OnPoint: Boarding the funeral barge
76 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Yes. As personal attacks go I think that has got to be one of the worst I have seen in NZ. Even beats Don Brash's "no respect for the institution of marriage" letter.
He said he regretted that, I wonder if he regrets supporting these?
-
Another, less surversive, angle on Keith's point
Not PC: Darnton offers Libz political party as 'flag of convenience' for free speech
-
I wonder if it's legal to take a commission. People like the New Zealand Family Rights Protection Party [the 'new' should also be underlined] could start a cottage industry.
-
The Libz should be careful - they can only publish pro-party or anti-party election advertisement. Parties aren't be permitted to campaign against candidates under the EFA.
-
Boscawen et al have to do a bit more than start a political party to access the higher limit: they also need to run candidates and/or contest the party list. Not that that's a Bad Thing at all.
Contesting the party list isn't that hard, is it? I mean, *winning* is hard, but contesting isn't.
How about we split the difference and regulate them to exactly the same extent as incumbent MPs...
Hang on - is the problem that third parties are disadvantaged compared to political parties (i.e. $120k cap), or that non-parliamentary political parties are disadvantaged compared with parliamentary political parties (i.e. Use of parliamentary funding for electoral purposes)?
Question for Graeme or I/S - are the standards for judging what constitutes electioneering the same for parliamentary material and third party material? (e.g. If both said "Working for Families is great", would it be considered electioneering by either parties?)
-
are the standards for judging what constitutes electioneering the same for parliamentary material and third party material?
electioneering for what purpose? Whether Parliamentary leader's fund money can be spent on it, or whether it has to be included in the spending cap?
-
What I have read about the US suggests that regulating "electioneering" is a form of whack-a-mole, in which everyone goes about influencing elections through issue advertising and 527's.
Yup, McCain-Fiengold sure didn't turn out to be to the magic bullet its more optimistic proponents were selling it as. I sure haven't heard of any K Street lobbyists or lawyers who specialize in electoral litigation going out of business...
-
Good idea Keith.
Every New Zealander will have one last reminder on how to most appropriately thank Labour for their EFA come November, as we stand in line 10x as long waiting patiently to fill in a ballot with a 100 new "parties". The recounts looking at spoiled ballots, the additional "party" observers crowding the room, heck even the inevitable Green protest at the waste of paper...
So, you're saying that non-political parties should be able to voice their opinions with as much money as they want, because that's what democracy is all about, but if you put them on a ballot paper, then they're a waste of space?
I'm not sure if you mean it as a strictly logistical problem with the ballots or if you're talking about the wider problem of being swamped with parties.
If you're talking about the ballots themselves, I can't see there being a hundred, or even ten, groups that would be compelled to register because they're running an overtly political campaign and have more than $120,000 to spend.
To put it into perspective, all the political parties combined spent $7.75m in the 2007 election. To assume that there'll be another 100 parties who are there because they want to spend over $120k (let's say, conservatively, $200k) is to assume that people will spend an additional $20m on the election, i.e. that election spending will quadruple for no good reason.
So, no, I really don't think that'll happen. But another half dozen well-funded political outfits? That's perfectly plausible. And there's nothing wrong with it. This sort of thing happens in a democracy, which is what we still live in.
-
Didn't Don Brash accuse the Greens of treachery for representing NZ poorly to people overseas? Isn't this the same?
No, Don - then again, I'm one of those cranks who thinks 'treachery' is another T-word (like 'terrorism') that shouldn't be thrown around carelessly if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Yes. As personal attacks go I think that has got to be one of the worst I have seen in NZ. Even beats Don Brash's "no respect for the institution of marriage" letter.
But running an equally hysterical front page equating Brash to Pauline Hansen - you know the nice lady who opined it was a mistake ever letting the Abbos vote - wasn't ever so slightly offensive?
And to be blunt, Don, while I find those billboards absurdly hyperbolic, it isn't even in the same ballpark as the bipartisan panty-sniffing orgy that broke out around Don Brash's alleged extra-marital affair and the alleged sexual proclivities of Helen Clark's husband. Want to talk about the lowlight of personal attack politics in this country? We're not even in the gutter, let alone that particular sewer.
-
electioneering for what purpose? Whether Parliamentary leader's fund money can be spent on it, or whether it has to be included in the spending cap?
The leaders' fund. i.e. If an act by a third party is deemed to be electioneering, is it then also something that cannot be funded out of the leaders' fund? And vice versa.
-
Just to nit-pick myself, I'm sure Andrew Little would be quite surprised to learn he's connected with a non-existent trade union called the EMPU. He's the national secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Printing & Manufacturing Union (EPMU).
Preview is my friend, just not one one I visit often enough.
-
Preview is my friend, just not one one I visit often enough.
Indeed...
-
So, you're saying that non-political parties should be able to voice their opinions with as much money as they want, because that's what democracy is all about, but if you put them on a ballot paper, then they're a waste of space?
Yes, I am saying that whilst I agree that lobbying a specific issue so that people vote in a way favourable to your lobby is a good thing, I believe that requiring these same groups all put themselves on electoral ballot is a pointless waste of time. These groups will not be campaigning for themselves and will be directing voters to political parties of their preference.
In all likelihood you are right and putting another dozen "parties" on the ballot is all that will happen. It will however mean more spoilage and complexity and more lost votes and more waste and more time at the polling station, none of which is conducive to democracy. What is the payoff that could not be achieved by allowing $2.4 million ($1.0 million + 70 x $20,000) third party campaigns, where all third parties must have 500 members?
I fail to see any payoff in the EFB over previous legislation.
-
Ah, Angus, so are you saying that the regulation of third parties is okay, as long as the caps are higher?
-
The leaders' fund. i.e. If an act by a third party is deemed to be electioneering, is it then also something that cannot be funded out of the leaders' fund? And vice versa.
A very vexed question.
Basically, the answer is no. A pledge card expounding on Labour's policy's for the next 3 years could be funded from the leader's fund.
A similar card from a third party - Labour will do this over the next three years - would be illegal. A card listing perhaps six bad things Labour would do over the next three years would be an election advertisement is published by a third party and would count toward the third party cap.
The vexing bit is whether the pledge card - funded from the Leaders' fund - counts toward Labour' spending cap. There's a fairly good argument that under the new law it won't.
Ah, Angus, so are you saying that the regulation of third parties is okay, as long as the caps are higher?
A lot of people were saying that - even David Farrar.
-
A S,
As someone who has struggled mightily to understand the rather labyrinthine provisions of the new EFA, (actually, I gave up some time ago) can someone explain whether the new act impose restrictions on members of the public (both financial and in terms of freedom of speech) that MPs and political parties aren't bound by?
From a somewhat confused outside perspective, it appears that the new arrangements skew the playing field quite a lot towards the sitting government. Is this perception accurate?
-
can someone explain whether the new act impose restrictions on members of the public (both financial and in terms of freedom of speech) that MPs and political parties aren't bound by?
There is an exemption in the EFA for publications published by MPs in their capacities as MPs, which means that these publications do not count towards MPs' (or political parties') spending limits.
So a publication funded by a non-MP saying what they're doing, and why they'd be a good MP will come within the $20,000 spending limit for candidates, but a similar publication from an MP (and funded from Parliamentary Services money) may fall within the exemption and not have to be included in the $20,000 spending cap.
Arguably, a pledge card (which can certainly be funded by Parliamentary Services) from a party in Parliament falls within the exemption (so isn't included in the $2.4m cap - effectively making the limit much higher for parties in Parliament), but a pledge card from a Party outside Parliament trying to get in cannot - so has to be included in that party's spending limit.
-
A S,
Thanks for that, Graeme. It's great to have so many people who have waded through the detail, and who can explain it so succinctly.
When you put it as simply as you have, it does look a bit like the system will now probably provide a greater advantage for sitting MP's.
I'm not sure that is a good thing, particularly in terms of the ability for all candidates to run equal campaigns come election time, but I guess time will tell on whether the EFA was a good, bad or indifferent idea...
-
But running an equally hysterical front page equating Brash to Pauline Hansen - you know the nice lady who opined it was a mistake ever letting the Abbos vote - wasn't ever so slightly offensive?
So IWI/KIWI implies what? Is it completley mad to draw the inference that Maori are other from Kiwi? What about mainstream? Are we in the ball park yet?
...while I find those billboards absurdly hyperbolic, it isn't even in the same ballpark as the bipartisan panty-sniffing orgy that broke out around Don Brash's alleged extra-marital affair and the alleged sexual proclivities of Helen Clark's husband. Want to talk about the lowlight of personal attack politics in this country? We're not even in the gutter, let alone that particular sewer.
It aint such a bad thing to put up billboards comparing our elected political party leaders to various dictators and mass murderers, but oh my paws and whiskers, people gossip about sex. Please.
-
It aint such a bad thing to put up billboards comparing our elected political party leaders to various dictators and mass murderers, but oh my paws and whiskers, people gossip about sex. Please.
Alex: I'm really trying hard not to lose my shit in a seriously unseasonal, Grinch-like manner so pay close attention.
Please cite anywhere I've said It aint such a bad thing to put up billboards comparing our elected political party leaders to various dictators and mass murderers. To the contrary, I've actually been quite vocal around the local blogisphere suggesting to both the loony left and the rabid right that screeching 'Nazi' and 'Stalinist' at each other is stupid in ways I shouldn't have to spell out yet again.
And, sorry, I just don't see the news value or legitimate public interest in salacious tittle-tattle that even Ratshit Galucoma and the other gossip hags wouldn't print being treated as news. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck at a donut if Helen Clark was a big ol' closeted bull dyke, in a marriage blanc with a big ol' daddy bear. Seems to obsess Ian Wishart, but he's a nut. Don Brash is the most unlikely Don Juan since... well, ever? Still don't care.
I actually feel very sorry for both Je Lin Brash and Peter Davis got dragged into this kind of crap because they were stupid enough to marry politicians, Foolish, perhaps, but not the kind of offense that deserves the punishment of having photographers staking out your house and dragging your marriage through the dirt to entertain retards without lives.
Hell, FDR had a long-term extramarital affair and Churchill was widely rumored (although never publicly until after his death) to be the father of his sister-in-law's oldest son. Somehow, their positions in history have survived.
And finally, Alex:
So IWI/KIWI implies what?
Well, Alex, it sure as shit doesn't imply that Don Brash or the National Party believes that its a mistake that Maori are allowed to vote, or share's Hansen's hardline views on immigration. (The short version: She doesn't like it.) But I guess crass and offensively simple-minded equations of politicians you don't like to bigots and thugs for rhetorical effect isn't so bad after all?
-
And after that, I'm going to take my own advice, and
...shut the fuck up, go sit on a beach for a while with a good book and plenty of sunblock, and avoid excessive consumption of caffeine or sugar until around mid-February.
Have a splendid holiday season, folks. I'm planning to get a little further along on finishing __In Search of Lost Time__ before my time on earth runs out, do some Christmas baking, and get ahead of the housework.
-
Arguably, a pledge card (which can certainly be funded by Parliamentary Services) from a party in Parliament falls within the exemption (so isn't included in the $2.4m cap - effectively making the limit much higher for parties in Parliament), but a pledge card from a Party outside Parliament trying to get in cannot - so has to be included in that party's spending limit.
This is actually the main thing that annoys me about our electoral finance laws. That parliamentary services ends up paying for things that are blatantly election material. If we're going to have taxpayers funding political parties for election spending, OK, lets have that debate, until then, it'd be nice if we didn't actually pay for it, and the similar stuff that National, and whoever else spits out.
Good to see that the electoral finance laws left that alone though. Love it when political parties can argue over megaphones and spending limits, but still sit happily together and ignore the stuff that benefits them all equally!
-
Ah, Angus, so are you saying that the regulation of third parties is okay, as long as the caps are higher?
Yes, as long as the regulation is not more onerous upon third parties than upon political parties regulation is welcome. Every stream of political opinion should have the right to place its views before a nationwide audience, restriction to $120,000 means this cannot happen. Of the figures chucked around over the previous 3 months the guesstimate costing to reach 80% of the electorate is $300,000 - $400,000.
-
Good lord Craig, where does "the left" come into my comment? I pointed out the Don Brash said he regretted making a personal attack on Helen Clark and yet here is a group he supports going way beyond the pale.
For the record, and to give you the "on the other hand" you so clearly need in every statement, I have also criticised a couple of left wing sites for the way they hound David Farrar personally.
-
For the record, and to give you the "on the other hand" you so clearly need in every statement
Well, as far as I'm concerned there really isn't much of 'on the other hand' here - either its out of line for everyone, and people of good will are willing to call out 'their side' with equal righteous indignation, or its all on, all the time. And God help us all.
To be blunt, I really think some of the most permanently indignant parties (particularly around Kiwiblog) need to meditate on the Freduian concept of projection, and clean up their own acts before doing an Emily Post impersonation.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.