Your post seems to confirm that the Greens will only ever deal with a Labour govt, the comment “but the kind of choice we have to make all too often with a timid Labour govt” is rather revealing.

Given the sell out by John (Neville) Key on tax cuts I would have thought that the left wing National party are now a very real option,it is a pity that the Greens have a closed mind on coalition partners.

(i think i/i try to) understand the pressures you are under..

but given the widespread approbrium against what was cobbled together..

the (with hindsight) argument could almost be made that foregoing that incrementalist gain..and pulling the plug on the whole idea..

and telling the punters/voters why..

could have been a ‘greener’ course..

tho’ i am cheered to hear you ‘haven’t given up on it yet.”

phil(whoar.co.nz)

The original proposal contained provisions to both block anonymous donations and to have (furhter) partial public funding of political parties.

Once the proposal for extra public funding got blocked (politically and also NZF and UF wouldn’t support) then Labour got cold feet on blocking the anonymous donations, presumably as they worried about losing some of their own income stream. We kept pushing for it but labour wouldn’t wear it.

Then we had the choice of refusing to support the legislation at all, because the anon donations provisions were dropped, or supporting it as an improvement on what we have. We chose the latter course. Not very satisfactory but the kind of choice we have to make all too bloody often with a timid Labour govt. We haven’t given up on it yet.

could you bring us up to speed as to what actually happened to the original stated premise..from both clark..and yourselves..

for this election reform legislation..

namely to stop the rivers of anonymous money that are used to buy/influence our politicians..?

nobody seems to have mentioned/explained the..to some of us..glaring omission of any such attempt at any reform..

did you even talk about it..?

or wasn’t it even mentioned..?

could you give us some insight into that process..?

surely this is the other ‘elephant in the room’ with this..?

eh..?

and i ask this because i see nowhere in your enthusiasims for the re-sitting of the select committee..

any mention of proposed work..

to stop those rivers of anonymous monies..

could you please advise what has happened to those ‘reform’ ideas/ideals..?

have you performed the last rites over them..?

or is there some small vestige of hope they may yet be kicked back into life..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Obviously you’re not a fan of history, just ideology fueled hyperbole.

Perhaps you should look up the Industrial Consolidation achieved by J.P. Morgan during the Gilded age. Had precious little to do with a strong, autocratic government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age#Influential_figures

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/morgan.html

This too is quite interesting. Doesn’t suprise me overmuch either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

There is no “fractious issue.” The simple fact is that you want to restrict freedom of speech. Let’s not wrap it up in high-minded hypocrisy.

More than that, the special interest groups that support the vast state mechanism - the labour cartels - are going to get a special deal. These groups receive generous state funding - forcibly extracted from taxpayers - and then, surprise, surprise, make equally generous donations from such income *back* to the Labour party.
*That’s* where you’ll find financial corruption; not private individuals and organisations using their own money to advocate their own position.

The problem is that the state, rather than limiting itself to the legitimate task of maximising individual freedom, has seized control of every aspect of our lives. Of *course* such a centralisation of total power is going to attract the money of those seeking special favours; but the problem here is the state - the money is just a symptom. If the state hadn’t seized those illegitimate powers then it would not be attracting such lobbying. Imagine a situation where the most the state could do would be to choose the colour of the new New Zealand flag. Do you think political lobbying would be a problem? I think not.
But of course, the chances of a Green MP with strong socialist tendencies actually letting go of those illegtimate state powers is zero. Such people want to use state force to implement their agenda; so further restrictions on our freedom of speech are deemed appropriate.

BJ