I meant a 3rd party deciding to register as a political party to spend over 120k. Not perfect…blah….etcetera.

RIGHT im unsubscribing to ALL the threads right now and i mean it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh, and Merry Xmas also

Let the fun and games begin next year….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>What does that mean?

Third parties are limited to 120K. A third party cannot reach the entire New Zealand voting population at this level. An incumbent can spend millions, has the attention of the media, and the machinery of government behind them.

The bill dictates what you can say, to whom, using your own money, one year in three.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m a little more comfortable with a third party thats going to spend >$120,000 having to be subject to the scrutiny that political parties are subject to, so maybe that was the intention?

Anyway this is all getting bit tiresome as my attention is starting to switch to my christmas mince pies and the beach.

Merry christmas all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s worth remembering that in this case, it is the State impinging on our freedom. It doesn’t matter how many people represent a group that spends $120,000 fighting a government machine that can spend millions, frame the debate, get TV coverage and have full time staff to build strategies, the limit is $120,000.

Although the legislation was so badly constructed there are loopholes. Expect to see more political parties established.

And perhaps it is more accurate to say: Hence we limit what you can do with your money.

Merry Christmas

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

the disparity in the caps between third party and MP

What does that mean?

It’s a free country. Well, it used to be.

It is worth remembering it is not only state power that can impinge on your freedom, private power can to. Hence we limit what you can do with money.

peace
W

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bliss,

This does not explain the disparity in the caps between third party and MP. Again, it is an argument at the extreme to justify the draconian measures imposed across the spectrum.

>>you should know better than to even try to argue

It’s a free country. Well, it used to be.

This is not America.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Er, shoulda typed “shut down the select committee”. Freudian slip maybe.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad, now that I know that the Road Transport Forum have both Labour and National in their pockets I have lost all respect for them. There I was thinking they were a moderately successful industry lobby group. Now you tell me they’ve been dictating government transport policy for almost two decades.

Gee, ya woulda thought they woulda shat down the select committee inquiry into truck safety or at least made sure it came up with patsy recommendations. Or at the very least looked at all the facts and made sensible and effective recommendations.

Ya woulda thought they coulda got a reduction in RUCs when the construction price index collapsed in the late 90s. Or got a lower rate of RUCs for air suspension when the OECD recommended it.

Ya woulda thought they woulda stopped the gummint buying back the railways.

Or they woulda stopped Labour from reducing spending on rural highways so that more could be spent being seen to be doing something about urban congestion.

That’s a pretty impressive list of failures for an organisation that has both Labour and National in their pockets.

The members should sack their executive and get one that can actually make their servants do what truckies want.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And, yes, there is no Scott Styris. His recent form has been appalling, apart from today’s ODI.

Maybe the last innings would justify his inclusion, probably ahead of Ryder.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BB said: If you have any connections in high places can you please do something about Ricky Ponting, the man is about to score another 100.

I tried, but it didn’t work, BB!!!

But I can’t work out why Shane Bond is so often injured. Something must be wong with the fitness regime. And Chris Cairns, also with persistent injuries, retired early. And Andre Adams, whom I think has got the talent to be a top performer in both tests and ODIs, has got the bum’s rush from Bracewell, and has told NZ Cricket to go stuff themselves.

The whole regime of selection incompetence goes back to the 1970s – Murray Webb (yes the cartoonist) who was probably the most talented fast bowler apart from Richard Hadlee of that era, got the bums rush. As did Rodney Redmond, who scored a century in his first test innings and 50 in the second innings, but never got to play a test for NZ again.

Anyway, here’s my preferred Test 11 (of those I understand to be fit and available) in batting order (with Bond, if fit, replacing Martin)

Lou Vincent
Jamie How
Stephen Fleming
Ross Taylor
Jesse Ryder
Jacob Orum
Brendon McCullum
Daniel Vettori
Andre Adams
Tim Southee
Chris Martin

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

A very good synopsis Bliss. BluePeter… you should know better than to even try to argue this point here. It is wrong. It is dead wrong for an actual representative democracy.

I have pointed out elsewhere, the wealth party in the US has two branches… Republican and Democrat. Democrats are a little right of center and Republicans are VERY right of center. There are precious few real differences in their actual policies… one seems more irresponsible and delusional but that just means they like to go to war for no reason a bit more than the other one. .

respectfully
BJ

The wealth party has won every election I can remember.

The rest of us have paid dearly for their privilege.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012733.php

That’s what you get when money talks.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter

It does not come down to funding levels. This baseless argument gets trotted out in every thread, yet nobody can explain why ACT polls lower than the Greens, and why ACT haven’t won every election.

My point is the inflation. Once unlimitecd money is allowed in then all politicians have to serve money.

Money will not make you succeed (look at ACT, as you say), but the lack of money makes you fail.

Then all politicians serve the same master: money. Like in the USA.

peace
W

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Russ

Now that is a great idea, how about you drive one and I will drive the other?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bb, perhaps we could call in the strike wing, once we get it out of all that sticky white plastic…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad

If you have any connections in high places can you please do something about Ricky Ponting, the man is about to score another 100.
Have a word and see if you can do something about getting him out.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad

In 1990 the people did vote for a decent society, what a pity that has been ruined by the last eight years of Clark and co.

What ever side of the political spectrum you come from you must admit that the current healthy economic climate we enjoy is the result of the policies enacted by Douglas and Richardson.

Of course the real pity is that we have lagged behind the rest of the world under this govt, wages have remained low (not sure why the left keep blaming the Nat’s for that) and tax has remained criminally high.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Voters were getting the policies of the Business Roundtable whichever party they chose”

bit like the 2002 and 2005 elections eh?

When people describe Labour as left wing I have to laugh! There is so little to choose between all the grey parties, they all have basically the same old free-trade-agreements growth-at-all-costs policies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bliss

It does not come down to funding levels. This baseless argument gets trotted out in every thread, yet nobody can explain why ACT polls lower than the Greens, and why ACT haven’t won every election.

I agree this argument only makes any sense at the extremes i.e. one group has nothing, the other group has substantial leverage.

But this isn’t just about money.

The Unions have leverage in terms of membership. Activist groups are time rich. Right-wing parties tend to be cash rich, time poor.

How do we balance all these advantages and disadvantages?

I’m not sure we can.

What we certainly should not do is rush in, boots n’ all, and pass partisan legislation when it pertains to restricting free speech.

I do not subscribe to the view it is better than nothing. It is worse than nothing when it is rushed, garbled, and partisan.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

1991 was actually my typo, that BB repeated. Meant it to be 1990.

People voted for “The Decent Society” and got the Employment Contracts Act and further privatisations instead.

That election, and the two previous ones, were the reason people voted to change the electoral system in 1993. Voters were not getting the policies they voted for, and were getting the policies of the Business Roundtable whichever party they chose.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)