The way I see it everyone needs a share in a supporting ecosystem: essentially fertile land with a water source and trees etc. In a modern economy we specialize, engage in trade,and get creative by using money as a medium of exchange, but I worry, I would like to think that if it all turns to custard, I can head back to the (non existent) family farm with its fruit trees and duck pond and cruise along for a millennium.

“Lets not make a virtue out of greed (That’s ACT’s policy)”

Are the poor people not greedy by wanting to be rich?

Or is greed a reserved for the wealthy only?

Helen Clark is the one stopping the EB campaigning at the next election, not God.

“Then we’ll win by a landslide and if i’m in parliament, my salary will be nothing more than the median salary earnt in the country.”

But why win democratically even? Why not just take control of the country through armed resistance? The ‘peace’ activists in Wellington are trying to do it.

“profiteers bent on making New Zealand society completely repressed n subservient to international finance”

Please show me a link to a place which shows that is national policy. But its pretty clear what green/Labour party policy is even. They want to take control of New ZEaland families through the S59 repel and they want to turn NZ into a dictatorship where no one can speak out aginst the govt through the EFB.

The printed an anti-Green brochure, an anti-Labour brochure and a few pages of advertisements (vaguely Nationalesque) in the Auckland rags. The brochures did not make it to all letter boxes in NZ.

Given NZ Labour claim the election pledge cards cost about $400K to print and distribute NZ wide, and that the proponents of the EFB think $120K is heaps of money to spend on a series of full page advertisements in the paper, their actual expenditure was more likely around the 800K mark. One interview I saw they said they spent 550K, but I’m not sure if all expenditure had been completed by then.

The various pundits keep inflating and talking about their budget as if it were their actuals. If anyone has definitive evidence of expenditure, I’d appreciate seeing it.

They had a name and address on the Green pamphlet (”Authorised by Stephen Win, Favona Road, Mangere”), but people are annoyed because they consider it necessary to list your name, address and religion on a pamphlet. In the case of the EB no doubt they also expect bar code tattoos on their arms. Maybe the name and address was not a full disclosure in the right form, and maybe it was missing from other publications - I haven’t actually seen any specific evidence other than what people say as ’statement of fact’.

I agree with the point about new limits set in the revised bill - for spending - why these limits? What logic exactly? How does this cost relate to typical costs and expenditures to pay for an advertisement a week up to an election? Why is it not inflation adjusted?

For donations - it works out at some percentage of the party budget. But why this percentage? Why continue to allow anon donations? Why allow Owen Glenn and other non residents to put huge sums of money into the Labour party when they don’t live here?

This whole process is not allowing a wide ranging discussion of detailed aspects of the revised bill, and its to be forced through under urgency.

If the Greens continue to support this totally undemocratic process (and cannot see the need to manage changes to the Election Process with more rigor than changing the bail laws, say) then …. well, I’ll chip in for the mirror if you pay for the polish on the jack boots.

This is a bill introduced purely in self interest. The $240,000 number for anon donations was hand picked to favour Labour and the green party sold out their beliefs and agreed to it. If i was a union member I would call Russel a scab.

The only criminal activity at the 2005 election was when Labour stole $850,000 of TAXPAYERS money to pay for advertising.

Is anyone - outside The Greens & Labour?

tinyurl.com/2udnv2