The “utterly corrupt, thieving basterds of the left” more like it.

Poor? Not for a lack of trying to rip off the taxpayer at every turn.

Corrupt, conniving, deceitful, immoral, lying, cheating basterds. I give you “the left”.

Where’s the $800,000 you lot stole?

What happened to the billions of $$ in surpluses that you lot pissed up against the wall? (and the trainset, WFF, ACC etc)?

Although, to be honest, the difference between Nats and Labour is definitely not a right/left divide. Once in power, they are both conservative parties. The last vestiges of ” left” left with Helen.

But I would have thought John Banks would be way too left wing and environmentally conscious for you to support if it were an STV election.

After all, Banks supports the Britomart-Mt Eden rail tunnel. Gotta be the man, eh!

Actually he hasn’t, under the law as it stands, but your suggestion DPF only goes to demonstrate the folly of rushing the whole Supercity proposal through so quickly and with such inadequate consultation.

It appears the the inadequacy of section 111 of the Local Electoral Act was not identified – it has incremental limits on spending until a local authority gets to 250,000 electors. But it never anticipated an authority such as the Auckland Council having vastly more. So the spending limits are ridiculously low in that context.

I didn’t argue the case you made. All I am saying is those with less name recognition need to spend earlier – not that they need to spend more.

[DPF: In which case Len Brown has already spent his entire allowable budget]

That said- those groups and individuals supporting mayoral candidates will get good value for money. Someone directly elected by 1/3 of the population of NZ will be put on the fast track to the PMs office- as they will be have proven electoral credentials (as opposed to cabinet ministers who merely have their party’s favour) and will be able to use the unprecedented mayoral position (and 3% of the council’s budget) for self publicity . This makes it even more strange that the right would select someone as old as John Banks who would not be able to convert his Auckland support and profile into a national political asset.

The article records Brown’s comment that Bank’s claim of $150k to $200k expenditure so far was $100k high of the mark. Ergo the expenditure could be as low as $50k and Len does not suggest that it is around the $100k mark.

Mickey is right, it could be as low as $50K. That means Brown Len has a further $20K to spend in the next 12 months so that he reaches his legal limit of $70K. That’s about $1,650 per month. And Brown Len is a lawyer so he should be the first to obey the law.

We’re counting, Brown Len.

Well actually people accept the fact that THERE ARE NO BILLBOARDS OR ADS for mr Banks as evidence that he hasn’t spent any money on them, you moron.

You can see indicative costs here:
http://www.isitemedia.co.nz/index.php/content/timetable_buses
http://www.oggi.co.nz/billboard-selector-results.asp?chkAuckland=3%2C16%2C13%2C56%2C17%2C15%2C14%2C64&optMonth=Any&cmdSearchNew=Find+Billboards&Address=

The article records Brown’s comment that Bank’s claim of $150k to $200k expenditure so far was $100k high of the mark. Ergo the expenditure could be as low as $50k and Len does not suggest that it is around the $100k mark.

I agree there should be public disclosure of who is funding Brown. Our democracy requires this information to be publicly available.

Can you remind me again DPF who funded the National Election campaign last year?

[DPF: Around 40,000 members and supporters]

And the Auckland Council is a local authority of a sort we have not seen before.

Banks already has a high profile across all of the Auckland Council’s district as a consequence of being a former Cabinet Minister and radio talkback host. While Brown has a high profile in Manukau City, his profile in the rest of the Auckland region has been nothng like Banks’.

[DPF: Excellent. Thank you for arguing the case I made against the EFA. The reason you do not extend the regulated period is because incumbents have a hge advantage in name recognition, and pre-period spending allows challengers to have a decent chance.

This of course explains the hollowness of the left's support of the EFA. Basically they just didn't want parties or candidates they oppose to be able to spend up large - but they think they should be able to - preferably with taxpayer money]