The EFA hits Labour websites
Poor Labour is having a hard time with the precious Electoral Finance Act.
First of all they had to delete any mentions of “Labour” from the budget press releases in case that got the Treasury Secretary prosecuted.
Bill English has just pointed out that by that reasoning the Dept of Internal Affairs is breaking the law, with the Beehive website. The site is scattered with statements statements designed to encourage people to vote Labour.
But it goes beyond that. Whale Oil has heard that Labour Head Office has ordered over a dozen Labour Party websites to be taken down as they are breaking the law. And sure enough the following websites have been taken down:
- Young Labour
- Rainbow Labour
- Pete Hodgson
- Russell Fairbrother
- Martin Gallagher
- Winnie Laban
- Brendon Burns
- David Cunliffe
- Labour North Auckland
- Steve Chadwick
- Mahara Okeroa
- Tim Barnett
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for all these websites being down. But some of them are on different servers at different providers, so it is not just a technical issue.
Don’t you love it when parties do get their just desserts?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Good thing their paid “bloggers” were exempted.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
What’s at diddums.co.nz?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Excellent. I contacted the beehive.co.nz a couple of weeks ago and asked why their site was festooned with so many Labour-related links.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I don’t see what’s so illegal about a page headed “My personal achievements over the past x years” followed by a long and pristine blank white space…
May 27th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Make a sentence using the following words: Hoist, petard.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Don’t you love it when parties do get their just desserts?
Very much!
May 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
So what about the latest Tui billboard seen on Saturday at Paekakariki. From memory something like:
Isn’t that Cullen a generous guy.
Yeah Right.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I wonder how many thousands of dollars parties had to waste to make their web sites comply. It really is taking a hit for smaller parties. And that’s money that cannot be spend on campaigning.
If I was National, I would not repeal this law. It’s a great tool to screw the left and all the minor parties on their right.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I’m sure Rainbow Labour will find a way in through the back door..
May 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
For shame, David. “Deserts”, not “desserts”.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Oh the pooooooooor bastards, how sad never mind. Mind you you would have to have a generous proportion of your brain removed to visit any of these sites.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
If I was National, I would repeal this law. It would be a great way to demonstrate a willingness to play a straight game…. with and for all NZers
May 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
What a stinking bummer that the Barnett and Burns websites are down.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
what if mr P Burns (‘ site went down), a minor stinking bummer I guess??
May 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Yeah, but Kate Wilkinson doesn’t even need a website to stuff up. She’s let the cat out of the bag big-time re Kiwisaver – abolish the Kiwisaver employer contribution!
And she has to be “corrected” by her Leader (non-violently, I would hope), eh John! This will cost the Nats thousands of votes from ordinary workers who are fed up with Labour, want a better deal, and trusted the Nats to provide it. Suddenly, their prospective retirement savings are threatened by National policy. Good on you Kate – guess you are at least an honest politician. I congratulate you for that, which is probably little solace given the public dressing down you’ve got from your Leader.
Anyway, hoping some of that limp National support in the polls (which is really just people pissed off with Labour) might now come the Green way – to the Party that really wants ordinary people to get a fair deal.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Yes, on one hand we might marvel at Labour’s tolerance-of-pain threshhold with the EFA boomeranging on them and wonder why they don’t slip-slide their way out of it.
On the other hand one could suggest their marginal utility for the absense of widespread National, ACT and interest group billboards and newspaper/ TV advts throughout the year is way greater than the bad pr and admin hassles of EFA blow backs.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Def: Labour Govt = The antithetical Phrygian king. Never met Gordius. Wash hands after third term.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Does Jordan still work for Labour? Does he blog on company time?
May 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Mike said: what if mr P Burns (’ site went down)
Well, Mr M(ontgomery) Burns’ (aka Don Brash’s) site did go down! http://www.donbrash.co.nz/ doesn’t seem to exist any more.
Funny that! Wonder whom of John or Kate were primarily responsible. I liked old Dr Dunny Brush – much easier to poke the borax at a self-proclaimed right wing extremist than those who purport moderation but may have a secret agenda.
Best you start to get that policy out soon, John, or the public will start to distrust you too. Or are you too just running on slogans (like “The Decent Society”), and hiding the indecent bits until after the election.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Speaking of policies Toad, recognise this one???.
“The Values Party contested the 1972 general election, putting forward radical new policies such as Zero Economic Growth, Zero Population Growth and abortion, drug and homosexual law reform. These were published in the world’s first Green election manifesto, ‘Blueprint for New Zealand – An Alternative Future’. Over the next three years Green policies were debated, developed and expanded to form the basis of ‘Beyond Tomorrow’, the Values Party manifesto. This was a comprehensive statement of Green politics which was widely distributed overseas and contributed to the development of Green parties elsewhere”.
Luddites
May 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Yeah Toad, typical green is it, to want to appear generous by giving away other peoples money, but never your own ? That isn’t really generous at all, you do know that don’t you Toad ? Perhaps those workers might then get bigger pay increases instead of being “given” a “voluntary” contribution.
And secret agenda’s, that a greenie could possibly say that with a straight face !
May 27th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Hey, Ed. Greens want to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. So we do want “bigger pay increases instead of being ‘given’ a ‘voluntary’ contribution.”
Patrick – kinda miss your point. Policy evolves. 1972 (Values) policy is no more today’s Green policy that 1972 National policy is their current policy (all the way with USA, I seem to recall – and that has only changed very recently since the demise of Dr Brash, if you actually believe it).
For a start, the Greens accept that abortion is a conscience issue. ZPG’s sort of got surpassed, at least in NZ, by a birth rate that’s below replacement level. Homosexual law reform was all sorted (before there were any Greens in Parliament), and drug reform is still on the agenda, because treating this (through prohibition) as a law and order issue, rather than a health issue, clearly hasn’t addressed the real issue, but just given more profits to criminal gangs from drugs.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“Green policies were debated, developed and expanded to form the basis of ‘Beyond Tomorrow’, the Values Party manifesto”
Sorry Toad, thats not what it implies
“putting forward radical new policies such as Zero Economic Growth, Zero Population Growth”
Its what they inculcate!
May 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Toad
Its a bit bloody rich hearing you talk about secret agenda’s, your party is the one with the largest hidden agenda of all.
I do however applaud your “coming out of the closet” re the Nat’s though, it was time that you told the people of NZ that there is no way in hell you would ever consider a coalition with anybody but Labour, thankfully you have cleared that up.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour….catchy little slogan don’t you think Toad?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Um, bruv, where did I say that? A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. I want them, albeit optimistically given current polling, to be the majority party in a government.
I hope and believe that is is policy that will decide which party/parties they form an arrangement with after the election. At the moment, it looks like it may be none, because neither National or Labour seem to be prepared to front on the serious issues that will impact on our long-term future. It is all pragmatism about winning the next election, at whatever expense to future generations.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“serious issues that will impact on our long-term future such as Zero Economic Growth, Zero Population Growth”
now it fits into place!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Toad
With all due respect that is crap, the Greens know better than any of us from the right that there is NOTHING that we can do in NZ that would make one little bit of difference to the supposed climate change problem.
Perhaps there was a time when many voters thought the Greens stood for clean rivers and lakes, hell even I liked the sound of that but events of recent times have shown the Greens to be a party with hard left ambitions and intentions, the election of your new(ish) co leader proved that.
National (and even Labour in their own fucked up way) are fronting on the serious issues, they are fronting on issues that are real and immediate whereas the Greens expect us all to be taken in by the latest Bird Flu, Y2K, Sars, con job in the name of communism and so called “workers rights”.
You will however get your wish, policy will indeed decide the next election and things are not looking good for the left, you have had plenty of chance to distance yourself from Labour but your support of the EFA and section 59 has embedded the image of the Greens/Labour or Labour/Greens in the minds of the voting public, as far as they are concerned a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour and they have had enough of Helen Clark.
Its just a pity that you did not push hard enough to do something about animal welfare issues before the end of this term, I fear you may not be there next time around to do anything about it and for that I am genuinely sorry.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
From question time today:
Seems the Government are quite happy how the EFA is ‘bedding down’.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Toad – you the TVNZ News writers and presenters give me the guts ache with your collective ignorant comments about KiwiSaver.
Even if National did withdraw compulsory employer contributions there would be no risk whatsoever for those already in KiwiSaver. All that would happen is that some employers would reduce or stop their contributions and some, probably a large proportion of employers, would continue contributions. Whatever happend every Kiwisavers funds would still be there, in their names, with the selected or allocated Fund Manager.
If there is a risk to people in KiwSaver it is the inane rule that says anyone defaulting to a KiwiSaver provider has their funds allocated to a `Cash Fund’. This is ok in the short term but in the long term will see reduced cash accumulation when compared to balanced or growth funds. As with the Cullen Fund best returns will be received by getting the bulk of the funds into International Equities and don’t worry about ethical investments either.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Where is KiwiSaver mentioned in the EFA?
Just wondering………..
May 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“one could suggest their marginal utility for the absense of widespread National, ACT and interest group billboards and newspaper/ TV advts throughout the year”
Bruce thats a very interesting point. At this stage during the last election cycle we were bombarded by National billboards (Kiwi not Iwi anyone) yet we see nary a poster out at the moment.
Now that the Nats have to count out more than 90 days from the election to stay within their spending limits and do not have all of that anonymous lolly on hand to pay for 6 months worth of billboards in central Auckland, we might see less attempts to buy the election through weight of advertising and more discussion about actual policy.
Mind you, after todays fund and games perhaps Mr Key will be wondering if he can use the EFA to silence his own minsters!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
sonic
I had a big billboard of Helen Clark’s younger sister greeting me every morning as I cycled to work for months, what is your point. They advertised, they spent our money to win sway our voting opinions and Labour retrospectively validated all parties, then Labour passed (without broad consultation, against the advice of the HRC, under urgency) the EFA. Which is what this thread is about.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Sonic
Why on earth are you crowing about todays gaff?, in reality all it has done is ease the worry of many middle voters about the future of Kiwisaver, John Key has promised to keep it, unlike your corrupt leader I (and the rest of the voting public) think John Key is a man of his word.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“Mr Key will be wondering if he can use the EFA to silence his own minsters!”
- Freudian slip or just good anticipation?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Yes Bruv another triumphant day for National as Key, yet again, says he will radically and fearlessly, do exactly the same as the present government.
I wonder when the business round table gets to ask for it’s money back?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
A few more slips by backbench National MPs is just the way to get media exposure. JK did a sound job in response and got hard to get media time.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Lindsay Addie fair comment – but Toad started it. Troll. And I took the bait along with a couple of others.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
You guys do make me laugh sometimes.
I’m sure if John Key fel down drunk in the street in front of every TV camera in New Zealand you would try and spin it as him getting in touch with the common drunk.
However if Helen Clark discovered the cure for cancer, you would all be grumbling about a communist conspiracy to put hard working oncologists out of work.
I do admire your chutzpa, however today was a shambles, there is no getting away from that fact
May 27th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Sonic
Was it really a shambles?…I think not.
A shambles is when you have a senior minister in Goff openly challenging the PM for her job and admitting on TV that Labour are going to lose the election….that is a shambles.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Sonic – two words – Maryann Street
And two more words – luxury lodge
May 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
It’s not a shambles because…hey look over there!
Nice try troops, as I said I do admire your dedication. You’ll need all that determined effort because the National party looks about as ready to govern as a sack full of ferrets.
It is certainly going to be an interesting election campaign, But hey, you keep telling us there is no way your side can lose, so there is nothing to worry about.
Or is there?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Yep, thats right Sonic, an entire 26% will look!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Toad
“to the Party that really wants ordinary people to get a fair deal.”
Please describe an “ordinary” person. And why should anybody else not get a “fair deal’?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
It’s in the bag Patrick, no need to stress.
Nighty night
S
May 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
No stress, Its not me calling national MP’s Ministers!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Missed out the word Shadow Patrick
Even more proof you have this election won already!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Sonic
What a tonic to see a political leader honest enough to admit on National TV that a member of his own team had made a stuff up. No excuses were given, just an honest acknowledgement.
This contrasts with all the spin we get from Labour when they stuff up. Just one example. Remember John Tamihere and his interview with Wishart. Dear leader blamed it on stress and even gave him leave at our expense. Apparently it was not even his fault.
More and more voters are seeing the contrast and are liking what they see. I don’t blame them.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“I’m sure if John Key fel down drunk in the street in front of every TV camera in New Zealand you would try and spin it as him getting in touch with the common drunk.”
How is Ruth Dyson doing nowadays?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Sonic, Kate Wilkinson is a shadow minister of what?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Kimble, Ruth can’t tell the truth has a rather red nose and unpleasant aftershave odour in the morning meetings.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I hope she’s taking Salvation Army singing lessons.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Actually sonic, I’m very disappointed that there is not a good contest going on between the parties via billboards, adverts, mail box drops, websites and whatever novel promotions could be conjured up.
Promotion of view points should be free and open with minimal restriction. There are a bunch of exisiting options in law, in counter response, in a free press and in public opinion censure to manage taste, lies and slander.
The twin issues behind all previous restrictive law and the EFA are 1. market control advantages to the two dominant parties for when each has their turn in the electoral sun and 2. the never dying ‘power bloc’ mentality of the marxist world view – that Capital and the Blue Blood classes have some kind of innate power over the proletariat and therefore real power must be won and maintained by force or in democracies, by biased legislation, to ‘balance up the power gradients of society’
This belief was behind much of Margaret Wilson’s legislative activism in the first term of this govt and explains any number of the tendencies of Clark and co to legislate the way they have and operate the govt machine the way they do.
This belief in the need to bias the rules never dies because of an unwillingness to appreciate the subtle virtues and efficacy of the common rule of one law for all, the the hard won protective institutions of civil society and the freedom opportunity of all people to associate, to trade, to speak out, to progress their lives, to become educated and to believe as they choose.
Academic socialist critique, including honking and snorting, of capitalism, markets and the civil institutions of freedom continue unabated yet the lot and lives of ordinary folk the world over have only *ever* improved under more-market, more -freedom conditions.
This is why the protest against the EFA continues, because this type of proscription starts to go to the heart of the eons old battle between freedom and state control of lives for the state’s own ends. People like John Boscawen deeply understand this and will never ever rest until EFA is dismantled. This is why the National Party would be unwise to think anti-EFA activism is just anti Labour activism.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
pdm said: Even if National did withdraw compulsory employer contributions there would be no risk whatsoever for those already in KiwiSaver.
Actually, there would be for me. I wasn’t going to sign up for Kiwisaver until after the employer contributions were announced and legistated for. If some future government abolishes that provision, there is real risk for me. I could have put my money where it would have got a better return, had I known.
If the Nats, should they be in Government, now keep my money locked in, but deny me my expected return on the basis I signed up to Kiwisaver on, this will be a very grumpy toad indeed.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“I could have put my money where it would have got a better return”
I like the way your talking these days Toad. Come November you may be voting……..?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Sure Toad, sure, just like before, trying to look generous while offering to give away other peoples money. Real, real generous. Pushing up the minimum wage by fiat has several effects, lower employment, fewer jobs for new starters, and increases inflation, or do you think the business owners just happily pay out the extra, from their own pockets ?
So Toad wouldn’t invest if it wasn’t for the fact that others were forced to contribute to his savings, nice touch that Toad, I reckon you deserve to get a lower return with an attitude like that. And you do know, I guess, that you could contribute the extra yourself, from the extra pay increase your likely to get if there’s no compulsory employer contribution. Except in the public service of course, there, you’re likely to get both because the public service, at least under this government, is not paid by those in charge, but by the poor sods who don’t have a choice about “contributing”, the net taxpayers.
You signed up Toad, to a political scheme, based on the the fact you thought you could get other people to provide you with extra, and not voluntarily either. So you’ve been had by a confidence trickster, Cullen’s his name, have it out with him.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Patrick Starr said: Come November you may be voting……..?
Green, without a doubt Patrick.
Ed Snack said: So you’ve been had by a confidence trickster, Cullen’s his name, have it out with him.
Possibly, Ed. But if Key legislates to change the scheme, which he originally supported, then he’s no better, or possibly worse, than Cullen.
Another good reason to vote Green – the rest of the polies have no principles that withstand the pragmatism of potential electoral victory. At least the Greens stand by what they believe, even though some of it might be unpopular in the short term.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Toad – go and see a Financial Adviser or even your bank. They will tell you the difference between contributionss and returns – I will try just for you even if it is off topic:
Employer Contirbutes.
The funds once invested achieve returns which will usually be positive but at times may be negative.
Therefore if your employer stops contributing you will have less money available to invest but unless you change the asset allocation of the fund into which you are investing your returns will not change.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
even though some of it might be unpopular in the short term.
You reckon we’ll get used to economic rigor mortis then?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Toad,
Why not do what your leader, Jeannette Fitzsimmons does and buy F&P shares?, It’ll be a great divvie soon with all that cheap labour assembling them. Good to know you Greens are so principled and as you say “At least the Greens stand by what they believe”
May 27th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Very clever, pdm. But it is all dependent on the Nats changing the law so the employer doesn’t have to contribute.
So if my contibutions don’t realise their expected return because of Government intervention, then I lose.
Sorry, I thought you guys on the right were into the level playing field of the market. Obviously not, because you are now asking for, and applauding, government intervention to undermine what I, and many others, understood were the rules the savings market would be playing by – after we have started investing on the basis of those rules.
We’re talking retrospectivity here – the most abhorrent abrogation of constitutional propriety. If this happens, it will be just as great a constitutional travesty as Muldoon’s Western Samoan Citizenship Act that stripped thousands of people of their pre-existing right to be citizens of New Zealand.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Patrick Starr said: Why not do what your leader, Jeannette Fitzsimmons does and buy F&P shares?, It’ll be a great divvie soon with all that cheap labour assembling them.
Patrick, put that to Jeanette. I don’t know anything about her investments. Her address is jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz. She doesn’t have the time to regularly monitor this (or any other) blog, but email her, give her the url of your post, and I’m sure she will respond.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Toad
No need to tell her what shes declared already
-http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A823A6F4-088C-4A8E-8577-16687DFA0F8B/82759/register2008_1.pdf
May 28th, 2008 at 12:21 am
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A823A6F4-088C-4A8E-8577-16687DFA0F8B/82759/register2008_1.pdf
May 28th, 2008 at 6:46 am
You lot on the right need help. Honestly. Toad and Sonic has managed to neatly turn this debate around from what the Labour Party and it’s sycophantic Communist poodle, the Greens, have done to silence any opposition in an election year and have managed to make this about National, the one party that has actually committed to repeal this act.
Do not get sucked into their attempts to divert you away from the corrupt actions of our current government. The Greens and Labour are the problem. Not National.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Actually Pascal, the prospect of putting one leftie voter on the right track is worth far more than a small blog diversion. I think Toad is in a genuine state of shock
May 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Clever, eh, Pascal?
Anyway, s 5(2) of the EFA:
So even if some of those websites were non-compliant, it wouldn’t take much work to make them compliant. I suspect there is another reason they have been taken down completely, and it likely has something to do with revamping Labour’s digital strategy for the election.
According to some on the right, the EFA is responsible for climate change and oil price increases too, by the way!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Thanks for that link Patrick. Of course it doesn’t tell us how many shares each MP has. And I seem to recall the Nats opposing the Register of Pecuniary Interests when it was first mooted.
I see John Key has directorships or controlling interests in dairy farming. Wonder if there’s any connection between that and the Nats’ flip-flop on the Emissions Trading Scheme?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Toad, It must concern you to know that your so principled leader is ‘eating the Big Mac’ so to speak?
Im sure most people in every political Party also eat dairy food, but cant see how that would affect their support of the ETS. The ETS is a dog and will destroy our economy
the point is when you take the moral high ground: “At least the Greens stand by what they believe” you have to make sure they do