Greens lost their voice?
I thought I must have missed it, but a checking of the Greens website finds they have not said a single word on Labour President Mike Williams incorrectly denying a donation from Owen Glenn, the perception of favouritism to Glenn due to his massive donations, and the NZ First revelation of a mystery close to $100K donation.
So much for the party of principle. If this involved National they would have screamed for the Serious Fraud Office to be sent in.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Electoral Finance Act, Greens, hypocrisy, Owen Glenn
February 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I do find all this faux-outrage on anonymous donations from National and its apparatchiks rather amusing. Has National come clean yet on where its $2 million in secret donations came from and what policies and postings they sold in exchange?
February 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
We’ve know for along time that Greens are self serving. Why anyone votes for these guys is beyond me. Seems to be the people that have no understand of politics at all and just see the name as “Green”.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I’m delighted to see that you are amused by ‘faux outage’ Tane. It’s good to smile. Let’s face it you have to get your laughs where-ever you can these days! And remember, I’m laughing with you, and not at you.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I’m delighted to see that you are amused by ‘faux outrage’ Tane. It’s good to smile. Let’s face it you have to get your laughs where-ever you can these days! And remember, I’m laughing with you, and not at you.
What a sad laughable spectacle it is to be sure.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Blatant naked hypocrisy is the word for it!
Listen to Metiria Turei speaking in the 3rd Reading of the Electoral Finance Act:
“The Green Party is proud to uphold that principle. We are proud to have defended it against attacks on it by those who would interfere with its political expression through the privilege of wealth.”
And what is their response to the Owen Glenn affair.
A deafening cowardly silence!
February 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Labour are their most likely coalition partner – of course they’re not going to start slagging them off.
Is this a uniquely “Green” hypocrisy? Do you seriously think Act or the Maori Party or United Future or Winston First wouldn’t align their criticisms/support with the major party they are most likely to cut a deal with later?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
While Labour is losing the center vote to National, They are also losing the far left vote to the greens, explaining their rise in the polls. It would do the green party well to keep schtumm rather than express outrage at the Glenn saga, which may only serve to highlight that it is the support of the greens that has allowed Labour to govern.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
leave tane alone It must be soooo difficult when your beloved party in power for nearly a decade is facing certain defeat to the extent that even Cabinet Ministers are going to be wiped out let alone the young fresh face of Lousia Wall who wont have even learnt her way around the corridors of power when she is turfed out.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I do find all this faux-outrage on anonymous donations from National and its apparatchiks rather amusing. Has National come clean yet on where its $2 million in secret donations came from and what policies and postings they sold in exchange?
Speaking of anonymity Tane, what is your real name, and who do you work for? What were the terms for Labour letting you use their server space to host the Standard? I mean, if you are sooooo concerned about anonymous figures stealing elections, one would think you and your ilk would try to be a little les anonymous.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
As I have said many times before, they are not a ‘Green’ party – more like a Communist grouping. And we all now know how much the Commies loved getting ‘gifts’…
February 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
What you are saying RRM then, is that the Greens are just a gutless satellite Party cravenly following the dictates of their powerful puppet-mistresses on the ninth floor.
The Greens could have sent out a principled press statement decrying the covert influence of big money demonstrated in the Glenn Affair and in doing so distanced themselves from its lingering smell and presented themselves as the conscience of the Left.
Perhaps we should ask the Greens whether they have ever received any money from Owen Glenn or has somebody asked them all ready?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
That doesn’t erase the issue of the $2 million though Bevan…Still.
“massive donations” to…the Millennium Institute of Sport, the Sir Edmund Hillary Foundation, the Breast Cancer Foundation and the Manaakitanga Aotearoa Charitable Trust, NZ$100,000 to the Sir Howard Morrison Education Foundation, $500k to the Auckland Uni marine lab, 7.5 MILLION to the business school, says he gives about 2 MILLION a year through his foundation…
Thats the kind of favouritism we should be applauding. Unless he meant the ‘plum’ job of people phoning you when they lose their passports…
February 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Tane: I do find all this faux-outrage on anonymous donations from National and its apparatchiks rather amusing. Has National come clean yet on where its $2 million in secret donations came from and what policies and postings they sold in exchange?
Tane, we are now in 2008 and living under the Electoral Finance Act which the Labour Party, in cahoots with the Green Party and New Zealand First foisted on the New Zealand public against democratic principles. If their true intent was to keep big money and wealth out of buying elections and policy, one would think they would be honest in those principles.
The sad truth however is out there for all of us to see. Like you, Labour is the party who will happily do something themselves while condemning it in others.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Yes – the Green Party silence is very telling. It indicates a number of probable things:
[1] The Greens can be a bit spineless when it comes to criticising the Labour Government.
[2] The Greens political finance reform motives and principles are somewhat lacking. The party only likes to grandstand and try to take the moral high ground on the issue when it fits their narrow idea about how political finance works – ie ‘parties to the right of Labour are corrupt’
[3] Political finance spokesperson Russel Norman has gone to ground. He seems to have taken a beating on political finance and lately in the blogosphere in general, so appears to be in retreat.
[4] The Green Party obviously thought that political finance reform was going to be a winner for them, as to the liberal-left it is a kind of populist ‘faux-radicalism’. But they’ve obviously been surprised about how bad their role in the EFA has impacted on them and their image, and are now having second thoughts.
[5] The Greens probably have a few skeletons in their closet when it comes to political finance too. Suddenly they’re realising that when these come to light, it will look particularly bad if they’re still up on their high horse about political finance.
And, btw, before anyone criticises my own silence about the Owen Glenn saga… I’ve been far too busy to publish anything at all on my liberation blog, but I’m currently writing a number of posts on the issue.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
February 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Given the current situation the greens need to be a little careful. They could find themselves on the outside of government next time around. I would think that the global warming nonsense will be out in the open in the next 12-18 months despite the governments claimof “the science is settled”. The greens may have to rethink their position and I have a feeling that the Norman is not the right man for the job. Poor old Jennette does not have the goodies for leadership.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
That doesn’t erase the issue of the $2 million though Bevan…Still.
Correct me if Im wrong, but using trust accounts for donations has been legal up until now. Now lets see has Labour ever received any anonymous donations? Has Labour ever given one of its biggest donars an honour? Has the Labour Party president ever lied about receiving any donations from a particular donar? Hmmmmm yes, yes and lets see… oh yes….
February 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Failing to address the hypocracy of others has served only to highlight the hypocracy of themselves. Principles should be exactly that, and not subject to negotiation.
Rather Ostrich like though, place head firmly in sand – do sod all!
February 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Tane Tutae regurgitates the same message again, but fails to answer this one: who are these people, and what did they get in return for their cash?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $70,000.00
February 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
No Colin, I am saying I think the Greens looked long and hard at what their post-election options are likely to be, and at who they would likely have to do business with, and concluded that publicly criticizing said partner would probably not help their own cause.
I am also saying I think every other minor party goes through the same exercise when deciding what public statements to make.
[BTW: I think you'll find the Greens have regularly criticized Labour's environmental policies as not going far enough (in the direction the Greens would prefer)]
February 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
The luddites are a complete fraud. Unscrupulous and hell-bent on changing NZ society to take us back to the Stone Age, they will pander to Labour to achieve their reactionary objectives.
The fact that Tane, a Labourite to the core, supports the Green Party can only confirm my contempt for this unholy alliance.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
RRM – I think you’ll find that criticism died down quite a bit once Fitzsimons got Minister of Energy Efficiency…
February 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The problem never was with real anonymous donations. The problem is with any donation (pretending falsely to be anonymous, or even out in the open) where the recipient DOES know who made it. National’s blind trusts meant that policy, honours and favours could not be tied to donations. Of course, Labour and The Standard claim that the blind trusts were a sham (no evidence) while simultaneously (1) protecting anonymous donors in the EFA and (2) running into all sorts of issues with Owen Glen and his mix of disclosed and non-disclosed assistance and positive outcomes that sure look a lot like he was expecting rewards for donations (Hobsonville situation, possible MoT post, possible consulship, etc). Case is basically closed, Tane.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The point that Tane and others are missing is that Labour, NZF and the Greens voted into law the draconian Electoral Finance Act under the pretence of wanting to clean up the influence of Big Money in politics.
National never voted for the EFA but publicly stated they were prepared to have a good hard look at cleaning up the area of anonymous donations.
Labour however wouldn’t entertain this for reasons that are now obvious and they have since been caught being very economical with the truth over receiving money from an extremely wealthy man who hasn’t lived in NZ for decades.
NZF are having an interesting little internal scuffle over whether the trifling sum of 100k ended up conviently in their bank account or not…
…and the Greens just aren’t talking about it; which obviously indicates that it is alright to acquire “bucket loads of covert cash” from overseas magnates but not alright for industrious New Zealanders of the Brethren persuasion to legitimately participate in the electoral process.
The Left has always been so consistent on these issues!
February 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Fitzsimons was Minister of EE years ago…
“rah communists everywhere rah!”, haha.
This Owen Glenn thing is only a saga because the opponents of Labour would love a scandal, and do what oppositions do – exaggerate more than just a bit, instigate ‘no confidence’ votes etc…regardless, the Greens really should be saying SOMETHING.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Love to know what “magnates” would donate to the Greens, I really would. If thats what you meant.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
The Greens are a one issue party absolutely dependent on Labour. They are relatively quite because they have clearly put their eggs in Labour’s basket and are now stuck with no real platform to move forward. The legalization of marijuana was their most popular platform and Tanczos is leaving and the possibility of getting it legalized is gone. They have also moved farther to the left with Norman.
Fitzsimmons is getting old and tired and Bradford blew her credibility on the anti-smacking bill. People are not interested in cluster bombs or the gospel according to the Greens. They have shown over and over they are too far outside the average Kiwi radar to really care about them. The failure solar water initiative is a good litmus paper of how much we really care. After a year not anyone has taken up the offer.
Most people know they are a protest group and will vote for them as a protest to National. They may siphon off some Labour votes, but not many.
The people I associate with say they are voting National to ensure that Labour cannot form a coalition of the left or risk NZF, ACT or United Future holding the balance of power. Most were Labour supporters by a healthy margin, now not one of them is saying they will vote Labour. It is a significant change in my circle of friends. They are all older, educated, middle income people that will influence their peers and children.
The redistribution of wealth is of concern to them as they are not wealthy but have seen the erosion of their incomes through taxation and costs. They are looking at Koyoto with angst and foreboding wondering how they are going to meet the costs, as most of the rest of New Zealand is too. The Greens are adding to their fear with the constant policy of taxing everything more.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
This Owen Glenn thing is only a saga because the opponents of Labour would love a scandal, and do what oppositions do
No Stephen, it has blown up like it has because the public can see the Labour has been engaging in shear hypocrisy ranting about big money in politics, and wanting to stop anonymous donars, when in fact they were receiving big money from an individual who clearly wanted something in return! Labour have been exposed as hypocrites regarding this issue, they ranted in a holier than thou attitude that National was selling policies to its rich mates and buying elections with the proceeds – its just fitting that their ranting and raving has returned to bite them fair square in the arse. Its no wonder they knew so much about big money buying elections, they were the ones neck deep doing just that!
February 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Yeah, made me laugh too stephen. I helped out the Greens a bit at the last election stuffing envelopes, banging up hoardings and the like, and more than a few senior party officials talked to me about how the corporates never gave them any money and as a result they had to rely heavily on grassroots support.
The donations list on elections.org.nz seems to confirm what I was told:
Sue Bradford C/o Parliament, Wellington $11,299.08
Rod Donald deceased $11,033.79
Jeanette Fitzsimons C/o Parliament, Wellington $13,058.23
Sue Kedgley C/o Parliament, Wellington $13,108.92
Keith Locke C/o Parliament, Wellington $11,549.08
Nandor Tanczos C/o Parliament, Wellington $11,299.08
Metiria Turei C/o Parliament, Wellington $11,466.28
Mike Ward 10 Russell Street, Nelson $12,194.08
National Distribution Union Private Bag 92904, Auckland $16,000.00
JMG Foundation 6 Kent Close, Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK $12,000.00
Anonymous $20,000.00
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
February 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
stephen said:
“Love to know what “magnates” would donate to the Greens, I really would. If thats what you meant”.
Well stephen, what about windmill magnates, those that have made a fortune out of the climate change industry, and other wealthy proponents of Green causes like Al Gore who lives in a mansion using more power than a third world town.
And if a good Green vote could guarantee another Clark government perhaps even Mr Glenn might be tempted to let a few meagre monetary crumbs fall their way.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I reckon the Exclusive Brethren should start speaking up again. Do it all by the law again. Pick a scrap with labour and clark and go to it big time. It would expose Clark and labour and be great fun to watch.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Tane, it would be a long list. That’s what you don’t understand about National – they have lots of people willing to give them money not because they get something back but because they care about this country and they care about good government. Labour’s list, on the other hand, consists of a small number of very large donors. Whom do you think is more open to bribery and manipulation of the two?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
So Tane, are you going to pressure the Greens to disclose who their anonymous $20k donor was, or who the JMG Foundation is (sounds like a blind trust to me!) – or is the call for disclosure solely made to the biggest recipient? Sounds a bit like “donor envy” to me!!
February 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Tane
“I do find all this faux-outrage on anonymous donations from National and its apparatchiks rather amusing. Has National come clean yet on where its $2 million in secret donations came from and what policies and postings they sold in exchange?”
Given that they are not in power and havn’t been for the last 8 1/2 years, one would imagine that they hadn’t, infact, “sold” anything. The fact that they continue to raise more money than Labour, Greens, the Willy Wonka factory that passes for NZ first these days (which I’m sure continues the trend of much gnashing of teeth at Labour HQ) only serves to illustrate more the fact that there are more people willing to front their beliefs with cash. Labour et al are merely playing the politics of envy.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Tane’s list of Green Party donors includes:
JMG Foundation 6 Kent Close, Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK $12,000.00
Sounds like overseas money undermining our electoral integrity. Naughty naughty Greens!!!
February 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
IV2, I’ve made my position pretty clear on a number of occasions – I don’t support anonymous donations unless on very small and inconsequential amounts.
I’m not going to begrudge the Greens a $20,000 anonymous donation (about a seventh of their total) under the old rules, but I think you do have major issues though when something in the order of 95% of your donations are through anonymous donations and secret trusts.
And for the record, the number of anon donations Labour received, while significantly less than National’s, also makes me uncomfortable.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Tane (2:08) – that $20,000 “anonymous” donation could well be OGG shoring up Labour’s peripheral friends; aren’t you just the teensiest bit suspicious about that nice big fat round figure? If you aren’t curious, is it because you know who it is?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’m getting a bit tired of seeing the word ‘hypocricy’ and its derivatives used in connection with Labour. It’s just sooooooo cliched. Can’t we be more imaginative and find more appropriate descriptors like:
Scurrilous, scurvy, skulduggerous, sleazy, yellow bellied, cancerous, corrosive, crooked, devious, rancid, putrid, dishonest, mendacious, two faced, phony, sham, deceiptful ………………………….
There are just ‘tonnes of new ideas’ if you only look for them. Ask Helen.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Calling all Greens.
Calling all Greens.
In the interest of honesty and consistency could you please inform the voters of NZ who the JMG foundation is. Presumably it doesn’t stand for -Jolly Mr Glenn Foundation?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Horrors the JMG foundation involves a Billionaire!!!!!
http://www.undueinfluence.com/jmg_foundation.htm
February 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The list of donors helpfully supplied by Tane shows a remarkable lack of “money-where-your-mouth-is” support for the Greens. Even its own MPs stump up around one tenth of one year’s salary toward a campaign. A cycnic might even say that they gave just enough to make their generosity reportable.
Suggests to me that an environmentally-focused party without an underlying left wing agenda, remaining defiantly independent rather than coupling itself entirely to one major party, proposing workable solutions to environmental problems and steering clear of non-issues such as marijuana and smacking, might gain the support not only of enlightened corporates but also a reasonable proportion of the voting public.
I’d venture to predict that such a party might rise to the 10 or 11 percent support level, taking most of the Greens’ voters and enough from across the rest of the spectrum to make it viable.
The Green Party at present is reminiscent of the Alliance – a mismatched bunch held together solely by a desire for some form of power. Only Maori interests had an explicit agenda and the determination to achieve it, and the break up of the Alliance was just what they needed.
Except with no formal identities within the uneasy coalition, the Greens are much less likely to shatter. Better that someone reinvigorate the brand and dispatch the present lacklustre lot to well-deserved obscurity.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
BlairM: Whom do you think is more open to bribery and manipulation of the two?
Honestly? If I think about it long and hard …
1. An anonymous donation cannot be rewarded because it is anonymous.
2. A known donor can be rewarded because they are known.
So I suspect that there is less chance for National to have policy purchased than there is for the Greens or for the Labour Party to have their policies purchased.
Tane: I think you do have major issues though when something in the order of 95% of your donations are through anonymous donations and secret trusts
Why? A donation where the donor is unknown is just money. Nothing more than that. Do you have major problems with your political opposition having money to spend on their campaigns?
Or are you insinuating that anonymous donations, when applied to your opposition, are not truely anonymous? In that case I would like to see proof. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke and mirrors Tane. Again.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I’m genuinely skeptical that anonymous donations are actually anonymous. I’m sure many are, but the arranged meetings between MPs and donors revealed in The Hollow Men seems to suggest this isn’t always the case.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
What I find strange is NZ Firsts Donations, or more accurately the lack of them!
1996 Various $82,178
2002 Westpac Trust $10,000
2002 Gold Times Sports $15,000
2003 Contact Energy $10,000
2004 Contact Energy $10,000
http://www.elections.org.nz/uploads/registered_parties__declared_party_donations_001.pdf
Apart from 1996 when the took in quite a few donations, ever since then they have been few and far between. Where do they get their money from? You cant tell me they function and run election campaigns with that amount of donations!
Should add that I remember reading Audrey Youngs Blog where she asked the same question.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Well no wonder.
You can’t talk under water, especially melting ice cap water.
Some quaint memories from 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Bet these authors are in demand in 2008.
With moonbats at the Pentagon, you can forgive the Greens.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Tane – you are lucky to have your own bible in the form of The Hollow Men – an irrefutable source of information that can never be contradicted. It must feel nice and safe and comfortable to know you can always quote a quote and win the argument !! Duhhhh
February 26th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Tane: I think you do have major issues though when something in the order of 95% of your donations are through anonymous donations and secret trusts
Why? A donation where the donor is unknown is just money. Nothing more than that. Do you have major problems with your political opposition having money to spend on their campaigns?
No Pascal, he is just judging National by Labours standards. He thinks that if Labour is selling Honours for $500,000 then National must be doing much much worse. You know Labour=Good, National=Bad and all that…
February 26th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Tane … for the record I am not against anonymous donations provided they remain just that. A ‘consultant’ friend of mine makes regular donations to National. In the past he has insisted on anonymity in the full and certain knowledge that if his donations were to be made public then he would almost certainly be blacklisted from winning contracts from a politically corrupt and vindictive Government.
What will he do now? Well, I suspect National will receive a $999 donation from each and every member of his rather large family. So, has anything changed? answer, not sure.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Tane said “I’m sure many are, but the arranged meetings between MPs and donors revealed in The Hollow Men seems to suggest this isn’t always the case.”
So when do you think Hager’s going to start writing about meetings between Mike Williams and Owen Glenn?
February 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Probably won’t happen Inventory2 because Hager won’t do it and because good people don’t steal emails.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
It’s all a threadjack. National’s donations aren’t the issue, and I note that they won’t be happening this election year, because a set of them were made illegal under the new law. The money will of course still come in, just through some other means – anonymous or not. And then we’ll learn, horror of horrors, that people who support National party policies (those that allow people to become wealthy) are sometimes themselves wealthy. We won’t find any corruption.
Which ignores:
– the topic of the thread – that the Greens have mentioned nothing about the shenanigans around Owen Glenn, despite having very strong principles about big donations from wealthy donors
– the anonymous donations to Labour (Tane claims to be concerned about those too, but his first post on this thread wasn’t “National and Labour’s anonymous donations” now, was it)
– the “in kind” donations of many people who are time rich and money poor. Apparently this is OK, but donations of money from people who are money rich and time poor is bad, evil, and corrupt.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The greens haven’t lost their voice, they’ve lost their spine.
Rod would be real pissed off if he were still here.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I’ve always thought that too PaulL ” the “in kind” donations of many people who are time rich and money poor. Apparently this is OK, but donations of money from people who are money rich and time poor is bad, evil, and corrupt.”
If you ban large amounts of money being used in a campaign, then you should also ban large amounts of time being used in a campaign. For example, a business association cannot organise a large number of picketers to protest such as a union can. Is this not using their time/people rich position to an unfair advantage to unduly influence voters?
Heresy I know
February 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Re Labour’s Pledge Card repayment, and Winnies sudden acquisition of $100,000. If Labour have shoved NZF the cash in lieu of repayment to the original donor (Owen Glenn) – that would account for the plausible denials from Winston? And Winston is being very tight-lipped isn’t he? Is Dail Jones a stalking horse for a coup against Winnie? Is the way he’s handled the EFA and the cash surrounding it his swan-song? Did Labour actually repay the interest-loan to its original donor? If not, does it still qualify as a loan, and thereofre the full amount shold be accounted for as an election expense?
The difference between Labour’s declared donations in the two (2005 – 2006) years is just under $106,453.00. Is it a coincidence that there was a massive drop-off of declared union donations in 2006, which fell to within about $24,000 of the shortfall needed to repay the Pledge-card debt? Yet coincidentally, the EPMU came up with $20,000 of declared readies?
Then take into account the possibly bogus story of Labour MP’s ‘forced’ donations to cover the remainder and the small amount they must have raised from ‘barbeques and fund-raisers’. The empty balance sheet of declared donations in 2006 begins to look suspiciously like the unions bankrolled Labour’s repayment, by donating it in undeclared amounts.
It is also intriguing that $325,000 of anonymous donations made in 2005 were no longer accounted for in the following year. So did everyone just abandon Labour? Or did Labour find ways to get the cash, but not have it accounted for under the old Electoral Finance Act?
So drop off of declared union donations, a whip-round of Labour MPs or was it paid by Glenn or was it ‘fund-raised’ by gathering hundreds of tiny undeclared donations from the unions? Did Labour give the ‘loan’ back to Glenn or siphon it via Winnie? Looks like we will never know doesn’t it?
February 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Lee C – Should we call you a thick sht or would you like to look after the1999 elections and all others to see that donations to all partys’ drop off.
No story here dip-shit.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Must say (I do keep an eye on FrogBlog) that one reason for the lack of upspeaking, does derive from their world-view, which is, IMHO, naive and unworldly. The thought that people would game the system, find the back doors, trapdoors and other non-intended points of entrance, use force instead of reason, get carried away with lust, envy, greed or plain bad temper; and just generally act like humans – is just not on their radar.
I suspect that at least part of their current silence, is an internal debate over the extent to which they have been gamed, out-manouevred and generally made to look absolute fools by their political partners. Their silence is that of the pained bride, who’s just heard about her new groom’s escapades at the stag do. It’s the old ‘I kept myself pure for you and now I find…’ shtick.
As Tom Waits sings, ‘The higher that the monkey can climb/The more he shows his tail’… The song’s called ‘Misery is the river of the world‘.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The 1993 Royal Commission into Electoral reform had some interesting ideas about electoral expenses:
32. Where they relate to the areas of activity listed in s.139 of the Electoral Act, the commercial value of goods and services donated or provided at less than commercial rates should be included as election expenses (para. 8.49).
The EFA declared ‘open season’ on all political expression. it could hypothetically be subject to regulation if it could be proven to be an election expense. However, the ‘commercial value of goods and services donated/areas of activity’ were left untouched. Because they could conceivably relate to either free time and effort given by say – The Exclusive Brethren – or say The Unions.
‘Nothing wrong with that.’ you might opine ‘It’s all within keeping with the democratic spirit that private citizens are entitled to participate in the democratic process.’
However, the amongst the reasons that the EFA was necesssary was that the Exclusive Brethren were not only spending cash, but that they were giving voluntary assistance to the National Party in call centres, doing mail-shots, etc. The implication being, that:
the commercial value of goods and services donated or provided at less than commercial rates should be included as election expenses (para. 8.49).
… if it applied to a National Party Election Campaign.
But apparently it does not apply to a blog such as The Standard, even when it is shown to originate from The Labour Party?
So my question to you is: why does the principle ignore the commercial value of pro-Labour Party activity ?
Forget The Standard they are little fish in a big pond. – What about the CTU during the last election? See its stated intentions for the next:
The union movement played a major role in Labour’s success in the 2005 election when it mobilised to get a large number of people out to vote in South Auckland.
Ms Kelly vowed the same thing would happen again, noting that “we tipped the balance in deciding the election outcome”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10470598
Perhaps this will help explain why the 1993 Royal Commission’s findings were ignored, then subverted by the EFA.
This is why we need a new Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and this time, for it to be acted on, not selectively applied for partisan profit.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Yeah ok John Dalley I will accept that you think I’m a ‘thick-shit’/'dip-shit’ Yes, but the other parties weren’t practically bankrupted by getting caught out over-spending. I’m only asking. If you or anyone else are able to explain the issues raised, I am happy to read them. Got anything more, shall we say, ‘eloquent’ to contribute?
February 26th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
John Dalley said “Lee C – Should we call you a thick sht or would you like to look after the1999 elections and all others to see that donations to all partys’ drop off.
No story here dip-shit”
Pots and kettles JD, pots and kettles. If there’s “no story here”, then why hasn’t the fuss over Glenngate died by now. Here’s my theory – there’s more ddgy dealings to be revealed which are going to be an embarrassment toLabour and to New Zealand First, and Lee’s theory about money changing hands between the two is ceratinly plausible. And if it moves you to abuse, maybe it has even more substance!
February 26th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
So some defenders of free speech, want to identify time spent in support of a party as a donation? Does this include time spent gathering and networking for party political purposes or just writing and posting on blogs? How exactly do you charge out the time used – is it equal for all party supporters?
And if the standard for virtue, is to be critical of all people on every occasion where there is some sign of impropriety (lets note the donation in kind from the loan was under the declarable limit – Labour was not obliged to report it and it had probably been made on the basis it was below declarable levels and thus on the basis of discretion), the Greens would not have enough time in the day to focus on the the principles and policy of politics. It’s unwise to lose sight of the fire threatening a forest while occupied doing a little continuous weeding around the trees.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Tane: I’m genuinely skeptical that anonymous donations are actually anonymous. I’m sure many are, but the arranged meetings between MPs and donors revealed in The Hollow Men seems to suggest this isn’t always the case.
Skeptical, sure. Tell me, do you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy designed by a coalition of the Bush family and the Illuminati to gain access to the Iranian oil fields? Because honestly, I’ve read proofs of that which are remarkably convincing. Much like the Hollow Men is a remarkably convincing proof of the evil and nefarious National Party.
However, you are dancing around the main issues here.
1. Despite their assurances that they intend to clean out electoral funding, the Labour Party appears to have been a recipient of underhand dealings with all sorts of recent stories clouding their donations.
2. New Zealand first, one of their two major partners in this government appears to be involved in similar, dubious funding arrangements.
3. The Green Party, a staunch defender of the EFA, remains remarkably silent about these dodgy, unprincipled dealings with regards to electoral financing from their coalition partners.
What we have seen is the party that you are accusing of having dodgy electoral dealings based on what remains a quintesentially unproven book is actually cleaner than the party you support.
I’m beginning to wonder if you are just so crawled up your own ideology that you remain blind to what is out there.
Edit: Too many underhanded dealings in that there sentence
February 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
pascal
The Greens fought for the end of anonymous donations – seeking transparency. Sure they have focused on the problems of the old regime, while seeking some reform in this direction. But now it’s 2008, it’s a matter of people working within the new rules.
Sure other parties are accounting to the media for their past behaviour, but Greens are first and foremost a party concerned about the future, and making positive change. Not in continuing to feud about past conflicts.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
SPC, I call shennanigans. If they wanted the end of anonymous donations they could have gotten it. Instead they teamed up with a party that was guilty of just about everything they accused their opponents of and gave us the EFA; a piece of legislation designed to keep the Labour party and their coalition partners in government. The Greens are the most unprincipled party of the lot of them – they roll over for Labour and sell their principles to the highest bidder.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
To add weight to LEE C theory above, John Campbell asked Owen Glenn “how much money have you given to the Labour Party?”
Owen Glenn answered “600″.
Have a look at the interview Friday 22nd Feb. 2mins in to the congenial chat.
So much for our MSM.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
1. Most journalists in the gallery give credit to the Greens for the change in the EFA to give more focus on transparency.
2. Are the Greens a coalition partner?
3. So you see unprincipled, as using the only vehicle available to bring greater transparency into electoral funding?
February 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
SPC – Would the EFA in it’s current form have passed without support of the Greens? So what they did is they traded a doggy biscuit for the opportunity to make a worthwhile change. And why? So Labour would still love them.
They had the opportunity to stand up and say: “Clean up anonymous donations entirely or you won’t have our support”
Instead? What did they do?
February 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Sorry people … I just had a cranial flatuism and mistakenly gave Tane a thumbs up instead of the other one!
FFS!
That’s on the first post … -47 to -46.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“Is this a uniquely “Green” hypocrisy? Do you seriously think Act or the Maori Party or United Future or Winston First wouldn’t align their criticisms/support with the major party they are most likely to cut a deal with later?”
Actually, ACT have proven themselves a party of principle many times. They WOULD criticise National, and they have many times in the past.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Pascal
Parties giving other parties ultimatums – do what we want, or else we withdraw – is not going to make for a longer term MMP relationship. Besides this EFA is only the first step towards wider reform, given National says it supports transparency and will revisit the legislation when in office. And the greater transparency in 2008 is still better than what we have had in the past.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
In terms of whether the Green Party receives large or dodgy donations, keep in mind that there were many ways to get around the donation disclosure regime of the Electoral Act (just as there are many easy ways of getting around the new EFA). Therefore you shouldn’t give too much credence to the figures supplied annual to the Electoral Commission for any party.
It might surprise a lot of people to find that the Green Party does actually have significant financial resources – and much of this comes from wealthy and corporate sources. Even if you only look at one election like 2002, the Greens got loads of money. In that election the Green Co-convenor David Clendon declared, ‘We have had donations from some quite large corporate donors’ (quoted in Espiner, 10 Mar 2002: p.C2). Green fundraiser Danna Glendining also stated her expectation of receiving $500,000 in business funding (O’Sullivan and Small, 29 Jun 2002).
So it’s nonsense to suggest that the Green Party is somehow immune to corporate donations. Increasingly the party is middle of the road and middle class, and therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that some sections of business are warming to the Greens. Eco-business and the Green Party go hand in hand.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
February 26th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
And so it is all the more principled of them to push for transparency in funding.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:56 am
SPC: And the greater transparency in 2008 is still better than what we have had in the past.
Indeed, because it soothes the Labour yes-men and their Exclusive Brethren bogeymen.
Unfortunately, the EPMU seems to be a bit screwed. They can’t be registered as a third party, at least not according to the letter of the law. And yet – if they don’t register they are severely restricted in what they can spend campaigning for the Labour party, one of their aims.
Unintended consequences? Certainly not what I wanted! Greater transparency? Yes, because Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens are so honest about their donations and funding from overseas business interests.
Sorry SPC, no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on a turd, it’s still a turd.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Incidentally Frog and Russel both posted comments at ‘frogblog’ yesterday…’testify’ to DPF’s pow-ah!
Jeez this site is slow now..
February 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Pascal
There will be less anonymous donations and more transparency over who has donated in 2008, than in past elections.
No matter what you think about the rest of the EFA and what happend in the past, this is still the case.