About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 6, 2007 10:45am by David Farrar

Relative Spends

A reader, Clive, sent this graphic in which he produced. I think it is an excellent representation of the relative spends and limits.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment158

Uncategorised
Electoral Act

Related Stories

Relative Spends
Dim Post on Housing Insulation
More stories from paradise

Comments (158)

Login to comment or vote

Pascal

Ben: Firstly that government expenditure on advertising is much bigger than any other factor. Naturally it is also not equivalent to electioneering, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Because it is not about electioneering? The inclusion of the government in there tells me it is about communicating in an election year and showing the relative budgets that entity types would have. (If they wanted to show groups they’d have included all the parties)

Again – how can it be biased when it shows maximums for entities? You are assigning bias to it, which seems to be stemming from a guilty conscience. And if not that, a fear that people might actually believe us evil right wingers 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:05pm
Pascal

Kent: Also, the $69 mil covers a 12 month period while the $120,000 covers a 9 month period.

Fair point. So the $69 mil should become roughly $52 million. Then we have an approximate showing of the maximum expenditure we can expect from four different and distinct entities in an election year during the regulatory period.

And that will cover government, party, private and anonymous. Seems good to me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:08pm
Kent Parker

“the $69 mil covers a 12 month period while the $120,000 covers a 9 month period.”

is not that unfair bias?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:09pm
Pascal

But hang on Kent … let’s consider it again. The period starts 1 January 2008. What is the latest date that an election can be held? So that is the time frame in which to consider everything. More than 9 months?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:11pm
Kent Parker

And that will cover government, party, private and anonymous. Seems good to me.

Still can’t see what use the graph is, except to stir up rabid right wingers through some subtle association between govt expenditure and Labour.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:11pm
Kent Parker

What is the latest date that an election can be held? So that is the time frame in which to consider everything.

The problem with that is that it is not determined by 1 Jan. The govt only needs 3 months’ notice do they not? that leaves a lot of uncertainty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:13pm
Pascal

Kent, it is showing us how much different groups can spend on communication in an election year. This is at the heart of the EFB. How can this not be useful and interesting?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:14pm
Kimble

Kent the only reasons you cant see the use of the graph, are that either your are too thick, unimaginative or that you are blinded by ideology.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:17pm
Pascal

Kent Parker: The problem with that is that it is not determined by 1 Jan. The govt only needs 3 months’ notice do they not? that leaves a lot of uncertainty.

Election expenditure counts from 1 January 2008, no matter when the election is held that year. Is that not what the EFB says?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:20pm
g_

If Tane insists we include EB spending, how much Union spending can be attributed as pro-labour and should be included in their total?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:23pm
Kimble

well Nome says that the Unions spent less than the proposed limit in the EFB, if we assume this averaged $50k, then all we need to find outhow many Unions there are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:25pm
Kent Parker

your are too thick, unimaginative

Is the same Kimble who said: “If we assume what Roger Nome says is true,”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:28pm
Pascal

Kent, what did your re-read of the EFB including it’s amendments turn up on the start of the accounting date? 1st of January, eh? I see there was a suggestion from National to turn it forward to April, though. Don’t know if that was accepted or not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:31pm
Tane

If Tane insists we include EB spending, how much Union spending can be attributed as pro-labour and should be included in their total?

…

Nome says that the Unions spent less than the proposed limit in the EFB, if we assume this averaged $50k, then all we need to find outhow many Unions there are.

You people really are tiring. As has been pointed out a thousand times, this is all online. It’s been declared, it’s open, it’s transparent, and it totals a mere fraction of what the Brethren spent. Go have a look yourself at http://www.elections.org.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:41pm
Kent Parker

April would be better than Jan and the Electoral Commission is behind that view too, I believe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:42pm
Buggerlugs

Being a unionist, you wouldn’t know the meaning of the word tiring, Tutae. You didn’t answer the question about the secret donations by overseas donors to that joke we call Government.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:52pm
Kimble

Where did you get the $1.2m amount from Tane? I cant see anywhere that shows that the EB spent that much.

All I find is a bunch of Labourites complaining that they spent it. No proof though. DPF is right, having a war chest is different to spending it. You may find claims that the EB had a war chest of $1.2m, but you having got shit showing that they spent anything like that.

Your lies are tiring.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 5:11pm
Kimble

Untill you can show any proof that they spent anything like that amount you will have to refrain from making the accusation. Or dont you have any Standards?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 5:12pm
Adam Smith

Tane

Where at http://www.elections.org.nz?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 5:42pm
PaulL

Tane: I believe that is only the proportion that was obliged to be counted as election spend. Similar to the EB, the unions ran other campaigns that weren’t captured by the legislation, and therefore were not obliged to be reported. I have quoted that before on this site, in response to one of your posts. I think there are at least two unions that spend more last election than the threshold will be under the EFB.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 5:46pm
Adam Smith

On election Day I saw at least 2 union vehicles out and about in Wellington Central urging people to vote Labour. I thought that was not allowed!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 5:52pm
Ben Wilson

Again – how can it be biased when it shows maximums for entities?

This discussion is a waste of time. Everyone knows what you were trying to show with this graph. The comebacks are obvious and have been made.

You are trying to show that Labour gets more than their fair share of electioneering money and is trying to stop others from getting it. Your graph doesn’t show that, even if it at first glance appears to. When you get into it, it actually shows bugger all, which is now why you are wriggling around trying to say how wonderfully unbiased it was. And you can believe what you want to believe on that, it doesn’t matter to me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 6:02pm
Kimble

“You are trying to show that Labour gets more than their fair share of electioneering money. Your graph doesn’t show that…”

NO SHIT! Ben I didnt think you could be so stupid!

To show that Labour is getting more than its ‘fair share’, we would need to put other political parties on the chart and show that they get more than anyone else.

Ben, your comment is so transparant. You are trying to show that the Raiders simply havent been competitive since they lost Brad Clyde. But your comment doesnt show that!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 6:07pm
Pascal

Kent Parker: April would be better than Jan and the Electoral Commission is behind that view too, I believe.

Aye, it would be and I suspect many would be more behind that than January. Of course, what was wrong with the 3 month period we had before?

Either way, it looks set to be the entirety of the year if the Labour party and their cohorts get their way. Not much we can do about it, they’re not exactly listening 🙂

Ben, I did not make the graph. I am simply interpreting it. You can keep on putting your guilty feelings behind your interpretation, but honestly – the graph does not show that. I do find it peculiar that you are so convinced it’s showing some great wrongdoing. Is that a troubling thought? That you guys might actually be caught in the biggest electoral rort NZ has ever seen?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 6:42pm
Ben Wilson

You can keep on putting your guilty feelings behind your interpretation

…or to be more specific you can keep insisting I have any feelings about it. I’m not convinced it shows much that a list of 4 numbers would not have shown, but everyone can see what it pretends to show.

And what’s the “you guys”? . I’m me, not “you guys”, and I’m arguing with you, not “you guys”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:27pm
Lee C

If each worker in the CTU gave up one hour of their time to discuss, promote, persuade or engage in a political dialogue which involved the premise that it is a good idea to vote Labour, at the minimum wage, of $11.50 an hour, that would equate to $4,025,000 worth of labour time devoted free and unaccounted for to the Labour party.

Is this why in the CTU’s Select Committee submission on the EFB they urged the Committee not to make any limitations on free activities in favour of a party during election time?

If we were to look at the amount of time that posters who are ‘active in the Labour Movement’ spend blogging in support of the EFB, or to argue against its opponents, and equate that to the minimum wage (though I doubt very muchthey are on that) – how difficult would it be to ‘clock’ the amount of ‘free’ unnaccaountable time taht is being devoted to electioneering on Labour’s behalf?

Is this why the Unions personnel and time freely given during work hours have earned special exemptions from the EFB?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:32pm
Ben Wilson

Lee C, I think it’s more likely because accounting for it would be impossible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:42pm
Lee C

As I have said before – I am all in favour of electoral reform.
I don’t wish to see abuse of the law, whether it is by the EB or the EPMU.
i would like to see a Royal Commission looking into the prospect of public funding of Parties during election time, but also a formula which can begin to estimate labour costs and the effects of freely given time to elctioneering. This is plainly a loop hol so big that the Unions can drive a truck through it.

If I am a business man and I ‘pay’ 100 people to promote a party, I am automatically a ‘rich friend’ (sorry, ‘prick’) of the party in question and according to some, should be crushed for the vermin I am. Yet if 100 union members during their work time, do the same thing, they are acting in a ‘transparent’ manner according to the same critic who would label the businessman a ‘prick’.

Clearly if a level playing field is desired then the means by which we acount for the exploittaion of big capital whether it be union or business, needs to be addressed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:45pm
Lee C

Ben I do not agree, I think the likelihood is that the unions and Labour are ‘in bed’ with each other.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-union. However, I am becoming increasingly aware (due to the way union mentality is oftern represented here and elsewhere) that ‘unions’ are increasingly becoming covers for ‘special interest’ individuals who are as covetous of power and influence as big business is.

Their channel to power is through the Labour Party, big business is through the National Party.

If we are to address electoral reform, we should be examining the roles of both sides of the coin.
As Spinoza saidd:
“no matter how thinly you cut it, there are always two sides.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:50pm
Lee C

If each worker in the CTU gave up one hour of their time to discuss, promote, persuade or engage in a political dialogue which involved the premise that it is a good idea to vote Labour, at the minimum wage, of $11.50 an hour, that would equate to $4,025,000 worth of labour time devoted free and unaccounted for to the Labour party.
So what if they give one hour a week for 12 weeks?
or for 24, or 52?
Say they do so for the total of say 48 weeks during which other organisations are not allowed to indulge in electioneering:
$169,050,000

Clearly these are silly numbers. But it does illustrate how little attention has been paid to the labour-value of ‘free/transparent’ electioneering to the Labour Party.
But why then are third parties defined as such, but the definition is not apparently, extended to union activities?
Or am I wrong?
If so, How?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 7:59pm
PaulL

Ben, I do think you are reading in something that isn’t there (of course, I didn’t create the graph either, so maybe I am just as wrong as you).

I thought the graph was trying to show why the third party limit is unreasonably low, and why the anonymous donation limit is such a small deal. The intent I think is to illustrate that third parties are in no danger at all of monopolising the political conversation. It compares how much a third party is allowed to spend v’s the size of an anonymous donation, the allocation of the largest political party, and the amount of govt advertising that goes on in a year.

I personally would have used the anonymous donation cap ($240K or whatever it is) rather than the $1,000, since parties can accept anonymous donations up to that limit.

Kent, what drugs are you on to attribute a portion of the government advertising spend to National? The majority of that spend goes out on policies that National didn’t support, and a decent chunk to create bus shelter ads in red that say “you’re better off with Labour.” You’re not seriously suggesting that a percentage of that spend should be allocated to National as their election spend?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 8:19pm
pdq

Tane, you are a bore. I think in 2005 the fleet of EPMU cars* driving around central Wellington with loudspeakers advising us that Don Brash eats babies and National is evil would have racked up more cost in terms of fuel (not to mention the damage to the environment – seeing as that’s all the rage these days), depreciation and unionist wages than a few EB pamplets shoved into letterboxes.

* not singling you out, there were Food & Service cars at it too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 9:23pm
Ben Wilson

I thought the graph was trying to show why the third party limit is unreasonably low, and why the anonymous donation limit is such a small deal.

Fine, and I think it didn’t show that at all. Obviously the problem with third parties and anonymous donations is that there are quite a lot of them. Until you show what the aggregate is, or is likely to be, you have shown nothing but a big red dot that appears to be monopolizing something it isn’t. It’s like saying the biomass of elephants is bigger than that of ants, because “look at how big an elephant is compared to an ant”. As for the even bigger green dot, that’s not even apples with oranges, since only an unknown proportion of it could be argued to be for the same purpose of the other 3 dots.

Which is why I can’t understand what is considered so profound and revealing about this graph. I can only speculate that the colors have something to do with it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:31pm
Ben Wilson

Lee C, just have a think about how you might account for that. I mean practically, as in just consider the paperwork.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:37pm
Insolent Prick

The $69 million figure is misleading, DPF. And not because, as Kent Parker has said, it counts for the whole year, as opposed to the eleven months.

Because the Government is on track to spend $100 MILLION advertising its policies this year. There was a Herald article about it a couple of weeks ago, quoting Neilsen Media figures over the last four months, and extrapolating from that. So far the Government’s spending $8 million a month. That’s before we have new campaigns on sustainability, Labour’s “fiscally responsible tax cuts”, “building national identity”, and “families young and old”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 12:03am
pdq

Yes IP not to mention the “Working for Families – You’re better off with Labour” $15m campaign in 2005. “Buy NZ Made” as a sop to the Greens and Winston’s flop the Gold Card, yep its a good time to be a creative in the ad business.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 12:28am
Lee C

Ben Canadian electoral reform has made some inroads into union donations at least,
are you saying ‘free’ partisan perversion of the electoral process should be allowed because it is ‘too hard’ to stop it?
Where is the level playing firld claim there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 7:04am
Lee C

Besides, Ben, if accounting for union involvement and labour in electioneering is so difficult to do, why did the CTU advise tht it be discounted as a consideration in their submission to the EFB Select Committee?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10470598
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 7:12am
Pascal

Ben, so because it is difficult to account for the financial benefits that Labour derive from the campaigns of Unions we should simply discount the value of all those people campaigning?

Excuse me, but what the fuck? I thought the aim here was to have a level playing field come election day, and while people are bleating about the effect of the Exclusive Brethren you are in effect saying that Union electioneering activity FOR the Labour party should not be counted because it’s too difficult.

To quote some internet vernacular. NO U.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 7:22am
krazykiwi

Ben, I classify you and one of the more well reasoned commentators from the left. However your “because it’s too difficult” dismissal of potentially 10’s of millions of dollars worth of third-party promotion of the Government damages your reputation a bit, in my mind at least.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 7:47am
go NZ

This is a Jolly interesting debate,what? My contribution is this;the EB pamphlets were a fantastic success because it has resulted in Labour introducing the outrageous EFB and upsetting the whole electorate.

Eat that u lefties,media experts,barstards in the Beehive and EB haters!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 8:53am
Kent Parker

PaulL

The majority of that spend goes out on policies that National didn’t support

Sure I put the proportion at 39%, which is not a majority of the spend and is about what they got in the 2005 election (total vote count). National is not so impotent that none of the govt spending reflects policies that they have supported in some way or other and will continue to do so once they become govt.

I agree with Ben in that this graph is being used in some underhand way to illustrate how Labour has the system loaded their way. The govt is a much bigger animal than any single political party and is going to be a lot more expensive to run. While you may argue to the contrary, the govt ministries are supposed to be politically neutral and so in terms of electioneering 95% of the govt spend in election year should be considered neutral.

I have questions about the EFB regarding use of voluntary labour. If I employ a professional PR person who offers their time free, do I have to account for that as an expenditure (at market rate), or not? Is it a donation?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:05am
Lee C

Kent, if it is ok for the union members, surely it must be ok for private individuals?

The point I was reaching was that any Royal Commission should invest in some kind of formual by which the voluntary time given can be accountable, otherwise, the EFB as it stands, rrepresents a blank cheque to the Union Movement to electioneer on the part of the Labour Party.
Which might explain
i) the Uninon’s strange silence on this huge issue of democratic representation
ii) why many union bloggers here and elsewhere are so keen to deflect the issue onto the role of ‘big-business’ in elections as the issue in corruption
iii) why the CTU Select Committee Submission specifically asked for ‘activity’ by unions to be exempt from the reforms of the EFB
iv) why the Labour Party agreed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:27am
krazykiwi

Lee beat me to it. Labour benefits enormounsly from union foot soldiers (which Tane et al claim is fine ‘because it’s all declared’.. as if that matters!).

the EFB is a broken net. Labour will use the holes to let any Labour-supporting fish though while catching and filleting any that fail the loyalty test.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:34am
Lee C

so KK any true examinaition of electoral reform should also include the union role in electioneering.

Thanks to Labour opening this can of worms which is electoral reform, perhaps we can start to examine electoral corruption across the political spectrum?

A Royal Commission at least to start.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:43am
Lee C

As I have argued previously. I am not opposed to electoral reform, if it done in an even-handed and unpartisan manner.
I appears to me that if we are to acknowledge the many strong cases for electoral reform that those from the left have been expressing, it would be surely impossible for them to argue against the ‘Back room boys’ as one refers to them cobbling together strategy designed to pervert the process. What is the difference between say 12 top Union Reps, using subscription money to promote a political party (without asking the members) and 12 business men using their own (without asking their religiohs community)?

At the end of the day, it is still big money, big time, big effort all towards the same end….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:49am
Ben Wilson

Accounting for union donations of cash: No problem. Accounting for individual unpaid time spent talking politics: Silly idea.

It opens the door to a world of hurt. How much should all the free work in support of parties be charged at, and how are you going to seriously keep track of it?

For exactly the same reason that free work is not taxed, nor should it be accounted for in campaign budgets.

I think it needs to be ‘acknowledged’, sure. The countless hours spent in free support of all the political parties are no doubt a big factor in their success. But to me the solution is that there is a counterbalancing allowance from the government that simply makes all these free and unaccountable donations less pervasive.

I know Nicky Hager made a big meal out of Don Brash getting free helicopter rides around the country last election. I find it hard to think how you can truly stop that kind of thing, though. It is perhaps worthwhile to track the realistic costs of moving candidates around during the campaign, but to do the same for every single supporter? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think informal conversations around the water cooler really is well over the other side of the totally impractical line.

The Exclusive Brethren did step over an existing line. Pamphleteering has long been accounted for. Probably not all the costs are accounted, but the big ones are, like the printing. But the real Brethren controversy was around the lies and evasions about who was behind it, which the rules are even clearer for than the accounting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 9:58am
krazykiwi

… and in terms of big money – it doesn’t get much bigger than a government minister directing how his/her department should ‘focus’ their promotional budget for the benefits of the party.

kent opined above that 5% of departmental may be designed to secure votes. aside from the possibility of it being more like 10-20%, that 5% still equates to $3.45m of public money.

this is extraordinary vote buying of couse, unless one accepts Labours argument that anything they spend has no influence on an election outcome while some chap with a placard on lambton quay represents electoral manipulation that must be stamped out.. for the sake of democracy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 10:00am
Buggerlugs

KK _ I’d love to see the draft comms and marketing plan/budget the Environment Ministry has for next year. I can just see it: ‘Labour fixed the ozone hole’ etc…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 10:07am
PhilBest

So, Ben Wilson, why hasn’t the Klark regime just tightened up the third party disclosure laws? Why this whole raft of Orwellian shite?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 10:51am
krazykiwi

buggerlugs, lol. i’m expecting the IRD marketing budget to be fattened up, and then vanish in a veritable deluge of tax-bribe advertising
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 11:04am
clintheine

Tane has been asked to explain many times why he blindly defends where Unions get their money from and he dodges behind nonsense every time.

We all know that Labour and co benefit greatly from these unions and in due course they get their rewards from all those neat and handy funds that get set up.

What gets my goat is that Tane and his chums think this is good and legit and money from every day people is bad. Fark no wonder NZ is heading down the OECD ratings!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 11:28am
Lee C

Ben – [Accounting for free labour from unions during elections]
“It opens the door to a world of hurt. How much should all the free work in support of parties be charged at, and how are you going to seriously keep track of it?”

We should not be afraid of opening up a ‘world of hurt’ it has not dissuaded the government from doing just that in their handling of the EFB.

My proposition is tht some kind of formula should be reached and agreed upon, if the electoral process truly is going to be levelled.

Union electioneering – fine, if people want to do it on their own time, not while being paid to supposedly do other stuff by thier union.

If a membership has a certain number what is wrong with working out a formula which endorses a particular and accountable amount of support it can democratically, be expected to give?

Why should union reps be paid by thier workers to electioneer, when they are supposed to be representing their interests against the imperatives of the government?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 12:31pm
Ben Wilson

PhilBest, I wouldn’t have a clue. I’m not arguing FOR the EFB, I’m arguing AGAINST micro-accounting as part of it.

Which leads to…

Lee C, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. It sounds like enough of a balls up without your suggestion being added to balls it up thoroughly.

Union donations should be accounted for and capped. Accounting for all free work is a truly massive can of worms. Even the more limited free work you want to account for is a totally impractical idea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 2:54pm
Lee C

Ben I suggested electoral reform desigend to create a level playing field, after the initial setting up of a ROyal Commission.

Not the EFB, which is hardly a reform, more a legal entrenching of one kind of rorting at the expense of another, so I agree; two worngs do not make a right.

Why is it a massive can of worms to estimate how much labour time went into an activity then count it against the election spend of the party it is in support of??

Union members don’t work at their jobs for free do they? they all have a hourly rate, it’s written down on thier pay packets in black and white. If I give one hour of my work time to electioneering while in work time, then It should be accounted for. Pure and simple.

If you are suggesting that the unions should be exempt from public scrutiny, while the activities of ‘big business’ should not. It would be as easy to argue the original EFB should not have happened on the basis it is too big a ‘can of worms’.

I’m self-employed for example. Every time I blog, I am robbing myself of my own labour time. I have to accept that. So if I were employed by a union, to write press releases, for example, and spent x hours a week blogging in favour of the Labour Party, how is this anything other than a rort of my employers’ cash and time,, my union members subs and trust, and of the electoral processes need for transparency?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 3:27pm
Lee C

The ‘free’ time given is not ‘free’ at all. It’s just a political version of tax evasion.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 3:29pm
Ben Wilson

Lee, there are surely some kinds of advocacy that can easily be accounted for and are totally partisan for a party. If you want to suggest what they are, go ahead. Give me an actual example from the real world. But there’s an enormous grey area in which large number of people that you are claiming are paid advocates of a particular party simply are not. They are just people who have an opinion about which party to vote for and are giving their free time to that end. You can’t stop this gap up and if you try you really will be killing freedom of speech. Like I said, 2 wrongs do not make a right.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 3:50pm
Lee C

you see the whole issue is about transparency. The left are very keen to see transparency when they discuss electoral reform viz a vis the EFB, but they are not so keen to employ transparency themselves.
Let us look at a hypothetical:
A union rep who sets up a partisan blog, and spends copious amounts of time posting in defence of Labour policy, while he is obvioulsy in work time. It has to be a hypothetical, though, because the covert nature of his or her advocay means taht he or she will only post anonymously. Where is the transparency they so advocate there?
So when you ask for a concrete example (though I don’t know why after you have already acknowledged it happens) it is as difficult to pin it sown as it is to work out the secret/anonymous identities behind the National party.
The contradiction I see in your reply is that if the people you refer to are acting in their free time, then fine, but what if they are at work when they do it? SOmeone is paying for it, surely?
The other thing, is that we have to acknowledge that the Labour movement is a massive capital interest, and influences governments.
It is interesting that you are suggesting I ‘really will be killing freedom of speech’ if I suggest limitations on the powers of unions to affect electoral outcpomes.

is this the level playing filed taht the left have been striving to achieve, or is ‘level playing field’ really code for ‘advantageous to Labour and the ‘Labour Movement’?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 7, 2007 6:31pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« NZ First in trouble

$40 million and … »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 22 June 2026
General Debate 23 June 2026
Don't defend the indefensible
The Greens $800 million blunder
Not sure about this one
Finally common sense wins at WCC
Regulators are not soverign entities
The price of gold
Be careful what you ask for with IMSB
National proposes compulsory KiwiSaver

Recent Posts

Be careful what you ask for with IMSB 23 June 2026
Regulators are not soverign entities 23 June 2026
General Debate 23 June 2026 23 June 2026
The Greens $800 million blunder 23 June 2026
Not sure about this one 22 June 2026
Don’t defend the indefensible 22 June 2026
General Debate 22 June 2026 22 June 2026
Finally common sense wins at WCC 22 June 2026
The price of gold 21 June 2026
National proposes compulsory KiwiSaver 21 June 2026
Two good appointments for The Post 21 June 2026
General Debate 21 June 2026 21 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 23 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 23 June 2026
Maggy Wassilieff
General Debate 23 June 2026
tavita
General Debate 23 June 2026
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 23 June 2026
pb
General Debate 23 June 2026
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ian Boag
General Debate 23 June 2026
pb
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ian Boag
General Debate 23 June 2026
NeverMindTheBollocks
The Greens $800 million blunder
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ian Boag
General Debate 23 June 2026
Maggy Wassilieff
General Debate 23 June 2026
Ian Boag
General Debate 23 June 2026
greybeard

Links

1 News Verian Poll: Big two parties at 30-year low, Opportunity nears 5% threshold
Breaking Views
'The Myth of Authoritarian Efficiency'
Not PC
Daily review 23/06/2026
The Standard
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The Story of Lola, Ruth, Mayah and the Strolling Bulgarians
No Minister
How Chlöe is taxing our credibility when she says flawed figures flowed from a “typo”
Point of Order
The Partition: Ireland Divided 1885 to 1925 by Charles Townshend (2021)
Utopia
Time to tax the rich
No Right Turn
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on Systemic Change.
Kiwipolitico
Alex Berenson on Fatherhood Manifesto, Marijuana & Biden’s COVID
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Top 14 Predictions for the Semi-finals
Stats Chat
People Power
NZCPR
Levies as end-runs around the Generic Tax Policy Process
Offsetting Behaviour
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d