Comments on: Broadcasting Allocations

By: kiki

kiki — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:05:39 +0000

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.

By: Murray

Murray — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:45:34 +0000

You may find the answer in the Cost of Baubles index David.

By: Flashman

Flashman — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:39:42 +0000

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.

By: expat

expat — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:14:03 +0000

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 …..

By: freedom101

freedom101 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:24:33 +0000

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?

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:24:31 +0000

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!!!………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:50:46 +0000

I absolutely agree all parties should have the same cap, and that parties should be able to buy extra time with their own money.

By: expat

expat — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:21:54 +0000

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.

By: BlairM

BlairM — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:05:55 +0000

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.

By: Gooner

Gooner — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:57:21 +0000

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!

By: thehawkreturns

thehawkreturns — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:41:49 +0000

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.

By: freedom101

freedom101 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:33:36 +0000

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?

By: Brian (Shadowfoot)

Brian (Shadowfoot) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:26:14 +0000

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.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:41:23 +0000

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.

By: expat

expat — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:30:39 +0000

Perhaps Jim and Winnie could join forces to bribe curmudgeonly old people – a new party name say NZValues….

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:28:55 +0000

Thanks Graeme. I was just trying to remind the Nats about GST so that they don’t forget it this time round.

By: Spider_Pig

Spider_Pig — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:43:36 +0000

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

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:28:19 +0000

Do the $ quoted above include or exclude GST?

Include.

By: Tamaki Resident

Tamaki Resident — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:46:04 +0000

Do the $ quoted above include or exclude GST?

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:34:43 +0000

NZ First should suffer an offset of $158k. It’ the only way we’ll get back what he stole.