The taxpayer purchased referendum

March 13th, 2013 at 1:11 pm by David Farrar

A mole has leaked to me a couple of strategy documents from and on the they have just purchased with our money. The documents are embedded below, and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this .

CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result. Some key revelations:

  • They aimed for 400,000 signatures as they knew a fair proportion would be found to be invalid.
  • At the 300,000 mark the Greens collected 150,000, Labour 105,000 and 40,000. The Greens are the ones who used taxpayer funding to hire petition collectors.
  • Labour pledged 30 hours per week staff time from their taxpayer funded budget
  • Greens were using their permament taxpayer funded staff to co-ordinate
  • The unions had a paid national co-ordinator
  • They refer to unions gathering “car loads” of organisers and activists to travel to areas
  • For their day of action, Greens said they will committ five full-time staff – presumably all taxpayer funded, if Labour does the same. That’s 10 taxpayer funded organisers.
  • A list of unions to pressure to do more, including PPTA, NZEI, Nurses Organisation – minority shares in power companies of course being key education and health issues!

It is very clear that there has been very few ordinary citizens involved in this petition – mainly a legion of taxpayer funded staff and union staff.

Asset Sales Petition Strategy Docs

Tags: , , , , ,

58 Responses to “The taxpayer purchased referendum”

  1. wat dabney (3,655 comments) says:

    It’s like North Korea’s “spontaneous” shows of support for Dear Leader.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    A motley array of Luddites, communists, socialists and overall, enemies of New Zealand.
    Despicable comrades resorting to desperate tactics.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. OneTrack (2,581 comments) says:

    And what is the MSM’s approach to this rort?

    Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Say no more.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Cunningham (811 comments) says:

    God it sickens me that they have used so much time and taxpayer funded resource to throw at something they already lost. Here’s a thought, why not look forward to the next election and try to be a valid potential government! How do they possibly think that this is going to win them the next election??

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. homepaddock (431 comments) says:

    Does Parliamentary Services have no concerns about the people they pay to do parliamentary work doing so much political work?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. bringbackdemocracy (392 comments) says:

    An absolute disgrace, considering their response to the “CITIZENS” initiated referendum on the undemocratic anti-smacking law.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tepopo (6 comments) says:

    No one had to sign the petition.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Roy Reid was the supposed organiser. But the petition address was not his.

    The Keep Our Assets website says: Authorised by Roy Reid, Unit 5, 205 Great South Road, Papakura
    The petition form says: Please return petition forms to Roy Reid, PO Box 27110, Wellington 6141

    That appears to also be the PO Box of a property developer in Wellington.

    Who was really organising the petition?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. lastmanstanding (1,204 comments) says:

    Attention the lawyers especially those versed in this area of law. What is the redress. Can a complaint be laid .If so with whom. Looks like a fraud on the public purse to me.

    Taking money meant for one purpose and spending it on another purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. alloytoo (432 comments) says:

    As Bill English said, it took a YEAR to collect 390000 signatures, it took a WEEK to get 290000 expressions of interest in Mighty River.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    And Bin Man at Truth has claimed parliamentary staff have been busy keying in contact details to party databases.

    pparently, the support staff for the left MPs are being made to enter all the details written on the petition forms. These will be collated into a database, all done at a cost to the taxpayer. It’s estimated that it will take each secretary about a week of data entry.

    Who owns the data and to what extent can it legitimately be used?

    Asset petition a data source for political spam?

    It was obvious from the start that the petition would be ignored by Government.

    It was also obvious it was being used for party political purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jakejakejake (134 comments) says:

    Yes alloytoo but I can’t help but wonder how many signatures the petition would have got if you were able to sign up online without any id verification and without $50k promotion limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. muzz (2 comments) says:

    Its not really interesting to point out that it takes some coordination to reach 400,000 people and give them the option of signing a petition. The reality is, as an unpaid volunteer and ‘citizen’, it was clear that there is high public opposition to the sale of assets. On the whole, I found most people very keen to state their opposition – I guess that’s why the right is so scared of this referendum…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cunningham (811 comments) says:

    muzz (2) Says:

    “I guess that’s why the right is so scared of this referendum…” Haha yeah I am sure National are shaking in their boots!! Actually the people most worried should be the Greens and Labour who are starting to get more and more criticism for persueing this lost cause. People see it for what it is – a pointless exercise and complete waste of taxpayer money. Also Shearer is now backed into a corner by not saying whether he will buy them back. I look forward to the heat being applied to him on this subject (and others) during the election campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (7,528 comments) says:

    I think the petition was a good thing. I signed it. But not because I oppose the sale of assets, but because I don’t think a general election is, or should be used, as a particular indication of any such thing. It is not, and was not a referendum.

    I voted, as did many other people on a variety of issues that impact my life – I don’t know one person that voted on the asset sale issue.

    I signed the petition because I want to see clarification on this issue. Regardless of how the petition was put together etc, there appears to be significant numbers of people for and against. A referendum would clarify the issue, and make any decisions ‘safe’.

    I’d like to know what John Key is scared of – if he is convinced he is right, he has no worries. Put it to the people – unless of course Key already knows what the answer will be, in which case, he doesn’t want to ask the question.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (7,528 comments) says:

    Cunningham (347) Says:
    March 13th, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    …Haha yeah I am sure National are shaking in their boots!! Actually the people most worried should be the Greens and Labour who are starting to get more and more criticism for persueing this lost cause…

    The only people criticising it are the right. They were always going to do that – even if it had been about providing elephants with tap shoes. There are many, both left and right that signed that petition – the day I signed it, the four people with me were all national voters, who like myself seek clarification on the issue. None of them want to purchase shares if there is going to be a ‘buy back’ and other such issues. We want to know what the electorate thinks, without the political hype and exaggeration we get from the ‘party faithfuls’ who pollute the media and cyberworld with their ‘exaggerations and biased/selective comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Cunningham (811 comments) says:

    Judith (1,737) Says:

    “I voted, as did many other people on a variety of issues that impact my life – I don’t know one person that voted on the asset sale issue. ” yes but people voted on policies RELIANT on the funding from partial asset sales. Should those people be ignored? You can’t pick and choose. It’s not the way it works.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    A referendum would clarify the issue, and make any decisions ‘safe’.

    How would it clarify the issue when it is so murked in political agenda. Greens in particular and also Labour will pour resources (funded by us) into getting the result they want from the referendum.

    National and most of the general population will shrug and see it as futile, especially as share floats go ahead anyway. The result will be the nmost meaingless of any referendum.

    Labour stalwart IrishBill said:

    The Greens have used this as an opportunity to build a significant campaign machine and to break into Auckland in a way that will give them an extra couple of percent at least. Anyone who fails to understand that, fails to understand organising, and with it, fails to understand politics.

    It’s been a Green snake oil petition and campaign – the Greens have always known they can’t deliver on their promise to stop asset sales, they are simply oiling the Green Political Machine, drilling in to taxpayer resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Judith,

    I don’t think you understand how a parliamentary democracy works. We don’t operate a system of half-democracy here.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    Why would anyone think “the right” (or John Key) are scared of this referendum?
    Firstly, MRP shares are going to be sold before the referendum even takes place, so we’ll have real data about how that went.
    Second, as we saw from the ‘anti-smacking’ referendum (and several referendums before that), they’re all bark and no bite.
    Third, the chances of a majority (of total possible votes) being against asset sales is pretty unlikely.
    Remember that every non-vote will be considered to support asset sales (again as we saw from the ‘anti-smacking’ referendum, and supported by all those saying that National got only a third of possible votes in 2011).

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Cunninghamat 1:24 pm – “Here’s a thought, why not look forward to the next election…”

    Thats exactly what the Greens are doing, taxpayer provided campaign funds throughout the term. What do you think they want all those email addresses and phone numbers they have harvested for?

    I’m not sure that Labour realise how much they’ve been used by the Greens over this.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Yvette (2,688 comments) says:

    The National Government should ask the Speaker, or office responsible, to confirm this is indeed a Citizens’ Initiated Referendum, not a Political Party Initiated Referendum, which may make the above documents, which David has, essential evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Keeping Stock (10,095 comments) says:

    Judith said

    The only people criticising it are the Right

    Not so Judith; read this piece from Lew at Kiwipolitico:

    http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2013/03/the-lefts-lose-lose-soe-strategy/

    FYI, Kiwipolitico describes its authorship thus:

    The kiwipolitico collective

    We share environmentalist, and centre-left/left-of-centre perspectives and values as well as an abiding interest in public policy and the political process. Within this broad frame, we are very diverse. Some of us are more green than red, and some more red than green. Some have party allegiances, and some don’t. Regardless, we are committed to providing an independent, critical commentary on political issues in New Zealand and overseas.

    Hardly a right-wing think tank, wouldn’t you agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    Judith: “…the day I signed it, the four people with me were all national voters, who like myself seek clarification on the issue. None of them want to purchase shares if there is going to be a ‘buy back’ and other such issues.”

    I also would like the opposition parties to make binding declarations about their intentions prior to the share issue.
    But I don’t see what that has to do with a referendum that won’t be held until after the share issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Keeping Stock (10,095 comments) says:

    I’d be keen to know this; how many trees does it take to produce enough pieces of paper to collect over 390,000 signatures? Silly me; I thought the Greens were all about SAVING the planet, not deforesting it :D

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    Irishbill seems to be realising that the greens are the cockoo in the nest.

    Watch the fur fly on the left as labour and the greens go at each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    …who like myself seek clarification on the issue. None of them want to purchase shares if there is going to be a ‘buy back’ and other such issues.

    Shearer was reported today saying he would give no clarity on any possible buy-back until after the election. He seems to think that getting elected will give him a mandate to do anything he likes regardless of whether he has campaigned on it or not.

    Shear Shearer hypocrisy on asset mandate

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    I thought the Greens were all about SAVING the planet…

    And how many air miles (and hotel nights) have they clocked up at our expense to pursue signatures around the country?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    Green Party NZ ‏@NZGreens

    Video – From the bottom of our hearts: Thank you for standing up against asset sales and signing the Ke… http://www.greens.org.nz/video/bottom-our-hearts-thank-you-standing-against-asset-sales-and-signing-keep-our-assets-petition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Keeping Stock (10,095 comments) says:

    Quite so Pete (2.36pm). And as the Bin Man notes weekly, the number of penguins killed as a result of a certain MP’s travel habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Jacob Cohen (44 comments) says:

    Pete George – Labour stalwart IrishBill said:The Greens have used this as an opportunity to build a significant campaign machine and to break into Auckland in a way that will give them an extra couple of percent at least. Anyone who fails to understand that, fails to understand organising, and with it, fails to understand politics.

    Green involvement –
    to look good
    to procure email addresses for the next election campaign

    plus David’s documents above, outlining the organisation by Labour, the Greens and the unions to collect signatures, using taxpayer money

    So how is this a CITIZENS’ INITIATED referendum request?
    National should challenge its validity if only to publicize the dirty play

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tristan (63 comments) says:

    I just love how DPF subtly changes the meaning of legislation to suit his point of view…

    Clearly a citizens initiated referendum can be started, staffed, presented by any citizen of NZ.

    It’s a pretty clear cut definition. But thats not good enough for DPF..oh no!

    In his book they have to be ‘ordinary’ citizens and what are they? well we have to completely rely on David’s definition for that. He rules out anyone involved in politics or unions. I gather lobby groups like family first are still ok though.

    It is interesting to note MP’s were not barred from organizing CIR so reguardless of what David ‘thinks’ CIR should be about, as far as the intent of the legislation he is quite wrong.

    Finally tax payer funding… its fine to use it to pay a polling company to ask peoples opinion on assett sales but it is quite wrong to spend money on getting people to sign something to the same effect.

    I swear your increased fitness is also increasing you flexibility with spin.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wrightingright (136 comments) says:

    I found it interesting how labour and greens are treated as comparable equals in strength when it comes to organising in this document.

    The decline of labour and the rise of the greens?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nick K (1,066 comments) says:

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/67925771-sign-up-for-mighty-river-power-shares-underway

    Greens co-leader Russel Norman says hundreds of millions of dollars has already been spent on the partial asset sale process.

    He’s furious that another million dollars will be spent trying to convince people that privatisation is a good idea.

    “And so the fact that John Key is using taxpayers’ money in a propaganda campaign to try to convince taxpayers privatisation is a good idea just shows what content the Prime Minister holds ordinary people in.

    The hypocricy of the communists is astonishing, but not unexpected.

    This quote is from a leader of a party which used taxpayers money in a propaganda campaign to try and convince its taxpayer supporters privatisation is a bad idea, and to communicate with them about that; AND to force a referendum on the issue.

    The more I hear of that snivelling, hypocrite commie Russell, the more I despise him.

    Has there ever been a worse case of hypocricy from the communists?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wrightingright (136 comments) says:

    Labour stalwart IrishBill said:The Greens have used this as an opportunity to build a significant campaign machine and to break into Auckland in a way that will give them an extra couple of percent at least. Anyone who fails to understand that, fails to understand organising, and with it, fails to understand politics.
    =============

    Too true, and worth repeating! Greens will have used this disguise of “CIR” to build up a big political machine and have fooled ordinary citizens who signed up to become a cog in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nick K (1,066 comments) says:

    Yes. George Darroch was boasting about it at the Standard some months ago. They are using this to get a database for the next election; to write to; and to campaign to etc. They always were in favour of state-funded elections and are doing just that: Using our money to pay for their campaigning.

    They. Are. Thieves.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wrightingright (136 comments) says:

    George?? Oh… I know him well.
    I’d be curious to read it, got a link?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    I was asked to sign the petition .. I was at the Wanganui markets when approached by a wee Green Party supporter (she was wearing a badge). I told her I wouldn’t sign and the sooner the partial sale went ahead the better. Here is a kicker. She suggested that because I was against the petition, I should sign to have a referendum to back my stance. It almost made sense. I suggest that many were conned to sign on that argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    George D
    26 November 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Lynn, if you come on board as a member we can show you our shiny vote-targeting efforts :) We have sophisticated models which worked rather well for us a year ago…

    There are still deficiencies in our planning and effort, but we’re working on those. The asset-sales referendum is important in its own right, but it’s certainly an excellent mobilisation tool and chance to build a few other things.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/why-i-will-party-vote-for-the-greens/#comment-554877

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dog_eat_dog (743 comments) says:

    Now remind me, were unions specifically exempted from the EFA? Anyone who tries to claim their interests lie solely in representing workers should be made to read this document aloud to everyone they’re trying to convince.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    DPF,

    CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result.

    How does the use of taxpayer funds negate the hundreds of thousands of signatures acquired? FFS we already have a rigged system where taxpayer funds are handed out so National and Labour have an advantage in election campaigns. But in the words of the great Jean Luc Picard “The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Black with a Vengeance (1,552 comments) says:

    Makes you wonder why we don’t vote on line instead of getting out in the street and trudging along to a polling booth.

    Id like to express an expression of interest in selecting the next govt online and then just watch the youth vote bounce the team blue chumps back to the kerb!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Steve (North Shore) (4,495 comments) says:

    Black with whatever,
    I prefer the polling booth – then you can see who the cork soaking lefties are. And I add, many are the chardonay socialists!
    Lend me your ears – wow I have 4 ears

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Therion (1 comment) says:

    I can’t think of a better use of my tax dollars than the people I elected to represent me using it to campaign for my interests. Those of you calling this a horrible use of tax dollars seem to have a constantly shifting line in the sand at what can be funded by taxpayer money and what can’t. All our MP’s are taxpayer funded – why then is it suddenly irresponsible if their political actions are also funded?

    The cost shouldn’t even be an issue, the greens and labour want to hold on to the assets, assets which bring in a couple hundred million annually in revenue for our country. A referendum that costs maybe $100,000 – $200,000 in campaign funds? maybe even a few million when it’s all said and done? Just about any sane cost would be worth it if it meant we could hold on to the shares for a few more years. Those of you who feel it’s a lost cause, perhaps you should move to a country more accommodating to a deficit in morale. Perhaps Russia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Black with a Vengeance (1,552 comments) says:

    Well let’s spend a million on an ad campaign to get expressions of interest to change how we vote and see if there’s more like me than you Steve.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    IrishBill has posted a major swipe at DPF, including accusations…

    In fact I’d suggest that spending dollars on helping get Kiwis a say on their assets is more acceptable to the electorate than a party spending that money on, say, regular polling by a guy who also runs a blog that (and now we’re full circle) roll out smear campaigns against democratic processes. As an aside, I note David Farrar has described this as “The taxpayer purchased referendum”. The Greens have been very open about how they are spending parliamentary funds on this.

    …and a challenge.

    Perhaps David would like to follow their example of transparency and let us know how much parliamentary funding he has been paid over the years. (Perhaps he could title the post “The taxpayer purchased blogger).

    Perhaps IrishBill could put his money where his mouth, follow his own example of transparency and let us know how much parliamentary funding including wages he or any of The Standard authors have been paid over the years they have been blogging at The Standard.

    He could also check out DPF’s disclosure statement but he’s probably already aware of that and is simply being dishonest.

    He could also point out his own disclosure statement.

    I would put this directly to IrishBill but he supports a blog culture where people who point out uncomfortable facts get banned – he himself is been known to be a bit loose with banning, someone had the guts to take him to task for that recently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Black with a Vengeance (1,552 comments) says:

    Ive noticed of late that this blog has turned into more of a shrill anti opposition soapbox than a shill championing of govt policy…getting in early on framing the election for next year.?

    Timely spin in desperate times?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nick K (1,066 comments) says:

    George D
    26 November 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Lynn, if you come on board as a member we can show you our shiny vote-targeting efforts :) We have sophisticated models which worked rather well for us a year ago…

    There are still deficiencies in our planning and effort, but we’re working on those. The asset-sales referendum is important in its own right, but it’s certainly an excellent mobilisation tool and chance to build a few other things.

    Thanks Pete. I would have spent an eternity finding it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Chuck Bird (4,668 comments) says:

    The cheek and the hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. Helen Clark indicted she would not support anti-smacking legislation prior to it being introduced. People voluntarily collect signatures to have a referendum. 87% voted against it in the referendum. However the left and the far left were quite happy for these good people to be ignore and we are seeing some of the results of that law change now and it will get worse.

    We have legislation legalizing homosexual marriage and adoption and if and amendment is moved for a referendum all the left will oppose it.

    However, they expect National to take notice of this referendum when the voters gave National a clear mandate at the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    For fuck’s sake…

    Voters didn’t give anyone a clear mandate on anything at the election Chuck. Least of all National and especially since they had to cobble together a disparate faction of self serving charlatans to form a government with a majority of one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nick K (1,066 comments) says:

    Crap pollywog & there is a double crap. The double crap is that on every poll since the election, the Gnats have polled at or almost above their election result. And that is while promoting this policy. If the voters were concerned at asset sales the polls would represent it. But they don’t.

    But of course we know the polls are wrong because they don’t phone cellphones.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chuck Bird (4,668 comments) says:

    @pollywog, people knew National was going to implement partial asset sales before the election unlike when Labour came to power.

    No political party has all the policies anyone likes. They know for sure if they voted National, Act or United Future those parties would support the partial asset sales they said they would before the election.

    However, they did not know that Key would be driving this homosexual marriage as hard as he has been. If they had they may have voted differently.

    If people were so strongly opposed to partial asset sales they could have voted for a party that opposed such a policy.

    I hope National amends the the CIR legislation to prevent any political party from abusing the intent of this legislation. MPs have a lot of power. They have to give up some when they are an MP. You and I can criticise a judges ruling within reason. An MP should not. We can call talk back and express our private views. New MPs soon learn that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. itstricky (1,543 comments) says:

    and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum…

    50,000 versus 1,000,000 (not including 1000′s for SOE staff bonuses or the combined time of politicans yadda yadda yadda)

    20x the cost to the taxpayer for starters.

    Really, we’re talking about peanuts. Good thing you pointed them out. The extent of the peanut resources is diabolical. They’re everywhere. Help me. Save me from the peanuts. Nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Yoza (1,526 comments) says:

    You would hope that those organising the sale of MRP make it very clear to potential investors that they face the very real threat of having their shares compulsorily nationalised with compensation being at best the amount they paid for them.

    Undermining the security and sovereignty of this country by flogging off strategic assets is an act of treachery that should not go unchallenged by any truly patriotic Kiwi, something the quislings of foreign corporate imperialism populating this blog struggle to comprehend.

    As for the dubious ‘mandate’, getting 47% of the 74% of those eligible to vote is a feeble foundation from which to make such a claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    “50,000 versus 1,000,000″

    This a common but misguided argument.

    A major share float is always promoted in order to maximise the return, something that advertising is commonly used for. It’s likley that the 1,000,000 will be returned many times over.

    The 50,000 plus all the expenses raises questionmarks about appropriate use of parliamentary funds – that are not supposed to be used for party political campaigning.

    And the use if taxpayer (people’s) provided funds to abuse one of the few means of the people telling politicians what they think on issues is a major issue of concern – or it should be to anyone valuing the little power people have between elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Keeping Stock (10,095 comments) says:

    Yoza said

    As for the dubious ‘mandate’, getting 47% of the 74% of those eligible to vote is a feeble foundation from which to make such a claim.

    You are hoist by your own petard Yoza. You and your leftie mates voted to change our system of democracy to MMP in the 1993 binding referendum, and to keep MMP in 2011. And the basic tenet of MMP is that the party who gets the most votes gets the first bite of the cherry in terms of forming a government. The moment that Key could rock up to Sir Jerry Mateparae and tell him that he had the numbers to govern was the moment he had a mandate.

    That’s our system of parliamentary democracy for you. If the more than a quarter of New Zealanders who didn’t care enough to cast a vote had exercised their democratic right, we might have had a different outcome. But they didn’t, so we didn’t, and there endeth the lesson.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (22,781 comments) says:

    IrishBill’s attack on DPF has provided a good opportunity to address the hypocrisy and bullshit of those pretending the referendum is democratic and matters.

    National are doing what they are democratically able to do. What whould they fear?

    Labour, Greens and IrishBill have fought an election on asset sales.
    Labour, Greens and IrishBill have campaigned against asset sales since then.
    Labour, Greens and IrishBill promote a referendum that hijacks people’s democracy.

    Perhaps Labour, Greens and IrishBill fear their campaign has failed – the Mighty River Power share float is under way, it looks to be unstoppable.

    Perhaps Labour, Greens and IrishBill fear that all their efforts have failed.

    They fear that they have fertilised a huge political lemon.

    IrishBill sounds like he has tasted this lemon, he sounds very sour.

    He does what some on the left do, he launches a sour attack. But the lemon on his face doesn’t disguise his fear that the Labour-Green tactical leprechaun may be lost in the garden on the left.

    Fisking IrishBill’s leprechaun

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ChardonnayGuy (1,131 comments) says:

    I think it’s time that we abolished the CIR Act 1993 before it does any more harm. I oppose the Labour/Green referendum on asset sales because I think that it is causing the centre-left to neglect the vitally important work of crafting detailed alternative policy around their proposed capital gains tax as a meaningful alternative to asset sales. It’s all very well to run a negative campaign, but what about positive alternatives?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.