Broadcasting Allocations
The Electoral Commission has made its broadcasting allocations. I blogged on these a few weeks ago. These are called interim allocations as if a small party fails to register, then their allocation is reallocated. This has a minor effect at best.
As expected National and Labour got the same amount – $1,000,000 each. Last time Labour got $1.1 and National $0.9.
Tier 2 sees the Greens, Maori Party and NZ First all get $240,000 each. I think that is somewhat unfair on the Greens who clearly have polled well above the other two parties.
Tier 3 are the three other parliamentary parties of ACT, Progressive and United Future who get $100,000 each,
Tier 4 has 11 non parliamentary parties getting $10,000 of broadcast time $7,000 of production costs for their one minute opening addresses.
The Libertarianz are getting the production costs only, as they said they would not spend any money allocated to them.
So how much extra or less does each parliamentary party get compared to 2005’s initial allocation?
- National from $900,000 to $1,000,000 = +$100,000
- Labour from $1,100,000 to $1,000,000 = -$100,000
- Maori Party from $125,000 to $240,000 = +$115,000
- ACT from $200,000 to $100,000 = -$100,000
- NZ First from $200,000 to $240,000 = +$40,000
- United Future from $200,000 to $100,000 = -$100,000
- Greens from $200,000 to $240,000 = +$40,000
- Progressive from $75,000 to $100,000 = +$25,000
Most of the changes can be explained away by a party having done better or worse in the last election than in 2002, or registering higher or lower in the polls. But there are two exceptions. Let’s look at each in turn:
- National – doubled vote in 2005 and currently high in polls so increase makes sense
- Labour – 2005 vote much the same as 2002 but down in the polls so decrease makes sense
- Maori Party – had no MPs before 2005 so the increase makes sense as they have won four seats now.
- ACT – lost MPs in 2005, so the decrease makes sense
- NZ First – went from 13 MPs in 2002 to seven MPs in 2005 and have dropped to under 3% in the polls, so the increase does not make sense. NZ First have been very lucky.
- United Future – lost MPs in 2005, so the decrease makes sense
- Greens – lost one or two MPs in 2005, but have been up in the polls so the small gain makes sense.
- Progressive – went from two to one MP and are at 0% in most polls – so the increase does not make sense
So NZ First and the Progressives have got extra money despite doing far worse in the last election and in subsequent polls. So they will be very happy with the result, while Greens will be fairly unhappy.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Or forgets to submit a list…
[cough] Libertarianz [/cough].
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Maybe Uncle Helen knew the Greens were going to start criticising Labour (i.e. at their conference, over the weekend)?
Maybe Uncle Helen ordered the EC to disadvantage the Greens!
I wouldn’t put it past her, and her far reaching influence.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
” These are called interim allocations as if a small party fails to register, then their allocation is reallocated.”
So in other words this is one form the Greens did not forget to fill in on time.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As always, the left get the undeserved extra handouts. Nice to see our tax dollars at work, corrupting absolutely.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Back over on the National Front thread, bearhunter admits to a:
Sadly for those advocating from either side of the spectrum, “a curse on both your houses” followed by a vote for “none of the above” is, I’d be willing to bet, the attitude of the vast majority of New Zealanders at this point in our history. New Zealand has stumbled from the heartless benefit cuts of the 90s to the bleeding heart middle class welfarism of the present, all overlaid with a theatre of the absurb featuring everything from blatant lying to fisticuffs to criminal activity from those who’d seek to rule us.
The time is ripe for change (even the NF can get it through their thick heads, hence their ‘reconciliation’). Yet no party has the courage nor foresight to offer a platform of real political reform. What they don’t seem to realise is that, till they do, no one is really listening (except perhaps the media, because they’re paid to and because they’ve become immune to the toxicity of present day politics by prolonged close exposure).
So spend our money any way you like, folks. Fact is, no one’s listening to you any more.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Jim Anderton is truly blessed. Not only does the doddery old fart get to live in this country’s largest and most opulent state house for the last 9 years he also gets a 100k bung to support harry and her mates
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
NZ First should suffer an offset of $158k. It’ the only way we’ll get back what he stole.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Do the $ quoted above include or exclude GST?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Include.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Looks pretty fair. I think the tier system works relatively well, although Progressives with one MP and 0% polling (and the fact pretty much just part of Labour) would have to consider themselves lucky. The sooner Anderton gone, the better. I can’t believe he’s banned set netting to save the dolphins. Did you know a Mauis dolphin in the stomach of a great white shark, caught in a set net, was counted as a dolphin having been killed by set netting?
Sorry, off the point, but $100,000 of our money for a party that consists solely of a person who makes these sorts of decisions, is crazy
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Thanks Graeme. I was just trying to remind the Nats about GST so that they don’t forget it this time round.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Perhaps Jim and Winnie could join forces to bribe curmudgeonly old people – a new party name say NZValues….
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
So the long suffering taxpayer gets to enjoy some mindless propaganda for the next six months. Shit I’m sick of these tit sucking pigs. Why the hell does a scum sucking party like Liarbore need a million dollars of taxpayer funds to tell us how useless they are when we already know this.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I’d prefer they set a limit, say $1,000,000 each, and make the parties raise funds for them, without a handout. If a party doesn’t have supporters who will give them the money then the party doesn’t have supporters to get the vote, and I don’t have to listen to them. If they have rich donors then the cap will kick in.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
How many realise that the allocations are also limits? ie, a party that is allocated $240,000 cannot spend any more, even of their own money! How can it be democratic to forcibly take money taken from unwilling taxpayers, give a million dollars to Labour and National and then make it *illegal* for another party to spend up to that level from their own resources?
Does anyone doubt that this is the most totalitarian law in our statute books? Can anyone point to worse?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This system rewards the large incumbent parties.
They should all get nothing more from the taxpayer.
Either raise it themselves or go away and hang themselves.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
This whole thing is a crock.
How can a small party ever get any publicity when:
a) it can’t spend its own money on TV or Radio ads; and
b) is subjected to spending limits for a whole year out of three in the electoral cycle?
Oh, if only I were Prime Minister in a FPP system!
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
There is nothing fair about this system. Giving the two biggest parties the most money and forbidding any further broadcasting is about as antidemocratic as you can get.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
lead into some vaguely patriotic NZ pop, perhaps crowded house, visions of flowing streams, waterfalls, helicopter panoramas of the wild west coat beaches, horses roaming, sheep sheeping, settling on Waitangi for a moment before zooming past a school playground where old people watch the (multi cultural) youngsters play while sharing knowing glances with the mums and dads.
Welcome to Labours Nu Zulund.
I really should be in PR.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I absolutely agree all parties should have the same cap, and that parties should be able to buy extra time with their own money.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Why should the state fund political parties at all? All political parties should go out into the marketplace of ideas and secure their own funding. It leaves more money for tax cuts and it stops giving politicians ideas about where next to waste taxpayer money.
Tax cuts today.
Tax cuts tomorrow.
Tax cuts forever!!!………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Can the discriminatory spending limits be attacked under the Bill of Rights, in the same way that the Electoral Finance Act was challengeable? How can there be freedom of speech when some groups are prohibited from spending what others are allowed to spend?
I’m sure this was commonplace in Nazi Germany, but in NZ in 2008?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:14 am
How bout we all get electoral$1 and then spend it by donating it to the party of our choice and then they can spend it on an election campaign after which we vote for one of the parties who have campaigned on electoral$1’s …..
June 4th, 2008 at 6:39 am
What an utterly disgraceful waste of good money! Over $2,000,000 sprayed up the wall by a shower of twits who you wouldn’t cross the road to pee on if they were on fire.
Rex W. is 100% onto it – NZ is two decades overdue for sweeping electoral reform.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
You may find the answer in the Cost of Baubles index David.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Expat that is a brilliant idea. If we give every one a dollar then they can give it to the party they choose. So democratic and fair it will never be seen.