA will not last out 2008, in its current form anyway, the problems it will cause Labour will become to great.
    To be honest,even though I went on the ant-EFB march CHCH I can’t really see myself taking to the streets throwing petrol bombs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    You are a nasty little creep aren’t you.

    If this is the best response you can come up with DPF, you fully deserve the consequences of what you are doing, which you don’t seem to even partly understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. dave (988 comments) says:

    Kent, you are a nasty little creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Excuse me Kent Parker but all I have ever seen you do is attack the credibility of good people on the Internet . A true coward. A gutless keyboard snake !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Nice one Kent and by the way when you coming back to MENZ to put the knife in ?

    D4J, I stopped posting at MENZ after some of its members started threatening women and children in their homes as a means of trying to get their message across. While many who post there have genuine issues, there are some for whom personal weaknesses outweigh their perceived injustice as they stoop to angry and violent attacks. Entries in the blog clearly supported such acts.

    Your language, D4J, on the whole can be considered to be angry and violent. Angry violent words one day can lead to angry violent attacks the next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Of course play the ol’ “angry ” card Kent, so typical from some a weak character . I would expect nothing else from a spineless jellyfish sub species that unfortunately you categorize yourself with your venomous lies . You are a true creep . I actually feel sorry for such a pathetic individual as you Mr Parker !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Kent – can I do a Trevor Mallard and ask you outside for a fight ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. JamesBLUNT (5 comments) says:

    I have noticed a trend ,When young j sleep is abusing posters ,he sounds like clark when her backs up,you know the look ,taunt,red bloodshot eyes,vemon in her voice and you know some low level plebe jobs been flushed down the bog. .Do you reckon the plebe left posters on this blogg practice vemon by,watch TV1 clips of witchy helen in full cry or arseholes like mallard destroying someones career

    And I have noticed that you john are the exact same person as dad4justice.

    If this is the best response you can come up with DPF, you fully deserve the consequences of what you are doing, which you don’t seem to even partly understand.

    He’s been learning from your local Burns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    D4J,

    Sigh…!?@#

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    So Kent, clearly it is not right for me to suggest violence, but it is ok for a Labour front bench Minister to provoke physical violence in what is supposed to be the highest court in the land and the place of utmost integrity ?

    To JamesBlunt – bollocks to you coward !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. john (478 comments) says:

    JamesBlunt – SIGH…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. longbow (118 comments) says:

    why someone got a ticket at the spot doing 61 in a 50 zone, and Helen Clark did 150+ KM and police refuse to investigate?

    now who will be responsible to prosecute anyone breaching the act? police.

    why would i trust police again, that they won’t chase my average joe arse, and not letting cheap Labour bastards go?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Dear longbow, the police are just violin strings belonging to the orchestra of liarbour lickspittles. Maybe one day the string will snap and we will have some common sense policing from a strong unit who are not handcuffed to the ideology’s of a corrupt and vile communist supreme conductor ?

    We can only wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Kent and JamesBLUNT are right.

    Aside – I got another prank call today from somebody claiming to be D4J. He called me around the time Peter Burns was on here blogging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    Hi dad4justice! This is your wakeup call!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Mark (496 comments) says:

    We only have to look at the last election where Labour broke the law and were not prosucuted.

    The police did everything in their power to ensure that no case was going to be brought against the government.

    Labour has a track record of interfering in the public service and putting in thier own stooges to push thier agenda.

    If you think it won’t happen in the EC, then your are a moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Aside – I got another prank call today from somebody claiming to be D4J. He called me around the time Peter Burns was on here blogging.

    Which is one example of why I object to the government requiring me to put my real name & address to any political posts on the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    More malicious cowardly smears on my character James . The way your are going the Republicans might well get Christchurch East come election time ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    The Republicans have about as much a chance of taking Christchurch East as you have of becoming a MP ;-) .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    I think I’ll print this thread and put it every voters letter box just like I did for the Fathers Right cause !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. john (478 comments) says:

    Want a laugh, ,i got done for doing 61,in a 50 k zone by plimmerton at 7.am, first ticket ever).I asked for the photo,and copy of camera certificate, and noticed its +/- accuracy certificate could have shown me as possibly going slower ,at least the police paperwork cut into the cops take for the liarbour consolidated fund.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Remember Lieanne ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. andymoore (74 comments) says:

    I’ll just let people know about the Don’t Vote Labour Forum. http://www.dontvotelabour.org.nz/forum/

    Regards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    John

    i got done for doing 61,in a 50 k zone…

    You see the problem you have is you didn’t apply the Labour defense.

    If you had said to the officer that you were not the only person speeding and the law is confusing they would have said ‘fair enough – move on’.

    It’s all about acting like a child – pointing at others and saying “they did it too” is the standard defense of the socialists and it works well for them.

    Try it – see how you get on. However I don’t think that common plebs like you and I will have quite as much luck as the corrupt socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. James Sleep (477 comments) says:

    Andy Moore – How much money is Mike Moore putting into the website?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    OMG – Here we go again – the immature boy is distracting the thread with policies of envy – how much money has Andy Moore got….

    He’s got more than me so he should be denigrated…. whaaaa whaaaa rich prick… working class scab.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    Meh Mike’s probably just feeling a bit raw at the fact he didn’t even serve a complete term, let alone 6 months!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    for god’s sake sleep, what is it with you leftist children? I suggest a posted an age limit on this site to keep out the puerile infants.

    Also getting pretty bored with you Peter D4J, squabbling with children is not adult behaviour. Can I remind you of the old adage, winning an argument with a child is like winning the 100m at the special olympics…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    Shooting the messenger again – guess it’s all that left for the socialists now that the public are waking up to the tyranny of their authoritarian power at any price politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Also getting pretty bored with you Peter D4J,”

    Point acknowledged diety, however I prefer the egg and spoon race .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    I’m sorry burt but if you are labeling Labour as socialists you have a lot to learn about politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    Ha ha ha. Who said “We are socialists and proud of it” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    Having a social conscience does not make you a socialist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    Clue: He’s also called people rich pricks, working class scabs and has recently had an epiphany and decided tax cuts are a great idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Proud socialists like Hugo Chavez and Helen Clark both have the same initials HC and vile tactics, that is, undermine freedom of speech .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    Having a social conscience does not make you a socialist.

    Excellent – we are getting somewhere. Also you will possibly work out one day that having a social conscience is not something that is only present in left wing supporters. I know that years of “socialist propaganda” have been filling blind followers of corrupt leaders with this thought – but it’s simply not true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. andymoore (74 comments) says:

    Haven’t spoken to Mike Moore – would love to. He is surely a man you look up to James – once-leader of the Labour party.

    James, if you have an argument, then go for it. However if all you pro-Labour people can do is attack the medium and the message, then don’t even bother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Does anybody know if the socialists that infest parliament have a moral conscience ?

    I know that they have a strong social conscience, because they’re always sipping socialist champagne !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    Political compass actually puts Labour to the right of centre. But ah well, they’re biased aren’t they. It’s all a conspiracy. A big conspiracy against your precious John Key and National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. neontiger (99 comments) says:

    You know not even the most right wing political scientists would even attempt to link Labour to socialists. You’re all dreamers and you’re all wrong but kudos for trying :-) .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    Political compass puts me right of centre as well. Actually at about the same place that Labour is – exactly. This probably explains why I was (for a long time) a Labour supporter. The reasons why I have moved away from Labour is because Labour have moved away from “Labour”.

    All that is left of the “Labour party” is the name. Ever since Labour have been taxing low paid workers higher than a tory govt in Aussie and taxing high paid workers less than the Aussie tory govt – I started asking questions about who was left and who was right. I made my choices – seems like you and Sleep just like the party name and don’t give a jot about what they actually stand for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Political compass actually puts Labour to the right of centre.”

    Bollocks tiger, if the Labourism were anymore left they would be called Stalin puppets, hell bent on power ,as they try and classify good decent citizens as political opponents, intellectual enemies of the state and religious dissenters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    neontiger

    You know not even the most right wing political scientists would even attempt to link Labour to socialists.

    I’m sorry burt but if you are labeling Labour as socialists you have a lot to learn about politics.

    I guess what you are really saying here is that Dr. Cullen has a lot to learn about politics… I’d also say he has a lot to learn about economics – but that’s my own opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    A caustic pommy history teacher in charge of the doe ray me !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    D4J

    He’s a looser, end of story. Notice he hasn’t challenged Wishart over the stories about him being involved in disgusting events in dirty o’l Dunners involving under age girls and animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    I am a Labour supporter and believe that Labour still retains it’s core values – That being a party that stands up for the working class. I note we are living in an ever changing world. Capitalism and globalism are chomping up our country in one big gulp and people have become money greedy.

    Labour still believe in equal rights for all. Labour are about equality. Labour have raised the minimum wage every year. They have introduced WFF. Labour have introduced payed parental leave and extended it. Labour have extended the right to be recognised legally by the state to homosexual couples.

    Labour are still here. The problem is economic force – That inevitably means they cannot do everything they feel needs to be done.

    So pulleeeaasse, stop this crap about Labour being corrupt communists etc etc.

    Under National they remove workers rights. They will cut the welfare, they will not raise the minimum wage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    Labour still believe in equal rights for all.

    Excluding the EB – oh and any others who disagree with their agenda.

    Come on get with the program, the simple minded “Labour good” “National bad” school of blog posting is so 2006.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    Equal rights for all was racist last time a National party person suggested it. What has changed to make it a good thing under Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    burt – The problem is the EB were deceptive. They did everything in their power to hide their links to the National party and that disgusting smear campaign they ran. Man that sooo works in with their religious believes.

    They did not come clean, where as donors to Labour were open and transparent about their donations to the party.

    The other thing is you didn’t find the unions running smear campaigns against other parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    Positive descrimination is healthy ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    Labour have raised the minimum wage every year.

    And out of interest, 2007 was the first year that the minimum wage was lifted a similar proportion to the the increase the MP’s got.

    All other years MP have been getting 7-9% increases while the minimum wage has been moving at circa 2-3%. The self serving bastards are giving crumbs to the workers while they enjoy their own cake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    The EB quite simply ran a parallel campaign to Nationals, meaning National would have had more money being spent canvassing support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    burt – is that all you can argue?

    Don’t be pathetic.

    MP’s salaries have nothing to do with this argument.

    Did you see National MP’s complaining? No

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Harry I don’t think it was healthy for New Zealand having Labour Ministers appearing in the docks in our judicial system in 2007 .How many can we expect this year dear ? The core value of Lairbour is corruption and everything else revolves around intimidation and power control. You are clearly deluded if you think that the Helen Clark Labour government is anything else ? Disgusting perverts the whole bloody lot of em !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    So if comparing MP’s salary increases to the increases in the minimum wage has nothing to do with this then comparing how a CEO gets a $40K bonus while workers get buttons would be off limits when discussing public provision vs private provision of essential services… Yawn… I don’t want to hear that Labour are behaving like the worst example of corporate governance that the Labour supporters love to hate.

    As for National having more money – We’ve been over this hundreds of times. Labour said after 2005 that the additional $800K spent on electioneering didn’t effect the outcome of the election. – Let me guess – when National spend more money it’s evil but when Labour spend more money it’s just fine by you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    D4J – A little rich coming out of your mouth. I don’t want to bring up your past but it’s a little more active in the docks than 1 Cabinet Minister.

    You have no substance in your claims that:

    “The core value of Lairbour is corruption and everything else revolves around intimidation and power control”

    For you this is just a talkfest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    So did the $900k National spent (Untaxed) on TV advirtising make much difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    I think so, Darnton vs Clark was heading in the right direction until Labour killed it off. There could have been accountability and consequences for their illegal behaviour but I guess all parties were treated equally and given a get out of jail free pass – by Labour.

    I would have loved to have seen National dragged through court for thier actions – if they were found guilty there would have been consequences. Labour took away that opportunity. Next time I’m caught speeding I’ll try the “other did it too” defense and see if you are talking complete shit when you say “Labour are about equality”. Lets see if I’m equal to a Labour MP when it comes to slipping out of being convicted for breaking the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. john (478 comments) says:

    Harry dont give me that crap about labour being the party of the worker .As a looong time member of the epmu ,which tries to push that line , (i love debating this point with my local union official,) but harry are you trying to tell me that arsehole mallard,has my interest at heart, the whistle blower whose livelyhood has been devistated,by this arsehole might disagree with you Harry (DONT VOTE LIARBOUR) see the light ,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    So lets talk about another issue. Do National care about NZ workers?

    In the 90’s we saw a total melt down of workers rights. I believe this is a breach of human rights. I also ask the question:

    Does National really believe in democracy?

    Will we see another ECA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    Do National care about NZ workers…. I think the question can only be framed as “Do the current National party MP’s care about NZ workers?”

    Is there any wiggle room in your position for allowing you to look at the current situation or are we stuck in what you either remember or have been told about the 90’s ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    John – The EPMU is an affliated union of the Labour Party.

    Maybe you might want to look at the kind of policies they promote and then tell me if they are the part of the Labour party that are about workers.

    I will assure you they don’t take crap and where they see issues in Labour they bring them up.

    Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean they are not doing it.

    The EPMU is an excellent union. You really should know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    burt – Kate Wilkinson is extremely right. She is also one that will promote and muster another ECA in the next National govt. She is a dirty capitalist that agrees with the expoitation of young workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “D4J – A little rich coming out of your mouth. I don’t want to bring up your past but it’s a little more active in the docks than 1 Cabinet Minister.”

    Please bring it up Harry ( sonic in disguise ) so predicable, same style of writing .Anyway Hurry up Harry ; I thought it was a mandate for aspiring politicians to have extensive forensic history ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    Define “dirty capitalist” ? Is this a technical union supports term ? A bit like CEO’s getting 10% increases are dirty capitalists while the workers get 3%.

    You know like dirty capitalist MP’s getting 7-9% increases every year while the minimum wage gets lifted by 3% (except 2007).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    “The other thing is you didn’t find the unions running smear campaigns against other parties.”

    PFFFT! O rly?

    “She is a dirty capitalist..””

    Oh, so what you are saying is that you are an irrelevant moonbat? Gotcha.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Link Hurry up Harry and watch sonic high tail it outta here .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. john (478 comments) says:

    Harry have you had a rush of blood to the head,so many posts in such a short time, you will be dead from posting by the election.
    DONT VOTE LIARBOUR, ps wheres helen holidaying

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    sonic – your friend Kimble is here, do come out to play ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Labour still believe in equal rights for all. Labour are about equality. Labour have raised the minimum wage every year.

    Labour have legislated arbitrary increases in wages for some sectors, that cause increased inflation, rather than increased productivity.

    They have introduced WFF.

    Labour have legislated disciminatory policies that require those that make a choice NOT to have children to subsidise those that decide to. This policy causes ridiculously huge marginal tax rates, which trap people into low incomes and welfare dependence.

    Under National they remove workers rights. They will cut the welfare, they will not raise the minimum wage.

    Or alternatively, increase productivity, reduce inflation and provide incentives for some people to increase their standing on their own, without having to rely on government handouts. They might even make it so that employees who steal from their employers can be dismissed without massive payouts or legal fees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Bok (740 comments) says:

    The EPMU also told one of it’s members to go away when she tried to lay an internal sexual harassment complaint. The wanted to do it internally to protect the union. However the person harassing her was a delegate. Guess what. She got told to go away by the union and a smear campaign started against her (very Mallard).

    So now we have taken the matter to the cops. Great union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Spam (588 comments) says:

    “The other thing is you didn’t find the unions running smear campaigns against other parties.”

    Well, actually, the PSA did… And who were the ones issues the fake ‘eviction notices’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Another bold fighter defending the “party talking points” finds out that the talking points are all bullshit. Cobbled together lies designed to fool the narrow minded who vote for the same party that their mummy and daddy always voted for without question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    I am sorry ‘Dirty capitalist’ was a little too personal. My apologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    I say I what I think and the Union stinks, but not as much as bent cops getting huge pay outs after despicable and callous actions as a member of the force that takes an oath to protect society . Yeah right – corrupt cess pit country !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    HarryB

    No it wasn’t a little too personal – it was a little bit rabid.

    Do you not see how MP’s behave like dirty capitalists and are supported by people who claim to hate dirty capitalists?

    Do you think it’s an inability to see the likeness or an unwillingness to admit it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    I am not a supporter of Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Bok (740 comments) says:

    And HarryB rather than just spraying make believe fantasies about Labour’s social conscience have a read here http://www.stuff.co.nz/4344058a20475.html
    Shall I list those who have benefitted instead?
    Try Navman
    Maybe some hip hoppers
    Perhaps the rugby union (the poor buggers are only worth a few hundred million)
    How about Team New Zealand?

    Good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “I am sorry ‘Dirty capitalist’ was a little too personal. My apologies.”

    I say scumbag fetid socialist . My apologies sonic .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. HarryB (16 comments) says:

    d4j like they don’t have control over your actions, they do not have control over what individual police get up to. If there is a problem then you make a complaint and it gets investigated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Save the snails and culturally sensitive frogs, but stuff the people with disabilities . I hope they are preparing an entire cell block for these criminal government sods ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Bok (740 comments) says:

    And then HarryB let’s look at who got the highest honors presented by this government. A social worker perhaps? A volunteer fireman hurt in the line of saving some-one in the community.
    No perhaps a volunteer that works at one of the food-banks run by those despicable christians?
    Surely not a dirty capitalist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    D4J

    I think it’s all about equal rights… You see if National did this there would be large cries of “nasty” etc etc. But when Labour do it it’s because of somthing that happened in the 90’s….

    It’s a laugh watching Labour supporters crucify their own integrity to defend the indefensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bok

    That would be a dirty capitalist that supports Labour – this kind of dirty capitalist is not denigrated. Only dirty capitalists that support National are bad. Keep up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    burt the link that bok posted is deplorable and just shows you how much’ out of step’ we are with normality. These labour fools are criminally liable . What a disgraceful government .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Burt you are right, I apologize, some-one worth say 50 million according to Labour is a rich prick but one worth a billion or so and who gives money to labour is a very deserving man. I bet every one of his workers jumped up and screamed “Hoorah!” when they saw the honors list. I have nothing against Mr Glen and in fact respect his success. It is just so unfortunate that the rest are unprincipled capitalist bastards (or non labour supporters) .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    D4J

    I was appalled when I read that link, although not surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bok

    I also respect Owen Glenn’s success. I don’t however respect the double standards that left wing supporters apply to their leaders and successful business people. If Owen Glenn donated to any party other than Labour he too would have been called a rich foreign bag man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Even more appalling burt and something that HarryB can enlighten us on. In the last year more than 10 people I know personally (I know of many more cases but dont know the people) have flown over to Australia for cancer treatment. They were fortunate, they had the money to, or knew people who could give them the money to go. The treatments can be performed here, but the money spent on the health sector is swallowed up by the bureaucrats. An old man gets denied dialyses because it’s to expensive to waste on a man his age. All under labour and while they are sitting on billions of dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Bok (740 comments) says:

    However Mr B has done a runner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Harry b keep coming I would rather read your opinions than some of the smug gits who often post here.

    By the way, don’t be fooled by the label on the can – kiwiblog is not a sanctuary for right-wing nutters, so much as a place where all get to express their opinions, whether they are agreed with or not.

    Actually you will find a lot of Labour supporters visit here under multiple identities and anonymous monikers to berate the Exclusive Brethren for their ‘lack of transparency’ – go figure. They will also support gongs for multi-millionaires who live abroad but donate half a mill. to the Labour Party.
    I suppose they think it is ok to do that if it involves supporting a political opinion they agree with.

    In the meantime, as a result of Labour’s double standard when it comes to parallel campaignings (see unions for Labour, v EB for National) everyone is now reduced to looking over their shoulders before they express a political opinionin case it might be somehow against the ‘public interest’ and be subject to prosecution. Everyone that is except the unions, and millionaires who live abraod and donate to Labour, of course. Again, go figure…

    ‘Labour’ on the other hand does not do waht it says on the can. It is an oligarchical self-perpetuating sanctuary of priviledge, which has managed, like coca cola, to successfully keep its branding and fool its consumers into thinking that it is ‘the real thing’. if you don;t think this is accurate, look at the big money in the international labout movement and the international union movement, then you can start to see some perspective when you accuse a party of ‘globalism’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bok

    A friend of mine broke his arm last Sunday (30th December) he sat around in Lower Hutt hospital till Tuesday afternoon before it was operated on. 48 hours waiting for a simple procedure….

    Another friend of mine is a senior Dr in Wellington hospital. He keeps me well informed about the horrendous state of the health system. Child cancer suffers are being sent to CHCH, entire families are being up-rooted to spend precious time with their sick children while health ministry staff numbers and salaries balloon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Bok (740 comments) says:

    I have been involved in the health sector to an extent and under Labour we have gone from first world to third world status. Great social conscience. And then HarryB posts on the Carbon tourism threat that “money’s not everything” please. Why does the left keep sending children to disrupt these blogs? (Or people with the intelligence of teenagers)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    The biggest problem in this country today is that the govt are rich and the people are poor. This is where the dissent starts and is also the biggest point the supporters of authoritarian govt will not allow themselves to acknowledge.

    A govt sits on surpluses of billions while low paid workers watch the relativity of their earnings plummet compared to the things they dream of owning – like a house – a reliable car etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    “Why does the left keep sending children to disrupt these blogs?”

    You would think the ludicrous left would be happy with the theatre provided over at the Paris Hilton soft news blog or the foaming over at sub standard sewage farm blog.

    Go to kiwiblogblog if you really want a head spin .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Surge in highly paid staff at Health Ministry

    The Health Ministry has more than doubled its number of highly paid staff in five years, a parliamentary report reveals.

    The number of staff earning more than $100,000 has increased from 94 in 2002 to 194 in the latest financial year.

    Meanwhile a patient waits 48 hours to get a broken arm re-set and cancer patients fly to Aussie for treatment….

    How long will it take to repair the damage this govt has done to our once proud health service. Will we be talking about the failed policies of the 2000’s well past 2020 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    Burt (12.39pm) you are correct.

    That problem stems from the ‘lefts’ view that the central authority (here the govt) is paramount and the people’s needs follow that, when it should be completely opposite. This is proved amply by Cullen’s reference to any tax cut as a “dividend”, Cullen’s description of tax cuts as a “cost”, and the idea that all resources must be centrally controlled for the greater good.

    People of the left – this is called communism. Dont resile from that description of you and your ideas. Accept it like the men and women you are. Communist ideas to a ‘t’.

    Then, people of the left, realise that communism is a recognised failed system. Central control does not work well.

    Give the power back to the people. Two suggestion on how to do that – 1. start by giving them back their money. 2. put more issues to binding referendums. I would rather live by the referendum of a shopping mall than the ideas of the current slop of govt MPs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. dad4justice (8,219 comments) says:

    Spot on vto – why do we need big sister government when we could easily be governed through small government by a binding referendum system .

    Makes sense to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    Gee, I wonder if Owen Glenn comes under Cullen’s definition of ‘rich prick’? No wonder folks with a few neurones to rub together, and who are not afraid of work hard, leave this country in droves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Bok (740 comments) says:

    The major problem that NZ faces, is that the damage done over the last 9 years will be very hard if not impossible to fix. Education and health has suffered to a point where we now have a generation of people form the Sleeps to the PhillipJohns that has a sense of entitlement that far overreaches the normal left sense of entitlement. The scary part is that with young people who might be classic liberal etc, or more right leaning, the education system has been able to breed a sense of entitlement into them as well. The socialist has been blindingly successful in creating a generation, so politicly correct and so dependent of the state, that it can only get worse.

    The dependency needs funding and the money is running dry. The credit debt in NZ is about to hammer the last nail in the coffin. Like the once proud All Blacks a once strong proud nation will simply be a historical fact.

    The reason people are going to Australia is because they are leaving a country with a once eiroic history going to a country with a wildly exciting future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden

    That topic is covered here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/no_right_turn_wrong_on_the_law.html#comment-389705

    Owen Glenn is not a rich prick – he’s a good guy, he supports Labour!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Man sometimes writing in a second or third language makes you look goofy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bok

    A whole generation of ‘This country owes me a living’ types. It will end in tears !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    I agree Bok. The world has changed and the Genie has escaped the bottle.
    I have a number of friends and business acquantices who are looking to emigrate if Labour go another term. It will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for a lot of folk. Including me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Burt it’s more a whole generation of “Everybody else owes me a living”
    But more than that is the “It’s my right to take that..” attitude that is the killer.
    Have a look at how families squabble over inheritance. I am sure it is ten times worse than it used to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden

    Same goes for me. My wife and I will close down our two businesses and up sticks to Aussie if Labour win in 2008. The people who relied on us for income will be fine – Labour has a grand plan to make sure they will get their place in the bread and toilet paper queues as long as they wear their grey overalls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Bok

    Yes agree – “Everybody else owes me a living” is exactly what it is. I was recently cut out of my fathers inheritance because I ‘Don’t need the money’. The unemployed and lazy members of the family decided that they needed it more than I did and no drama cutting me out. I’m not going to fight it because they do need it more than I do – however that’s not the point – I’m as entitled to it as any of them…. Needless to say I’m from a family of Labour voters….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    hear hear. I call again for Southland to cede and become its own nation! Tim Shadbolt are you listening? Rescue us from this useless bunch of eggs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    ….And the grey overalls will all be size XXXXXXL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. john (478 comments) says:

    did anyone sigh at that story in todays dompost,.about a northern prison.Administration wanted the crimes to have a barbie (this is a prison,remember), but the warders,were a bit peeved after a recent riot where they had boiling water thrown at them and given the bash, IT WAS CALLED OFF, but they could have watched their new lcd, and eatig a steak, that helen, provides.SIGH :( our poor countries gettig rooted from all sides the crims were going to provide the steak ,but shit they are inside.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Paul I believe there is no doubt that Labour will be back. Maybe not legally but since when has that been a problem for this administration?
    I also believe that the damage to the economy is yet to be realized. For national to have any chance they have to follow the breadcrumb trail of AGW. And it does not matter any more that it is based on dodgy science, the fact remains that it has reached critical mass as far as the general public are concerned. Kyoto will sink NZ and our industries. There is no doubt. The poor will need massive handouts to cope with fuel and electricity costs. The list goes on. and on and on. There is no doubt that Helen Clark has been the most corrupt PM (admitted fraud on signing paintings) presiding over the most corrupt administration (Pledge card, Dynhoven eligibility, etc) in this countries history,
    but make no mistake! They have fought their war well and I am afraid the battle and the war will be their’s. It might be over the ruins of NZ but since when have being in-charge of ruins every mattered to their ilk. Look at Cuba, Venezuela, Korea and Zimbabwe.

    The writing was on the wall when the nation said in a referendum by 97% that they wanted to go one way and she said “No you dont. you did not understand the question you stupid people” and we all said meekly “okay”. And rewarded her with two more terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    if only the entire system could be split. Those that want a ‘left’ system and those that want a ‘right’ system. Then people could choose which system to come ‘under’. That would be most amusing to watch. Separate taxation systems, separate health, separate welfare, etc etc. Forget about the techincal difficulties for a second – which do you think people would choose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    vto which would the deadbeats choose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    yes Lee C, them, and the working types so staunchly left such as union-strong industries like teaching. I suspect they would abandon their cherished ideologies when the reality of their system actually bit so close to home.

    Actually, people already have this choice in a wider context. Let’s examine which people choose. Ummmm – which way do the refugees go between cuba and usa? which way did they go between east and west germany?

    A choice between ‘left’ and ‘right’ systems within a country – the ultimate in democratic choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Well since this thread still seems to be going, I should clarify that when I responded to Kent Parker yesterday it may have seemed I was calling Andy Moore “rabble” in a pejorative sense. I wasn’t. I consider myself one of the rabble as that’s how the citizenry is viewed by the powers that be.

    Meanwhile, Bok predicts:

    …we now have a generation of people form the Sleeps to the PhillipJohns that has a sense of entitlement that far overreaches the normal left sense of entitlement. …the education system has been able to breed a sense of entitlement into them as well.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong Bok but based on a very small sample size (my own children and their friends) there might be hope for NZ yet. They’re growing up in Trevor Mallard’s electorate – Labour heartland if ever there was – and they’re struggling (despite my doing what I can – and battling IRD’s ridiculous and opressive ‘child support’regime to ensure my money goes to my children and not the state – but that’s another thread).

    As a result they’re disenchanted with politics in general and Labour in particular. Their stepbrother and sister, in their 20s, are exactly the same. Ironically my elderly parents – factory workers and previously Labour voters – express the same views.

    So while there’s a growing number of intellectual leftists being bred by schools and universities, who can espouse support for this government because they themselves are well insulated from the effects of those policies, I’d argue there’s an even larger number of disenchanted people who trust no one, believe no promises, and have all but given up hope.

    The challenge is for a party, a movement or even a single person (to begin with, at least) to harness this feeling into some sort of positive push for change. To capture the hearts and minds of those people doesn’t require talk of left vs right – they’re only interested in what works. It means promising a return of the right to make their own decisions and control their own destinies, through referenda and other means.

    Offer those people their lives back, and I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at what they could do to turn NZ around.

    The question is, who’s going to make that offer? Not National, from what I’ve seen. Not the poodles. Not the Greens. The only people successfully tapping into that desire for self-determination (but, understandably, only for a sector of society) is the Maori Party. And look how successful they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The writing was on the wall when the nation said in a referendum by 97% that they wanted to go one way and she said “No you dont. you did not understand the question you stupid people” and we all said meekly “okay”. And rewarded her with two more terms.”

    Damn right. A measure of what spineless socialist lamers so many NZers are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Bok (740 comments) says:

    And that Rex is why I believe it is too late. There is no one there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    well said rex w. agreed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    Rex wilderstrom said:

    “…I’d argue there’s an even larger number of disenchanted people who trust no one, believe no promises, and have all but given up hope…”

    Sure, there are as many variations on the theme as you care to look for. I would argue there are a large-ish number of people who are aware of how political power has been abused by this coalition government, but know how politics can be used for the good of NZ; who trust no one theoretically, but will know when to extend trust in reality; believe no promises, but give their own word and keep it; and have not given up hope and never will because they are secure in themselves.

    This government has forgotten that to defend a position you must stand still, and once you stand still in politics, you will be overun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Rex: The question is, who’s going to make that offer? Not National, from what I’ve seen. Not the poodles. Not the Greens. The only people successfully tapping into that desire for self-determination (but, understandably, only for a sector of society) is the Maori Party. And look how successful they are.

    Aye, you said it very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “To capture the hearts and minds of those people doesn’t require talk of left vs right – they’re only interested in what works. It means promising a return of the right to make their own decisions and control their own destinies, through referenda and other means.”

    For fucks sake Rex, its people like you, too damn timid to take a stand, to line up on any partiucular side of the fence, who have allowed the present situation to develop. Your second sentence above epitomises the difference between left and right. You have openly contradicted yourself in your lame attempt to refrain from offending those who consider “right wing” a pejorative term. Grow some balls man. The left have all the power in this country. The control the power structures. They are slowly but surely destroying this country, and it is right wing ideas (that have been excluded from the political stage for so long because of the PC lameness of people like you) that will save it. If you’ve got the damn balls to break free from decades of left wing indoctrination that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Sam (501 comments) says:

    The closeness of the two major parties – courting that popular centre ground – means that ‘left’ voters do not necessarily need to remain loyal to Labour, and I would argue that this is what the polls are reflecting at the moment. There will always be Labour loyalists, but they are a much smaller group than Left voters. this election will see a resurgence of the Green party (as always come the poll that matters), and a larger swing to National as traditional Labour voters see the Labour-lite key policies as less threatening than National past. Labour will be decimated back to its core of dedicated, unthinking, party loyalists.

    As for the education system, it might produce left wing adherents, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to Labour voters, especially when Labour push through ridiculously undemocratic policy such as the Electoral Finance Act…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    The party loyalists are the funniest creatures to watch when the party takes a u turn on a significant issue. They are stuffed, landed high and dry having defended a direction with all the intensity that only a partisan person can muster. Then they duely flip flop, fire off some denigration about National and their bad intentions, always speak of the failed policies of the past. Then quote some example from 25 years ago completely oblivious to what a rich source of embarrassment the 80’s is to the Labour party.

    The 80’s was not an embarrassment to the left … it was an embarrassment to the Labour party. The left wing movement was outraged… fought back and actually had control of the Labour party for a while there. Not so these days.

    “anything goes” is it in a nutshell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, it’s not a case of not having the balls, as you put it. I don’t happen to believe that every single right wing paradigm is the answer to our prayers. To think that is to be as deluded as the mindless drones of the left who parrot here and whom you, quite rightly, challenge.

    I agree that 9 years of this government has done more damage than good. But I don’t attribute that entirely to their following of socialist principles (because, as any good socialist would tell you, they often don’t). It’s more to do with their own personal hubris.

    It’s tempting to see a pendulum swing to the right as the panacea for 9 years of damage by a broadly left-wing government. But as Sam points out above, the supposed champions of the right are nothing more than Labour-lite in any case.

    No, I’m arguing for a new paradigm that sees the people of NZ responsible for their own fate. Sometimes they might choose a direction that could be termed socialist. On another issue they might choose the capitalist prescription. They’d pick what works regardless of the labels. Because they have more sense than the venal incompetents populating most of the seats in Parliament.

    That’s not fence sitting, Red. That’s saying let’s pull down the fence, clean out the weeds that have flourished on both sides of it, and start again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Rex

    MMP was apparently going to help with putting the political issues back in control of the people via diversity in parliament. I think the first step to pulling down the wall would be to educate the voters that to give both votes to the same party is to be voting in an FPP way. Educate them that when Labour or National campaign on “Two ticks [party-name-here]” that these parties want to govern alone, they want an FPP style parliament because it suites the party.

    The weeds… they will be trampled by the mass of people running around in the middle, currently locked on one side because they are party loyalists and don’t actually understand there is more to politics than having your own party controlling everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The way MMP was cunningly sold as delivering Parliamentary reform when what it delivered was electoral reform was the biggest (and best) con yet pulled on the NZ public. They voted for MMP believing they’d get politicians willing and able to follow their consciences and bringing new ideas to the table.

    What they got was votes where the MPs matter so little they don’t even have to be present to make a decision, candidate selection based solely on factional loyalty, greater control by elites within each party, and Parliamentary “debate” even more farcical than it used to be.

    I agree that training people to think before voting – and to realise the implications of the “two ticks [party-name-here]” vote – would help matters. And that that’s precisely why both parties pursue the opposite goal.

    NZ desperately needs Parliamentary reform – and the impetus for that is not ever going to come from within Parliament, no matter who holds the Treasury benches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. john (478 comments) says:

    Did labour help this indian muslim couple come to NZ, one on a student visa ,whose terribly malnorished , baby that had been beaten to death(it died in hospital from head injuries after been starved) up north . Are these the high grade foreign imigrants that (LABOUR) are chasing( im sick of babies and kids been killed by primative humans) sorry for change of thread ,but its never bought up,as a subject.As i have said before kid killing has now become a growth industry in my beautiful country in the last 8 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote