Dom Post on List Jumping
June 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am by David FarrarThe Dominion Post is also not impressed with the Greens putting aisde their party list they were elected on in 2005, to leapfrog Russel Norman into Parliament.
Those pondering whether to cast a Green Party vote can pore over the details and the rankings, weighing the merits of those at the top of the list against what other, smaller list-based parties have to offer.
They should be aware they are wasting their time.
The appointment of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman as an MP shows that, when push comes to shove, the Greens will put party needs above voter preference and shuffle the deck to deliver the MPs the party wants rather than delivering the ones on the list the public voted for.
This is the key issue. It is nothing personal about Russel who I am sure will become an MP anyway later this year. It is about whether or not you respect the list put up at an election.
Those who argue that what the Greens are doing is not wrong, should consider the logical ultimate outcome of that argument. If List MPs are there purely as creatures of the party – to be elected and retired at whim, then why even have a public list before the election? Just tell the party they have X MPs, and they can appoint whomever they want as MPs at any time.
Putting Dr Norman into Parliament this late in the electoral cycle will not see him contribute hugely to the work of Parliament. What it will do is give him a platform from which to expound his views, and access to the resources, such as taxpayer-funded air travel, that give MPs a massive advantage in campaigning nationwide.
Indeed. This is being done not to further the work of Parliament, but to allow greater use of taxpayer resources for their election campaign.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
The Greens are shameless. They used and manipulated Jim Anderton to get into Parliament and then dumped on him when it suited. Now this little cunning stunt shows they regard us as peasants, the system really exists for them and them alone.
Vote:A pox on them.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The party would’ve had the same access to resources whether Norman was there or not. The resources are based on previous election results…
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Doctor Norman should be doing porridge in a cell with Norman Stanley Fletcher. What a lickspittle !
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Not true. There’s a very big difference between taxpayers flying soon-to-be-retired Nandor Tanczos around the country, and taxpayers flying Green Party co-leader Russell Norman around the country to campaign.
Plus, the resources aren’t based on previous election results. They’re based on current MP and current number of MPs in the executive. If Steve Maharey retires before the election to become Vice Chancellor of Massey University then Labour will not only lose his vote in the House, they’ll lose the funding he brought with him.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Stephen.
As a leader outside of parliament, his campaigning costs are borne by his party outside of taxpayer funding.
As a sitting MP, he is entitled to taxpayer funding in election year.
the word “Rort” springs to mind.
Its a bit like the National candidate for Rimutaka having to account for each cent spent, while having no taxpayer funding, even the cost of elecotate offices counting to campaign costs while Labour has 5 fully taxpeyer funded offices in the Hutt Valley, including 2 for Paul Swain, who is retiring this year!
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Graeme Edgeler – off topic, but is a talkback radio programme hosted by a party leader an “election advertisement” if said leader openly and explicitly solicits party votes? Your expertise would be appreciated!
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Sh!t, I really thought I was there.
Graeme, if they’re based on current MP(s?), isn’t that another way of saying based on “previous election results”, since that determines MP numbers? And it still sounds like they would’ve had the same access to resources – if they let Nandor potter around his garden, while Norman campaigned, the same amount of money would still be spent by the party, no? Or do the rules stipulate that the MP MUST spend that money to campaign on themselves, rather than the party spending on general campaigning?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Stephen
The rort is in the travel. If the Greens want to send Russell from Invercargill to Auckland to Wellington in a day, with him outside of parliament they have to fund the travel themselves from their party funds. With Russell in Parliament, he gets free travel around the country for free (well at parliaments expense).
Also any funding associated with Nandor is (theoretically) tied to parliamentary business. Campaigning isn’t parliamentary business, and the no party can funnel money to fund activities of members who aren’t sitting MP’s.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
>>If the Greens want to send Russell from Invercargill to Auckland to Wellington in a day
Will someone please think of the emissions?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
emmess
of course not!
The Greens that are members because they have true passion for the ‘green agenda’ that has spread around the world would, of course, think of the emissions; however, the party members who are there to promulgate their extreme socialist/marxist agenda and ride to some form of power on the back of the party’s global image (just measure the off-shore party voting proportions) wouldn’t give a stuff for the emissions if they thought they could get another one of ‘theirs’ into the public trough through creating them. Their view is that “the plane flys anyway, it doesn’t make any difference if I’m on it”!
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:15 am
It is not.
Not quite. During the last Parliament, Labour lost a member in a by-election, so lost money. At the last election United Future got three MPs, but they now only get funding for two. Labour has already lost the funding for Taito Phillip Field and may also lose the funding for Steve Maharey before this term is over. Move an extra person into the executive (e.g. Charles Chauvel into the promised Parliamentary Undersecretary role) and they’ll lose parliamentary funding again.
Certainly the same Parliamentary resources – staff, research, office space, “electorate” offices etc. However, travel is separately funded (effectively unlimited within New Zealand). If Norman travels more than Tanczos would have (likely, I think) then the Greens will have gotten more money from the taxpayer, and will have saved a lot of money they would have had to spend from their own funds flying him places.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Hours of burnt Jet-A is nowhere near as damaging to the environment as when Russell opens his mouth. I say keep him in the air all day, every day for a better, brighter future
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Appears Labour and NZ First have done this sort of thing before too, but it was never an issue then:
http://stuff.co.nz/4573214a1861.html
I’d be a little surprised if National hadn’t done so before, but their numbers have been very up and down, so ‘refreshing’ the party hasn’t really come into it for a while…
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:43 am
DPF said: If List MPs are there purely as creatures of the party – to be elected and retired at whim, then why even have a public list before the election?
That’s the flaw in your argument DPF. The law is very clear:
That section requires that it is the decision of the next candidate on the list, rather than the Party, whether to take up a list vacancy. The Party has no say in it.
[DPF: Yeah sure. It is like saying if you push someone off a cliff, then it is gravity's fault they hit the bottom. We know that the Party devised a plan to achieve this outcome - it was devised last year]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I am almost certain National has had a situation where a retirement has not seen the next cab off the rank. My recollection that this was due to the next person “moving on” with their career and not being in a position to come into Parliament part way through a term rather than shameless gerrymandering. The only thing the Greens deserve credit for is that they haven’t tried to hide what they are doing.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Oh, the hypocrisy. Green Party members rank the entire list of MPs. They’ve endorsed Norman as co-leader, and endorsed him as no 2 on their list at the coming election. I guess you wouldn’t understand that, coming from a party where decisions are handed down from on high and even the MPs don’t get a say in things.
[DPF: The point you are missing is that the voters are being left out of the loop]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Stephen said – `I think Labour and NZ first have done this as well’.
It is not often I support Labour but at least (to my knowledge) they have taken the next person on the list – not someone 2 or 3 below.
I don’t know about NZ First – but I think Dail Jones was next in line when he came in.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
georgedarroch – that ranking is for the upcoming 2008 election. The list we are talking about is the list from the 2005 election until the 2008 one.
Stop trying to fudge the manipulation.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Probably right pdm. I’m sure there’s reason, but why *can’t* they fall back to the list that they announced on the 12th of May?
Vote:http://www.nzgovtdirectory.com/visitors/election08/lists08.asp#green
June 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Dail Jones was not next on the list. Susan Baragwanath was next, followed by Jim Peters. But neither wanted to be an MP.
This is different from the Greens. Both Catherine Delehunty and Mike Ward want to be MPs, they are going to run again in a few months’ time. Neither Susan Baragwanath nor Jim Peters want to be an MP, and they’re not running at the next election: they’ve moved on from politics.
Because in a democracy like New Zealand, we elect people to Parliament. No-one voted for some of the people on that list. No-one voted for Kevin Hague, who would be next. No-one voted for Kennedy Graham.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
True.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
There is a delicious irony in watching National Party supporters slagging the Greens on this one.
National Party members can’t vote to rank every person the list.
National Party members can’t vote to elect their party leader.
Greens do both.
Every person who voted Green on the party list endorsed the entire list. All of them. perhaps the National Party not expanding the franchise of its members internally to match this reality explains some of the confsion apparent about about the party list and how it works.
The job of ANY political party to most effectively represent those people who voted for it. (That would not include many here, it’s safe to say.) It should be staringly obvious to anyone that having your most effective team in the House would be the best way to do that…and having the leader in the House as an MP is an excellent way of advancing the aims of everyone who voted for your party.
Contriving to place the list ranking above the more important goal of actually representing your voters is just one more fascinating insight into the mind of some people.
Russel Norman was 10th on the list. He was endorsed by voters every bit as much as any other person that list. Welcome to Parliament, Russel. Be a powerful advocate of Green policies.
That’s your job. That’s why Greens voted for you in 2005.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Edge, Catherine Delahunty and now Mike Ward don’t want to be MPs now. They wanted to be MPs at the time of the last election, and they want to be MPs after the next election, but they don’t want to be MPs now. Why should they be constrained by a list that is almost 3 years old by becoming MPs at a time they don’t want to?
I agree with you that using the 2008 list would be unacceptable though – one reason being that it isn’t even registered – it’s currenly just an internal party document that the Greens have chosen to make public (and if they hadn’t would have been leaked to DPF anyway, like their initial list ranking from their Campaign Conference was).
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Graeme Edgeler: You’re quite wrong in your understanding about the party lists. When I cast my party vote, I am VERY consciously voting FOR each and every person on that party list as individuals…and as a group. That’s how MMP works.
People schooled in First Past the Post, with the single vote for the single person, appear to have decided this is the only valid way to vote. The reality that is isn’t is not one you appear to be prepared to accept. You are free to deny it if you like.
But please don’t impose your denial on those of us who are very happy to accept that our party vote is a VERY powerful vote….allowing us to elect not just one, but several MPs….and to be much more certain of electing a GROUP of people we actually WANT than we ever could be for a single MP under FPP.
Moreover, under MMP, accountability of the entire party if vastly improved as that entire list is accountable to me. If I don’t vote for that party, they ALL miss out….just as they all gain if I do.
Whereas under FPP, the ONLY person I can hold to account a big maybe even then!) is the SINGLE MP in my ONE electorate. All others are utterly unaccountable to me.
Of course let’s also remember that MMP also affords us the opporunity to continue to waste our local votes as we always have under FPP. As a sort of reminder of how impotent we were in those days: voting National in Laour seats, Labour in Naonal seats….and no one in ANY seat of you voted for anyone else.
It’s obvious enough to me how the party list under MMP works and I like it very much.
I’m sorry you don’t get it.
[DPF: Steve is a Green Party activist and or him he is voting for every person on that list. He does not speak though for every voter. While I don't think a huge number of voters take into account every candidate's ranking, they do have an effect on support.
Where ACT places Roger Douglas on their list could be a very important issue for if people vote ACT. Now if people vote ACT because they want Roger D in at No 4, and then they find out he and No 5 6 and 7 are all refusing their seats and instead they get No 8, their voting intentions have been frustrated]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
toad: the Green’s chose to make it public because they were worried that DPF would leak it?
The point is that Catherine and Mike do want to be MPs, but apparently just not right now. In a few months they do. Does that not seem a little disingenuous?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
That’s MMP for you. It puts unelected people in parliament. At the referendum on the electoral system I voted SMP because I could see MMP gave too much power to small parties and unelected MPs. SMP would have allowed small parties into parliament where they had no chance under FPP but clipped their wings somewhat.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
No Bob, MMP doesn’t put unelected people into parliament. They are elected through the list. Gerrymandering the list, however, should be a concern to all of us.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I’m perfectly happy with that.
But did your vote for the Green Party list involve you VERY consciously voting for people who weren’t on that party list? Because Kevin Hague wasn’t. And Kennedy Graham wasn’t. And using the 2008 list would involve putting people in Parliament ahead of all those people you very consciously voted for.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Steve Withers – I think you are missing the point on Graeme’s comment. He is commenting on whether or not the 2008 Green list can be used, not on whether the 2005 list was voted for.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ah another day another post about the Greens.
Hit a Green a day has become several times a day at the moment. What is it David are you a little nervous that National might have to talk to these people come election time, or is it just some deep seated pathological dislike of the Greens.
Dad4
“Doctor Norman should be doing porridge in a cell with Norman Stanley Fletcher”
How do you come to that sunshine, the only one that needs to be away is you and your insane comments. SO this is how the right suppresses freedom of association and speech, lock up those you don’t like. Shit man you better have billions put away to build your prisons, there isn’t a single person you like.
[DPF: Labour seem to have no policies or announcements at the moment so the Greens have been keeping me busy in their place!
But Paul really should try reading what I have said on a number of occasions. I have actually advocated that National should try and negotiate an abstention agreement with the Greens - even if they don't need one. A suggestion which I might point out was deeply unpopular here! And I have a lot more regard for the Greens than Labour and respect a number of their MPs and Officers. But for me this is an issue of principle - it is about the relative powers of parties and the public under MMP, and that this practice takes us in a direction of more powerful parties, and less power to the public]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Well Paul, like it or not, the Greens are an interesting party. Even Garth George seems to think so too today, and in a good way!
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
i’d just like to add a [bemused face] to my comment above.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Paul said: Ah another day another post about the Greens. Hit a Green a day has become several times a day at the moment.
My theory, Paul, is that DPF is worried about the softness of the support for National, and that a significant amount of the 50%ish figure the Nats are currently polling could well leak to the Greens.
The reason is that much of National’s current polling is not core support – their core support was revealed in the 2002 election as around 22% (admittedly, the Greens’ is only around 5%). But much of the current National poll support are people who, for one reason or another, are annoyed with Labour rather than actually support National.
The Greens have been getting some good media coverage recently, particularly in the last week surrounding their Annual Conference, and I suspect DPF may be worried that once the focus moves onto policies, a good many soft (ie annoyed with Labour) current National supporters may decide a right wing government (which is what national governing alone would be)is not in their interests and that they will be better represented by voting Green.
BTW, who would have ever thought Garth George would write a column supportive of the Greens? He admists himself that he set out intending to bag the Greens, but changed his mind when he looked at the evidence.
[DPF: Good God Toad please don't psycho-analyse me. This blog is not an organised campaign where I have strategic gaols, KPIs and targets. I wake up each day having no idea generally what I will blog on, and respond to the days events.
Again if you look at what I have actually said on the blog (rather than try to mind read me) I have advocated the Greens should go more aggressively for votes and be aiming for more than 10% of the vote]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Toad, are you arguing that the core support for a party is the lowest that party has ever gotten in an election? Or the lowest ever poll? What do you think Labour’s core support is? It seems an interesting argument.
DPF is posting about the Green’s because they are the only party doing anything much at the moment. True, he likes to ignore ACT (they are doing stuff), National and Labour are basically trying to keep their heads down – National in the hope they don’t stuff anything up, Labour in the hope people will like them more the less they see of them. DPF posts plenty about NZF, and there is no real point in spending time on Dunne or Anderton. Maori are perhaps an omission, but they aren’t really doing much.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
toad: My theory, Paul, is that DPF is worried about the softness of the support for National,
Typical socialist bullshit. The simple fact is this:
The Green Party of New Zealand is manipulating the party list to gain an advantage in funding for their party.
That is why DPF is posting on the matter. It is a news story. If any other party was doing this he would be posting about it. Not everybody has the same hidden agendas as the bloody Greens.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
PaulL Toad, are you arguing that the core support for a party is the lowest that party has ever gotten in an election?
I wasn’t being particularly scientific about it, PaulL, just top of the head thoughts based on polls and election performance over the years.
I would say that there are somewhere around 20% of voters who would vote Labour whatever policies they came up with (even Rogernomics Part II), and a similar percentage who would vote National come hell or high water (even Muldoonism Part II). Around 5% would vote Green whatever, 3% Maori Party, and 2% NZF. That makes half the voters who will not be influenced one bit by programme or policy. It’s “I vote Labour because they’re good for workers”, “I vote National because they are good for business”, I vote Green because they’re good for the environment”, “I vote Maori because they’re good for Maori” approach – essential “tribal voting”.
The other 50% is up for grabs.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Pascal, what the hell has the electoral law (that was passed with a National Government in power, by the way) got to do with “socialist bullshit”?
It is not “manipulating the party list” – it is doing what is permitted by the electoral law. If anyone manipulated the electoral system, it was ACT to get rid of Donna Awatere-Huata when she became an electoral liability by invoking sections of the Electoral Act they had opposed.
If Tanczos wants to stand down, and Delahunty and Ward decline to enter Parliament, and Norman takes up the vacancy as an MP, they are all quite entitled under the law to do so. You may disagree with that aspect of the Electoral Act, and want to have people compelled against their wishes to be MPs, but I don’t.
[DPF: You keep missing the point. Both Delahunty and Ward badly want to be MPs and are about to be campaigning to be MPs. Mike Ward is in fact being compelled by the Greens to go against his wishes.
The issue is that the Greens have effectively reshuffled their List between elections and are now operating off a different list to the one they put up to the voters. Yes it is legal - 100% so. Is it a good thing to do? I don't think it is because of the principle at stake that the public vote for a party knowing the order of their list. ]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Pascal,
Vote:Can you please advise what the Greens did that was against the law. No, of course you you can’t. The Electoral Act does not state that candidates have to voluntary stand down to have another candidate leapfrog over them.The fact that the party did a postal vote to get Norman in makes the Greens more democratic than the law. The fact that Mike Ward got arm twisted to announce that he will not signify his willingness to become an MP is completely irrelevant.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ha Toad BUT. And it is a big BUT..
All the lead up to this re-jigging of the list revolved around 3 people giving way SO THAT NORMAN COULD BECOME AN MP BEFORE THE ELECTION. For you to try and dress that up somehow that Nandor really wanted to go and the other two had a sudden change in their desire to become MPs at this time, happily a co-incidence of timing, (but will want to again later) is total and absolute bollocks and you know it. I’ve heard of revisionist history but that is asking for a longer stretch of the facts than you can legitimately expect a rational person to make. Take a deep breath and try to come up with something a bit more convincing willya.
Or just face it, the Greens are willing to compromise principles for power. Once you have said it you might actually find that it is not too difficult a concept to grasp.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Pascal – “…to gain an advantage in funding for their party”
My understanding is that they are NOT gaining any EXTRA funding for their party, but it does mean that a different person is going to spend that money.
BTW, I don’t agree with what they have done – in my view someone should have to have a very good reason to step down from being an MP as they effectively entered into an agreement with the electorate to be an MP for 3 years, or until an election is called.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
dave – Can you tell me what the Exclusive Bretheren did that was against the law? Jeez some people don’t like it when the boot is on the other foot do they?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Toad
” Catherine Delahunty and now Mike Ward don’t want to be MPs now.”
But Delahunty does want to be an MP in five months time!….what a load of bullshit Toad, do you really expect us to swallow that one?
The Greens are manipulating the system, why not just come out and admit that is what you are doing.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
david: What is the principle you are suggesting the Greens are compromising here? If the Greens opposed s137 of the Electoral Act, which permits this to happen, you might have a point, but they do not.
Nandor had wanted to go before the election in favour of Russel and since advised of this Catherine Delahunty had always said if he did she would stand aside for Russel. When approached by Nandor and the Party heirarchy, Mike Ward declined to stand aside. His subsequent media statements indicate that it was the response of Party members, rather than further arm-twisting from the Party heirarchy, that persuaded him to reconsider. The decision was his and his alone to make.
If I had been on the Party list in a marginally electable position I would have made the same decision – it would not benefit Green political aims one bit having me in Parliament for a few months as there would be little I could achieve there in that time and I might be thrown out at the election. it would just be a disruption to my life. But having the Co-Leader, who is almost guaranteed being in Parliament after the next election, there for a few months before it can be of considerable advantage, as he can start work now to complete in the next electoral term.
And there is no financial advantage, as Tamaki Resident says. If Nandor had remained there, or Mike Ward had taken up the position, they would have had access to the same funding as Russel Norman will.
[DPF: I think you are disingenuous in suggesting Nandor wanted to go early, as opposed to the party devised a scheme to get Russel into Parliament after he beat Nandor for the male co-leader role. If Nandor had stepped down a year or more ago, then the move would not look so cynical. But no one at all thinks Russel is coming in to serve on select committees or take part in Parliamentary debates when there are just a few sitting weeks left before the election.]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Tamaki Resident: My understanding is that they are NOT gaining any EXTRA funding for their party, but it does mean that a different person is going to spend that money.
Flights. It’s all in the benefits of being an MP and getting the advantages that would bring to a person who will be on the campaign trail.
The Greens are manipulating the system. It’s as simple as that. Anyone trying to bullshit around it is a liar. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Congratulations Toad. Hopefully you and your corrupt, manipulative socialist ilk will be shown the back door out of parliament come next election.
We do not need this type of nonsense in New Zealand.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I don’t know if ‘they so ARE engaging in manipulation’ really cuts it Pascal…
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Brian Smaller said: Can you tell me what the Exclusive Bretheren did that was against the law?
Nothing, Brian. That is why that law had to be changed – because it effectively allowed unlimited proxy advertising for political parties. Difference is that I don’t see anything wrong with s137 – it provides for an orderly transition when an MP decides to depart, and the Greens don’t get an extra cent to campaign with from it.
big bruv: Of course Catherine Delahunty wants to be an MP in 5 months time. She just sees that it is less advantageous to the Green cause if she becomes one now than it is if Russel Norman becomes one. You guys seem to think everyone acts out of personal ambition – those of us who are Green set that aside in the interest of the Green Party.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Pascal said: It’s all in the benefits of being an MP and getting the advantages that would bring to a person who will be on the campaign trail.
You seem to be assuming that Nandor would not have campaigned for the Greens if he were staying to the election, which is a false assumption. You are also assuming that Catherine or Mike would not have campaigned for the Greens if they were elected, which is also a false assumption.
BTW, please be a little more polite. I don’t appreciate being called “corrupt” and “manipulative” and don’t use language like that to those of you on the right (not even over the Exclusive Brethren deal at the last election – the Nats totally legitimately exploited a glaring loophole in the law though), so I would hope you could keep to a standard of language befitting the circumstances.
[DPF: Could I ask that people do debate somewhat respectively with Toad. I appreciate the fact that he participates here and argues on behalf of the Greens, and one can condemn what the Greens have done without making it personal.]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
In the interest of the Green party or the interest of Communism?
You guys have moved so far away from what the Greens used to represent it is not funny, with the sad passing of Rod Donald the hard left (Alliance refugees) element have taken control.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
toad: don’t appreciate being called “corrupt” and “manipulative” and do
Then do not support corrupt and manipulative politicians. It’s that simple. A spade is a spade Toad, no matter what weasel words you want to use.
toad: Of course Catherine Delahunty wants to be an MP in 5 months time. She just sees that it is less advantageous to the Green cause if she becomes one now than it is if Russel Norman becomes one.
*laughs* Yes, indeed. There is no manipulation. These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Toad
“BTW, please be a little more polite. I don’t appreciate being called “corrupt” and “manipulative” and don’t use language like that to those of you on the right (not even over the Exclusive Brethren deal at the last election – the Nats totally legitimately exploited a glaring loophole in the law though), so I would hope you could keep to a standard of language befitting the circumstances.”
This is not frogblog Toad, here the rules are different, you (and the left always do this) are not setting the agenda.
Vote:If some of us see it as corrupt or manipulative then we have a damn right to say so.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Attempting to extract the maximum political benefit within the rules is a time honoured tradition. In the same situation, every single party in the house would do the same, including DPFs beloved Nats. If you want to bag the greens have a go at their ridiculous policies.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Two scenarios:
1. Nandor stays.
2. Nandor goes, is replaced by Russell.
Under option 1, Nandor has access to taxpayer-funded flights, and Russell does not. Both fly to different election meetings and events around the country campaigning for Green Party votes, taxpayers paying for Nandor, the Green Party paying for Russell.
Under option 2, Russell has access to taxpayer-funded flights, and Nandor does not. Both campaign for Green Party party votes, but Nandor doesn’t extensively travel the country. The money that the Green Party would have spent flying Russell around the country to campaign is saved, and is spent on additional advertising.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Big Bruv: If some of us see it as corrupt or manipulative then we have a damn right to say so.
Exactly.
More to the point, Toad. Socialists and their kind have reframed debates, rewritten history and twisted the truth to make their actions seem better, pristine and lilly white compared to everyone else’s. Your political party has engaged in the persecution of a religious minority and have managed to rewrite history to such a degree with your lies and hidden truths that it has become the accepted truth.
You are engaging in the same actions here on this blog.
Point? Refer to this: My theory, Paul, is that DPF is worried about the softness of the support for National
See? It is not legitimate to criticize you and your kind – no. There must be some dastardly motive, because you can do no wrong. It must be because support for National is “soft”. Instead of the Green Party doing something wrong. Simple as that.
Typical.
Typical of the way you manipulate, obfuscate and reword things to suit your agendas. To hide the truth. I have had enough of that type of bullshit. If you associate yourself with the actions of a corrupt, self serving political party you become part of that corrupt, self serving political party. And I will call you corrupt and manipulative, despite your attempt to white wash your actions.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
yeah toad…grow some skin…
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“yeah toad…grow some skin…”
stephen I think toady of utopian hall has been licking the skin of cane toads again.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Didn’t the Greens find a way to profit, personally, from electorate office rental allowances a few years ago?
I’m a bit rusty on the details, but I think that they (or their pension fund?) purchased real estate then leased it back to the government to be used as electorate offices for Green MPs. So some proportion of money that was supposed to rent office space ended up in the Green MP’s pockets, or their pension funds. I’m guessing that the rent paid by the government wouldn’t have been as low as if the office space had been leased using a competitive process.
When I first heard of this scam, I remember being impressed as to just how clever it was. Green policies might make no sense what so ever, but they’re very good at discovering loopholes in rules that enable them to profit from our taxes.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I usually don’t reply to myself, but even though it’s not an election advertisement, there might be an argument that it constitutes a donation (and a couple of hours of radio time is probably worth more than $20,000, so there may need to be a section 54 return within the next 10 working days).
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
davidp said: I’m a bit rusty on the details, but I think that they (or their pension fund?) purchased real estate then leased it back to the government to be used as electorate offices for Green MPs.
That would have been very clever, and totally legal, but as far as I know, didn’t happen. But thanks for the tip – I will advise the Green MPs after the next election – as I am sure you can advise whatever Party you support.
E noho ra
Toad
[DPF: Not electorate offices but MPs accommodation it was. The pension funds purchased the houses and then rented them to the MPs, who then claimed parliamentary allowances to cover the rental.
It is quite legal. However there are some obvious conflicts of interest in that the rental for the properties would be set as high as possible to maximise the revenue from the parliamentary allowance]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
dad4justice said: “yeah toad…grow some skin…”
Okay d4j, you are among the worst offenders in this regard re offensive allegations. If someone wants to accuse me of being corrupt, bring on the evidence!
As far as I am concerned, “corruption” is a legal issue. Donna Awatere-Huata and Reg Boorman were corrupt, because Courts found them to be so. Taito Philip Field is still allegedly corrupt, because until the charges against him are heard, there is no legal determination re the allegations of corruption.
But to call me corrupt (as Pascal did), just because I defend three people on the Green list stepping down in favour of the elected Green Co-Leader, is outrageous. If anyone here really thinks I am corrupt, then lay a complaint with the Police or the Electoral Commission. DPF wll have access to the IP address(es) that I post from, and I am happy for him to forward them to either of the Police or the Electoral Commission if they consider there is any substantive allegation of corruption to investigate [note waiver under Privacy Act 1993].
I have nothing to hide, other than my real name, which probably protects others rather than me, because allegations of corruption without any evidence are actionable in the Courts.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
toad is discovering what it’s like to feel unjustly accused and jeered at because of his association with a group – the Greens.
Not nice is it?
I have a very good friend who knows just how you feel toad.
She’s continues to experience the same thing.
She’s an EB
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
DPF said: [DPF: Not electorate offices but MPs accommodation it was. The pension funds purchased the houses and then rented them to the MPs, who then claimed parliamentary allowances to cover the rental.
It is quite legal. However there are some obvious conflicts of interest in that the rental for the properties would be set as high as possible to maximise the revenue from the parliamentary allowance]
Except, DPF, the Parliametary Service is the legal tenant and is paying the rent. The Residential Tenancies Act 1983 comes into play, as this is residential accommodation for Members of Parliament. See definition s 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1983: “Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence.”
If the Parliamentary Service considers the rent excessive, they could apply to the Tenancy Tribunal under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
They have not, so all is good.
Unless (following the Pascal/d4j hypothesis) you presume with no evidence that the corrupt and evil Green influence of amphibians like me extends into the deepest abysses of the Parliamentary Service and the Tenancy Tribunal!
[DPF: I am not sure that PS is automatically the tenant. For example some MPs stay in hotels and just claim back the cost. The MPs may themselves be the tenants and just claim the cost back. I suspect you know how the scheme works in more detail than me, but there is an obvious benefit to the Greens from doing it. But it is within the rules]
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
All’s fair in love and politics. The Greens are quite right to do what they did and it’s legal. Who voted Jenny Shipley as PM anyway?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
getstaffed said: I have a very good friend who knows just how you feel toad. She’s continues to experience the same thing. She’s an EB
I am surprised, getstaffed. I didn’t think EBs were permitted to have “good friends” outside their religious adherents. Unless you are an EB too, but then I didn’t think EBs were permitted to post on blogs!
I’m confused. Please explain. Or if you can’t, can you or your friend get Bruce Hales (the Elect Vessel) to explain.
I, for one, am really confused now.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
toad, you’re showing your confused intolerance and ignorance there mate. it’s a bit sad. take a breather
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Getstaffed
Bloody well said, I used to have a bit of time for some of the Greens however this is the final straw as far as I am concerned.
They often act all high and mighty on issues such as this and assume Cunliffe like arrogance, however as you correctly point out when the shoe is on the other foot they scream, and they scream a bloody lot louder than the EB who have a genuine reason to be mightily pissed off at the persecution they received from Labour and the (now communist) Greens.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
toad, change your drugs ’cause you are very confused and in a big fluster. Check who said what before you croak bullshit.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Toad>Except, DPF, the Parliametary Service is the legal tenant and is paying the rent. The Residential Tenancies Act 1983 comes into play, blah blah blah
Like I said… it is extraordinary how you guys can find a loophole and exploit it. You’d make great tax lawyers. But the very idea that the Parliamentary Service should have to use the Residential Tenancies Act to stop Green MPs rorting their expenses is symptomatic of the lack of Green ethical standards.
Or if you’re not convinced, try this at work: You need to purchase something trivial with petty cash. Say a spindle of blank DVDs normally costing $10. Hit your employer up for a couple of hundred bucks in expenses. When challenged, explain that you purchased them from your brother’s shop. Tell your employer that if they have a problem with it, they should take up the pricing matter with the Commerce Commission or some other government department. Then, as you’re being shown the door with a boot planted firmly up your arse, complain that you’re a Green and therefore everything you’ve done is completely legal, and you’re going to whine if anyone says that you’re corrupt.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Toady, lets be honest here and admit a few things:
1) The Greens manipulated the election 2005 list to serve their election 2008 ends. This is without question.
I would not go as far to say that it is corrupt but its not exactly principled practice either.
2) There is not much one can do about it as you cannot force someone to take up a place in Parliament.
3) Clearly the Greens are prepared to manipulate their lists and the public will now know about it in the future.
4) Generally, just because corruption has not been proved in a Court of law does not mean corruption did not take place. Mad Mugabe has not been convicted for corruption in Zimbabwe and nor will the Labour party’s massive intentional overspend in the 2005 election be tested in Court, declared criminal or even corrupt. So your technical legal argument is narrow minded and ridiculous.
5) The Greens vote generally follows the economic weather. However, the most significant factor for the Greens in E’08 is the extent of Labour’s bleed and I think they will get a small premium from their usual vote of 5-5.5% taking them up to 6-7% this time. Should be enough for 2-3 more MP’s. I think the economic weather will act as a cap on the Greens party vote potential – capped at 9-10% max even if Labour plummets to mid twenties. The Greens should aim for 9%.
6) Green voters:
- Jeanette’s base: alternative lifestyles.
- “Wadestown socialists” [explains Kedgley and like minded voters well] ie middle class well off lefties (tend to be females but not necessarily so).
- Then we have students (the ones who want free education and like hash and perhaps hate the US, Bush etc) [Nandor's/Locke's base included US haters in general] or beneficiaries [bulldog Braddyford] wanting more cash. Cash for nothing.
– Turei brings close ties with the Maori party supported by the unfair electoral incentives offered under the current system (I agree with the idea of removing the Maori seats and providing Maori with a proportional representation based on their vote (exempt from the 5% threshold) ie Maori’s campaign for Maori seats (get 6-7) and Greens campaign only for party vote (get 9-10 MP’s). They will no doubt strategically align their campiagns.
– Those who are uninformed, perhaps uneducted, perhaps irrational and are captured by a brand tend to make their way dispropotionately to the Greens.
7) So the Greens have a strong base but a lack of strong individual politicians (ie no Rod or Nandor anymore) and will take the wrong direction without Jeanette in 2011. I see the Greens not getting 5% in either 2011 or 2014 without Jeanette and with Bradford and Russell Norman as co-leaders.
8) Toady, you seem to think that money buys elections. Do you have any evidence to support your protestations? This issue has been argued in a number of cases in overseas jurisdictions and the consensus is that it does not. I think National actually lost votes because of their perceived collusion with the EB.
9) The fundamental flaw in the EFA is the assumption stated in its purposes that money “unduly influences” the outcome of elections. This farcical principle is in direct conflict with the principle that one should be able to “exercise [their] freedom of speech” – which can often only be with their resources. Freedom of speech costs money to exercise (ie ads, publicity etc etc) so by taking away people’s rights to utilise their resources takes away their democratic rights. Money may influence an election to a limited extent, but it does not ‘unduly’ influence them. For example, without money gained by legitimate fundraising, an anti-establishment outsider, Obama would never have won the democratic nomination. Show me how fundraising is somehow unfair enough to restrict it like the EFA does? Show me an academic publications that shows why the use of money to persuade voters is somehow undue?
10) You seem genuine Toady, but your arguments are thoroughly misguided and wholly lacking in substance.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“There is a delicious irony in watching National Party supporters slagging the Greens on this one.”
Is Graeme Edgeler a Nat-supporter, now? I must have missed that road to Damascus coversion somehow.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
glubbster said: The Greens manipulated the election 2005 list to serve their election 2008 ends. This is without question.
I would not go as far to say that it is corrupt but its not exactly principled practice either.
I think that is the only argument that is worth responding to, and my response is that it is all legal.
If you want to progress that argument, tell me why Don Brash should not have been required to stay in Parliament and contest the 2008 election as National Party Leader. No, the Nats abandoned him post-election, and appointed John Key (no democratic vote of the Party membership there, as the Greens require for leadership succession) because the Caucus (not the Party as a whole) considered Brash would be an electoral liablility if he continued as Leader.
As is the Nats’ right under the Electoral Act. The same arguments that you guys are using to say that Nandor should have had to stay on (or that Mike Ward should have succeeded him into Parliament) would result in Dr Dunny Brush still being the National Party Leader (and about 20% less in the polls for the Nats, I suspect), or Gerry Brownlee now being the Leader following Brash’s departure (about 15% less in the polls, I suspect).
Of course every Party maximises its electoral prospects (as it sees them) as the law permits. It is ironic that Nat supporters are having a crack at the Greens over this when the Green Leadership selection process is democratic and involves the votes of every member of the Green Party, while the Nats can change Leader at the whim of only their MPs without any consultation with Party membership!
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I dunno. Who voted anyone for PM? David Lange was voted in by the people of Mangere. And only as a member of the House of Representatives.
Isn’t the PM appointed by the Governor-General or something?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Toad
“It is ironic that Nat supporters are having a crack at the Greens over this when the Green Leadership selection process is democratic and involves the votes of every member of the Green Party”
YES..exactly, that is what we have been trying to bloody tell you!
The GREEN party elected their list, Comrade Norman was number 10, by your own words you said that the sexist bigot Delahunty was desperate to become an MP yet for some reason that desperation has temporarily left her.
For a party that often claims the moral high ground this is strange behaviour, frankly the whole thing stinks Toad.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
big bruv: You are really losing it. Catherine Delahunty chose to not become an MP at this time because of her commitment to something she believes in.
Are you saying she should have picked up an MP’s salary (as a community worker hers is much less, like about a third, I think) for a few months, just to satisfy peope like you.
I’m sure you would then have attached her for picking up the salary when she had no time to achieve anything, and if the Greens were to poll poorly at the next election, might be back working as a community worker on a third of a Parliamentary salary.
Come on bruv, at least Catherine never considered going into Parliament for such a short time as being something productive to do in the interest of the Greens. Mike did, for a while, but eventually decided as Catherine did.
E noho ra
Vote:Toad
June 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Toad, Tell me. With the exception of Freedom of religion do these sound like key policy areas for the Greens?
· Strong show of local culture
Vote:· Limited freedom of religion
· Animal welfare,
· Environmentalism
· The well-being of the working classes.
· Public health (Anti smoking campaigns, asbestos restrictions, occupational health and safety standards)
. Anti Capitalism
June 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hey Graeme, is Russel Norman entitled to the same funding as Nandor? Or, as co-leader, is he entitled to greater funding?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Losing it?…really?
Nah, I am just sick of lefties stealing money from me and then pretending that it is done in the name of democracy.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Patrick
I can tell you that Animal Welfare is not something that the Greens give a toss about.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bruv
How so?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Patrick
I have been on at the Greens for at least two years to do something about animal welfare, they have the govt by the proverbial balls and could have insisted at any time that the bill they have sitting waiting to be read be taken as govt business.
When is comes to animal welfare they are all piss and wind.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Patrick Starr: All the things you cite are supported by the Greens, apart from Anti Capitalism.
The Greens acknowledge that unrestrained capitalism results in unfair outcomes, so support capitalism modified by regulation – eg, a minimum wage that people can afford to live on (rather than handouts through the tax or benefit systems to people in full-time employment in order that they can survive).
Big bruv: the Greens do have a commitment to “animal welfare. There will be a new, and even more animal supportive, version of that policy posted soon, when Sue Kedgley chooses to release it for the election (I know because I have had input).
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
big bruv – you don’t get it. The Greens do not trade across issues. We could have put up Sue K’s Bill re farm animal welfare, and told the Government that we would oppose every Government Bill until they agreed to pass it.
But we did not, because it would not have succeeded, and the Government could get the numbers from NZ First and UF to pass their legislation anyway.
Bottom line here, bruv, is that we we one seat in Parliament away from getting battery chicken farming and sow crates banned after the last election, because with one extra seat, we could have called the shots on an issue that is not of much significance to other parties.
If you are passionate about animal welfare, the only Party that will deliver is the Greens – we just need more seats to give us the negotiating ability after the next election.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Toad
Big bruv: the Greens do have a commitment to “animal welfare. There will be a new, and even more animal supportive, version of that policy posted soon, when Sue Kedgley chooses to release it for the election (I know because I have had input).
There was a time when I would have believed you, sadly you have done nothing about this for the last six years and only now do you release the new improved version in time to sucker in a few more voted from animal lovers.
Make it part of ANY coalition negotiations and I might believe you.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
So would it be fair to say the “corporation” as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism?. Would the Greens like to see the nationalisation of all businesses which have been formed into corporations, Like say Toll NZ Rail… profit-sharing in large enterprises?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I do bloody get it Toad, you could have made it GOVT business and then the bastards would have been duty bound to support you.
Look, you know this is an issue I am passionate about so please do not insult me by suggesting it was not possible, you mange to “twist their arms” on other issue you could have done so on this.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Zippy – the funding is the same. Russell might be paid more than Nandor, but the Greens overall won’t get extra money.
Every MP gets paid at least $126,200.
Each leader of a party recognised in Parliament is entitled to $139,000 + extra depending on MP numbers. Rodney is thus entitled to $140,730. The leader of a party with 6 MPs (like the Greens) is entitled to $148,800.
A party with at least 25 MPs is entitled to a paid Deputy Leader (paid $160,400+, Bill English gets either $169,500 or $170,000, I can’t work out which).
A party with at least 4 MPs is entitled to a paid whip ($139,000+). The Green Party whip is entitled to $139,000, the New Zealand First whip $140,150. The National senior whip gets either $169,380 or $170,000.
A Party with at least 25 MPs is entitled to a paid junior whip ($139,000).
Each MP is entitled to an expense allowance of $14,280 (except the PM and Speaker who get a little more).
When Jeanette and Rod were co-leaders, I believe they split the difference. Entitled to one leader at $148,800 they’d have both been paid $137,500 and I suspect this will happen again (I’m not sure whether they included the whip in this, who’d otherwise have been paid more).
Similar calculations apply to actual expenses (i.e. the leaders fund). It depends upon how many MPs each party has, and how many of those MPs are not in the executive. Just because a party wants to call one of its MPs a co-leader or a deputy leader, or a musterer doesn’t have any effect. If the party chooses to spend its bulk-funded allowance in a way which gives its self-appointed/annointed co-leader more spending power is up to that party.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
sorry, must have missed out a bit
So would it be fair to say the “corporation” as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism are both areas you would want to regulate?. Would the Greens like to see the nationalisation of all businesses which have been formed into corporations, Like say Toll NZ Rail… profit-sharing in large enterprises?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
The reasons animals are treated so badly in this country can be summed up in four words: “Jim Sutton”, and now “Jim Anderton”. I hate those two men with my entire being for the way they’ve allowed animal cruelty which is quite clearly illegal under the legislation already in place.
Bruv, the Greens have been thoroughly screwed over in the last 9 years. Labour is filled with arrogant pricks who will ignore the Greens whenever convenient, and patronise them the rest of the time with nice words to the effect of “we care”. Sometimes the Labour takes them seriously, but mostly they’re ignored. If you get the impression that Labour and the Greens are friends, it’s because Labour likes to think they care about those issues, and will make meaningless gestures to that effect, and the Greens know that however bad things are, they’re usually just as bad under National, and will try not to piss Labour off unless there’s nothing to lose by doing so (and there often is).
It isn’t possible to “twist their arms” – it isn’t possible to twist Helen Clark and Cabinet’s arms on anything – they’ll do what they want to do. Remember the last time the Greens pissed off Helen Clark by setting bottom lines? It was over something I personally don’t care much about (GE), but it illustrates the mentality of Labour – they deserve power, and they set the agenda.
Please Labour, can I have another?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Don’t expect any sympathy from me George, if the Greens are prepared to act as Labour lap dog each and ever time they get what the bloody well deserve.
The fact remains that they COULD have done something about it and chose not to do so, Sue K’s new super improved policy is just another con to attract voters.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Bruv, the Greens COULD NOT have done what you suggest – Labour has had the numbers to ignore the Greens at will in the last 9 years, and have done so.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
bruv, if the Greens get into Government, animal welfare will be an issue – the only other party that has made any noise on it is Maori – if a Labour Government is formed that doesn’t include either of those parties, the issue will be ignored. If a National Government is elected there may be some movement, but I don’t expect much.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I was not impressed when the elected PM Jim Bolger was ousted mid-term, and until the next election we had the lovely Jenny Shipley who was elected as an MP but not as PM.
I got over that though – by considering that the basic gist of the national Party’s policies were not radically changed. I guess this is the benefit of having a House of a few parties rather than 120 (or 100 as it was then) independent MPs…?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I was not impressed when the elected PM Jim Bolger was ousted mid-term, and until the next election we had the lovely Jenny Shipley who was elected as an MP but not as PM.
Vote:Well aren’t we lucky we didn’t get the lovely Don Brash as PM at the last election. He was voted in by the people of….um….gee.. what was it now….?..eh…?
June 6th, 2008 at 12:23 am
DPF “Labour seem to have no policies or announcements”
Are you taking the piss sunshine, you are really having a strange week aren’t you.
What was the Budget and all of the pre budget announcements about, if not a signal for spending and policy direction for the next 1-3 5 years.
As for National’s claim they have released policy, please if that is policy that is going to get this country through, slow ironic hand clap for the party that is taking the piss.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 12:36 am
This is a gem of a nat policy.
“Trades training in schools”
Correct me if I am wrong (which I ain’t) but wasn’t it National that got rid of the apprenticeship scheme that was giving so many kiwis trades. Funny just as they country was going through a period of sustained and solid (not spectacular) economic growth, what do you know, we’re short of skilled workers in the trades area – bloody rocket science.
National also want us to work harder to achieve greater productivity. Where is the incentive. It was National that scrapped over time pay and time in leu for overtime. So where was the incentive to work harder if there was no chance of the only real reason so many people go to work, for the extra money. Side comment, overtime scrapped, Cafe and other service industry prices stayed the same, overtime reintroduced and now we have a surcharge on public holidays – who’s taking the piss there. I wonder how secure the overtime incentive is for kiwi workers under National, there doesn’t seem to be a policy on that yet?
Don’t get me started on the Taser issue. Night after night I watched an innocent man die at Vancouver Airport because they zapped the poor bastard with a taser. His crime, he couldn’t speak english.
(unashamed pimp of the issue. http://concernedoflinwood.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/warning-tasers-kill-warning-graphic-content/) Warning you see the guy die in front of your face.
Points of difference in National policy, lets have a look
“Adoption of Labour’s interest-free student loans policy”
“No state asset sales or partial selldowns”
“Leave nuclear-free law as is”
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 4:18 am
The Green party being unethical.
What a shocker!
Another good reason my National should have nothing to do with them post election.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Paul. Do you tell lies uncontrollably, or are you just ‘confused’?
What is it in you lefties that prevents you from telling the truth?
By way of example “His crime, he couldn’t speak English”
Speaking English or not, when the police are pointing a gun at you there’s a fairly good chance they want you to surrender. The international ‘best practise’ response is to put your hands up – and not throw tables, chairs and computers around as that is probably going to be seen as an act of resistance.
Go to Poland and ignore repeated police instructions to surrender – see what happens to you there Paul.
I suggest you keep watching a few more nights with both eyes open because you are obviously only seeing what you want to see (which is probably why you still defend this government)
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:07 am
On TVNZ7 you can see a re-run of the latest episode of “Back Benches”, as a result of this program I am now of the opinion that Comrade Norman should be placed in the house immediately.
He is without doubt one of the most arrogant men I have ever heard speak, he has the usual “I know what is best for you” attitude that so many communists suffer from, the sooner the Greens get him into the house and elect Comrade Bradford as co leader the better.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I also fully support Comrade Bradford and Comrade Norman as co-leaders!
And the delicious part is – they truly think that is what the country is demanding…
Vote: