and it comes out in questiontime today..

that the cited/quoted precedents for this legislation..

britain and canada..have at best ..had their regimes ’selectively-quoted-from’

at worst..been grossly misrepresented/lied about..as in actual facts..(!)

and that neither the british nor the canadian systems are anywhere near as draconian/repressive as this toxic-soup dreamed up by you and labour..

it certainly ‘dosen’t keep getting any better’..eh..?

are we planning on ‘leading the world’..again..?

but this time in repressive/anti-democratic legislation..?

(woo-hoo..!..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The size of the membership quite certainly does not reflect the quality of the ideas. Ask Libertarianz.

Nor, in your scenario, is there any measure that a smaller party can take to grow against the larger parties, or get its ideas heard. The larger parties have more money, advertise more widely, have more campaign workers and get more new members. Size matters and you hand that advantage over without any limits at all.

The smaller party’s messages get buried in the noise.

Money Matters…. It is “the Mother’s Milk of politics”

I wouldn’t however, give money directly to any party. I’d let the government buy X column inches, Y prime-time minutes on radio and Z television minutes… as well as a couple of brochures and debates. Each party gets
the same voice, the same volume, the same monetary equivalent ad time.

And for the last 45 days before the election nobody BUT the parties can run political advertisements.

That’d make the ELECTION a bit more of an exercise in civics. People would have a chance to think about ideas. The most important part though is that the money, for possibly the first time in human history, would not really matter all that much.

Because this is about improving democracy… not about money.

respecfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If I accept your point that big money should be cut off, why is the response to that state funding?

Why should you or I have to pay more for Labour or National or the Greens just because they want to bicker over who gets what? They get heaps as it is.

If they want money they should go out and earn it. The best way to do that is get members. State funding only rewards failure and entrenches party and policy elites.

If parties were more reliant on generating actual members they would be encouraged to engage more with them and the wider community, and it would encourage greater invovlvement in democratic processes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

do you plan on standing alone..?

“..just doing what (you) think is right..as (you) shall..?..”

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The fundamental reform that is required, is to cut the big parties (and their proxies) off from big money. The necessary corollary to that is public funding for the parties. If that’s “too hard”, then you can’t get a coherent reform. As the draft bill demonstrates.

Fundamental incoherence in the bill : registered third parties re not allowed to accept anonymous donations over $500. Whereas political parties can! Unfair? You bet. Can it be fixed in committee stages? No it can’t… see above.

Open slather was more or less tenable in the past, because of voluntary restraint (or lack of imagination) by the big parties. Now they’ve worked out how to get money and how to spend it under the current rules, the rules need to be tightened up.

However now that the feeding frenzy about freedom of speech has set in (many of the concerns are valid, but the general tone of frantic hyperbole is disastrous), the likely result is that the new bill will be even more lax than the current situation… National will end up being able to legally channel and funnel all the big-biz donations they can shake a stick at… Labour will probably feel obliged to be ever more “business friendly” in order to attract the contributions to keep up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

But would anybody have bothered reading any of their pamphlets or any other part of their $500,000 campaign if the news media hadn’t made people sit up and take notice. In marketing the only bad publicity is no publicity. And that’s all the EB had before the news media gave their pamphlets an exposure that $500,000 could never hope to buy.

A quick check of the news reports from that time that are still on the net reveals that none of reports questioned any of the claims in the pamphlets. They simply fixated on the non-dislosure issue.

Human nature being what it is, an awful lot of people would have read the pamphlets just to see what all the fuss was about, in the same way they NEED to read about Brad and Jennifer and poor little Paris. And they probably would have believed every word they read just as they do when they salivate over their copy of No Idea every week.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That is an understatement to say this bill is flawed. It is deeply flawed, and that is even more concerning when a number of parties have been consulted on its content and couldn’t see the train about to hit them. Seems like there might have been a bunch of ideological blinkers on.

Appreciate you taking the time and interest to comment.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“..I find it amusing that you and big bro say I’m too left wing while Bryce and others that i’m too right wing..”

glad this all amuses you..russell

and interesting/revealing what amuses you..eh..?

are you also cracking up over the much-touted/trumpeted ‘green’ solar water scheme having not even one (!) uptake.?

in six months..(!)

chalk that up as a resounding whatever..eh..?

got any more ideas/policies where that one came from..?

that concession you ‘wrung’ out of labour..?

the ‘price’ for your support of labour..eh..?

in their ongoing degradation of our environment..?

(that’s a real side-splitter..eh..?..)

tho’ some of us would cry..if we didn’t join in your laughter..

then there are those ongoing 4-5% poll ratings..

they’re a hoot for many of us..do you chuckle at that ‘result’ also..?

(smile self-contentedly into the mirror..?..)

your sinking into media/public invisibility since your election..

that’s another (predicted) barrel of laughs..eh..?

and hey russell..repression from the left is little different from repression from the right..

both are repression..

and isn’t that just a touch fey/transparent of you to try to dismiss our concerns on that diversion..?

russel said..”..I guess the thing in politics is just do what you think is right..”

(cue dramatic pause)..”and so i shall”

um..!..that’s called hubris russel..

and..aren’t you jumping the gun a bit there..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

All I can suggest is that we try it out on them all and see. Gerrit and I come from VASTLY different camps and the logic here is quite compelling to have us agree on something this fundamental.

The reduction of the time period and the simplicity of the rules and enforcement regime could get their attention. The fact that this isn’t “government funding” of the campaign would likely help.

It could reduce the expense of the campaigns as well. As the competition for advertising space would be reduced in that final period.

All parties benefit from having their messages being THEIR messages.

Besides, we have to be true to our colours and be certain to start any possible political firestorm at every possible opportunity

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There is no doubt some form of electoral reform is required but the anwer to what this will constitute must have cross party support. Having the government (without cross party support) drop the bill onto the table late in the piece was just such a bad and patronising piece of political incompetance.

Having a bill so flawed placed before the public was stupid, meaning that any future elctoral reform will be even more difficult.

Electoral reform in my opinion has been put back at least ten years

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yep that would do it.

With HC and Labour furiously back pedalling on this bill now that the MSM have it in their sights I’m suprised the Greens keep plugging away with it.

Sometime you have to wonder if the Green party strategists ever applied the DIMS (Does It Make Sense) test to this bill.

Or what the potential consequences would be if enacted.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The bill is flawed like lots of bills – it needs tweaking at select cttee. pretty normal really.

BJ and Gerrit, i think there is a lot of merit in what you say but given the wall of fire the current proposals have run into don’t you think your proposal would get even worse PR – given that it really is shutting down all advertising by non-parties for the last month or three?

Phil, my criticism of your postings is not ad hominem but ad escritem (if that’s a word!). They look like chook scratchings and I find them difficult to read and generally don’t. But having read that one, I find it amusing that you and big bro say I’m too left wing while Bryce and others that i’m too right wing. I guess the thing in politics is just do what you think is right (as in correct!) within the framework of party policy and philosophy. And so I shall.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Call it a month and a half?

I’d allow as the parties can say “bad stuff” about other parties if they wish, but that it has to come out of their budgets (at the expense of their positive messages). Not removing party related caps. Negative messages and absence of positive messages would speak for themselves about the quality of ideas of a particular party.

I have to hope that Kiwis in general are perceptive enough to listen to that.

However, if it came to it I would be able to live with your version.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

a) what motivated them to allow this bill to progress in the first place?
b) how well equipped are they to deal with govt if this is an example of their ability to manage the regulatory process on which there was cross party support?

The oddest thing is everyone in favour of the bill says it is to stop evil big money and evil misleading contributions distorting the electoral process, yet there is a singular lack of evidence they actually did. Yet some seem willing to chuck out rules refined over years.

There’s no evidence the EB campaign hurt the Greens, there’s reasonable evidence it hurt National; any evidence money equals votes is similarly weakened by a review of the $ spent per vote gained.

peanut meet hammer….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Ninety days before the election and everyone who isn’t speaking for an ACTUAL political party has to stay out of the TV advertisements, billboards, broadsides, radio and newspapers.’

I could run with that but think the three month is a bit too long. Maybe a month would be more practical.

Also only positive party promotional electioneering be permissable.

ie – Labour promotion of say pro GE and the benefits that New Zealand would gain from having cell stem research, etc.

Greens promoting say anti GE with the benefits that New Zealand would gain from banning GE modified corn seeds whose crops cannot be harvested and used as seed for next years crop.

That way we only have positive benefits from the political parties policies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Which will say what they damn well please and get away with it as they always have.

Ninety days before the election and everyone who isn’t speaking for an ACTUAL political party has to stay out of the TV advertisements, billboards, broadsides, radio and newspapers.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

as i predicted would happen..if you were elected co-leader..russel..

(behind the scenes)..you are ideologically working at ghettoising the political wing of the green movement as an acolyte/appendage of labour..

labour..a party that has overseen/encouraged the wholesale deterioration of our environments..

in their many years in power..

(and you support/have supported/succoured them in this/their environmental destruction..eh..?

that’s an irrefutable fact russel..

a fact supported by more stats/deteriorating environments than you can poke a stick at..

and this latest sorry/sad outing couldn’t be stronger confirmation of this blind/ideology-driven subservience to labour..you seem to desire to continue..

and which will..if you are not stopped/replaced/redirected..reduce the green party to an irrelevancy/snippet of history…

(the penny hasn’t dropped for you yet..?..has it..?

russel..?

you don’t yet realise any green party that wishes to have any lasting influence/life..

must straddle the ideological ‘centre’..

‘working’ both the main parties..

(but i think that concept sticks in your ideological-craw..eh..?..)

and..in another thread..hasn’t your record to date with labour yet proven to you the errors of your ways..?

obviously not..

cos’..in this case..your intransigence in the face of reasoned/reasonable opposition from almost everyone..

only confirming your adherence to this (fatally-flawed) path..

(and ..um..!..are not your lamentable 4-5% poll ratings also not shouting at you the errors of your ways..?

and your failures to date at getting out that green message..?

how long have you been leader now russel..?

could we have a list of your achievments to date..?

(would you like to borrow my ‘postie-pad’..?)

did you/do you think labour will/would rule forever..?

russel..?

and what..?..in your grand plan..then..?

russel..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Even with spending limits you are not going to be able to control third party spending.

For example the EB’s could easily split in EB1, EB2, EB3, etc. groups, each with a $60,000 expenditure limit.

Are you going to have a state servant decide if this is legal? No that will be done in the courts.

What constitutes a group anyway? Are the various trade unions lumped together as a group? No, therefore the various EB groups can not be lumped under one overarching group.

So third party electioneering will still be as open as before.

Another casue for concern is the decision of what constitutes an advertisement and what is electioneering. Some clever marketing people (such as those who colour all government promotion literure in red with a labour party logo) will have a field day writing copy which is totaly contestable in court.

So we will have even more court cases.

Then you need to address the issues of penalties if the court rules against a political party. Unless the elector commision (or whomever overseas elction results plus the Governor General?) has the ability to overturn an election because of electioneering irregularies than the proposed act is a waste of time. ALL political parties will break the rules.

And no doubt those issue will need to be addressed in court as well.

One can envisage an election in October not being declared until all court cses have been declared and all appeals heard. Something which could take months if not years.

All the while an unelected government holds the treasury benches.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“..Phil – reading your screeds of chook scratchings really isn’t at the top of my agenda right now…”

(um..ok..i’ll refrain from playing the ad hominem game..russel..

despite having an overflowing ammunition-box of ad hominems i could direct at you..eh..?

over your past and present/current performances..

but they can keep for another day..and if i could at all be bothered..

it’d be like shooting turkeys in a pen..

and um..!..do you really think that response to the questions/issues/concerns raised..not only by by li’l ol’ chook-scratcher me..shows you in a good light..?

russel..?

(‘party-leader’ sorta behaviour..eh..?..)

sheesh..!..go figure..!..)

anyway..back to the business at hand..

i notice russel..that once again you dance around the issues..

and have not even attempted to defend/explain/reply to the concerns about closing down political dialogue for 11 months before any election..

and just to confirm how piss-weak your chook-scrathings-insult/riposte is..

laila harre and matthew hooten were just on national radio..

both were in (rare) agreement..

that this is a dogs’ breakfast of a bill..

and that everyone needs to go back to the drawing board..

and to start by some ‘in good faith’ cross-party dialogue..

do you plan on doing a don quioxte on this one russel..?

you..and soon to fired minister burton..as your pancho villa..eh..?

yours in reasoned/ad hominen-free dialogue..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My question to you is do you want to remove the caps on what the parties can spend? So it becomes a war of money like US and Oz?

Cause if you don’t want to remove the caps on parties then you have to address the question of caps for non-party actors otherwise all the money that can’t be spent by parties ends up being channelled to the non-parties to effectively run party campaigns in drag. This is basically what happened last time with National and the Exclusive Brethren.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)