Written By: - Date published: 12:27 pm, November 26th, 2007 - 90 comments
Categories: activism, election funding -
Tags: activism, election funding
Just came across this video on YouTube from last week’s rally in Wellington against the Electoral Finance Bill. This clip has one of the counter-protesters giving an impressive off-the-cuff speech on why the Bill is needed.
Given the anti-EFB crowd’s only line of attack was “you’re from Young Labour” and “reveal your identity” they were kind of on the back foot from the first sentence. The squirming Tory MPs in the background are also good for a laugh. Anyone else thinking ‘ramshackle PR fiasco‘?
Links to other speeches from the rally are available over here.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Gruela
So, why not apply the restrictions all the time then? In fact, why not ban newspapers and television advertising?
And surely, those with the means to “shout the loudest” are those with the resources of government behind them?
Do you not see that your argument supports the incumbent to the exclusion of all other?
Nih
So you are going to choose option “b” ?
So far the only person playing the race card seems to be you – do you have any justification for being such a racist ?
Nih
Perhaps your racists tendencies make something out of 1 in 5 that isn’t there? I don’t know what you are getting so uptight about ? Do you think I made these numbers up ?
Nih
Max Call stated the 1 in 5 discussion.
See: According to Nih this is racist !
You lost it Nih – well and truly lost the plot. What next mate – call Max Call a racist and unload your own crap on him, continue digging yourself a credibility hole by attacking me or just be an adult and apologise for reading something into my comments that was simply not there ?
Double:
“And surely, those with the means to “shout the loudest” are those with the resources of government behind them?”
Nope. I believe that would be Rupert Murdoch, actually. (And the Packer family. And Wal-Mart. And the U.S. Government. And OPEC. And Exxon Mobil. And the Catholic church. And the U.N. And Microsoft.) But I see your point. There should be a definite separation between the state and state-owned media, just as there should be between the legislature, judiciary, public service (I’m looking at YOU, David Parker), police force and defence forces.
And you can’t ban newspapers and ads. I realise that. But you CAN take steps to ensure that more voices are heard through those mediums, and that the ‘reporting’ and ads that we are subjected are required to undergo rigorous testing as to balance, fairness and transparency. There are ways of doing this without democracy having to come to a sticky end.
There used to be laws in this country (and many others) enforcing strict controls on media ownership, in order to prevent the very oligarchy of media control we now have in this country.
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll trade you one Electoral Finance Bill for one Complete Break-Up of the Media Conglomerates in New Zealand.
I was mainly referring to the tens of millions that Teh Party spends on “government” communications, and how that amount is effectively unlimited. It can promote the policies and approach of the party in power. Should those who disagree not be able to respond? Or should we blindly accept anything that Teh Party says?
Yeah – we should have only one published source of balance, fairness and transparency. Why don’t we call it Pravda?
Are you really suggesting that state regulation of the media will result in a better world? I’m sure that the happy people of Nth Korea would agree.
Double
No, I’m suggesting that the state should regulate the media market, so that no one or two company(ies) could dominate the market, as they do now. There’s nothing especially radical in that, and in fact it’s pretty well accepted economic doctrine for small, open markets such as New Zealand.
As to the “government” communications: well, the whole point of the public service is to implement new Govt. policy, (as well as managing the apparatus of state.)
So let’s take Working for Families as an example. Surely the Ministry for Social Development should be allowed to spend x dollars promoting this, and informing the public how to go about collecting the extras dosh they’re entitled to. I find it difficult to envisage how they’re supposed to do this without “promot(ing) the policies and approach of the party in power.”
On the other hand, I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a complete ban on advertising by the public service during the run-up to an election. Should we say, for that year up until election day? It’s true that the party in power COULD use this to gain an unfair advantage, and we wouldn’t want anything like that happening, would we? Nope, it should be open and transparent all the way.
P.S. Could you please explain the ‘Teh’ Party? I don’t get it.
P.S. Could you please explain the ‘Teh’ Party? I don’t get it.
He’s trying to be witty, like his second-hand username.
Yeah, but I think ‘The Double Standard’ is kinda funny. ‘Teh’ Party just goes right over my head.
Oh, it is. But he nicked it from Robinsod. There’s a great post over on Kiwiblog where they’re trying to come up with funny names but all they can work out is things like “the average”, “the sub standard” and “the very low standard”. Robinsod pops in and offers them “the double standard” as a gift for their stupidity. And it appears TDS took him up on the offer.
I’d just like to ask once more why DPFClawStdDBl decided to use my wee joke as his name. I think he thinks it’ll make him look smart (and he really wants to be my friend). Poor DFPClawsdblestd.
Okay, I didn’t know that. I would have gone for Substandard myself.
I kind of liked “thestupid”.
And do you think Teh Party will do that? Not F’ing likely!
Just look at what Mallard was up to in the house this week if you want an example of Teh Party playing “fair”.
Since the corresponding suspension of govt propaganda is a non-starter, do you think it is fair that the EFB muzzles (both directly and indirectly) everyone else?
Here’s the story on my nick.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=728#comment-5076
“I would have gone for Substandard myself.”
The best ones are all taken, but also worth a mention: bogstandard, thestranded.
Double:
I’m not an Labour follower, so I’m not going to defend Mallard, (any more than I think Brownlee could be defended by National supporters. Or Ryall, for that matter)
But I do think your use of the word muzzle is quite appropriate, because we all know what muzzles are used for. Big companies, and their big CEOs, are like big dogs. They’re very useful, but they have to be well trained and if they get out of control or if you let them think that they’re suddenly the dominant member of your pack, then, yeah, it’s time to muzzle them.
My defence of Labour and the EFB is quite simple, really, and it just comes down to this:
National have said that if they get into power after the next election they will REPEAL the EFB, not fix it. I’d rather vote for a partial solution to a problem than the denial that one exists.
“Would I be free to speak on the stage of a Labour conference…”
- The short answer is no, because the stage at a Party Conference is usually reserved for the leader to speak. However, at other functions, should the occasion call for public debate, then you would certainly be allowed by Labour to sport your views. To think otherwise is delusional.
Ho redbus – welcome aboard!
You’ve obviously never been to Trafalgar Square, where everyone gets a say and everyone gets to hoot the speaker down. Home of NZ’s peculiar version of democracy, England. Free speech there is a constitutional issue. If it were here, the EFB would be out the door. The right to say something certainly does not include any “right” not to be disparaged, sometimes at enormously tedious, witless length (witness this blog) for what you say.
I like to call it ‘The Very Double Standard’ or ‘VDS’, but no one appears to find it even remotely funny.
Which just makes me want to do it more.
So I do.
rOb:
You seem to be rewriting history. Labour Party luminary Jill Ovens disagrees substantially with your version of the Labour Party protest: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00062.htm
Her own press release reads: “Although my speech was supportive of the position of the protesters, they just would not let me speak. John Minto was leading chants. When he finally stopped and I had space to speak, the protesters were yelling at me, ‘Lies, lies’. The leadership of the protest made no attempt to stop the abuse,” Ms Ovens says.
She tried for quite a while to deliver her speech, and finally she put the megaphone down and walked off.”
I like you Lee, even if you’re not a chick.
IP, was that the same Labour Party luminary Jill Ovens who nine months ago was on the Alliance’s executive and was referring to Labour MPs as ‘dogs’?
“You seem to be rewriting history. Labour Party luminary Jill Ovens disagrees substantially with your version of the Labour Party protest:”
Sorry IP, I am a bear of very little brain. You’ll have to explain it to me. How is that account and my account different?
Is The Standard considering changing the name of this site?
How about, ‘Not Farrah‘?
Opps!!
I meant:
Is The Standard condidering changing the name of this site?
How abour, ‘Not Farrah‘?
Ahhh… bugger. I BLOODY WELL SPELT ‘about’ WRONG! Now I know how the ALP feels!
“condidering” wasn’t exactly correct either, but hey, don’t sweat the small stuff.
So IP, wassup? Are you going to exapand on your intriguing accusation, or are you just a big tease?
Anyway, redbus, re your question, no name change is being considered (don’t mess with a successful brand!). For the context to these “other names” see the post above From Tane Nov 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
What I want to Know David/ santa /double standard
is why to you have a go at me when I call you by your three handles .But not Robinsod you’re not the same person are you
The poor chap looks like an possum caught in the headlights. I don’t get the bit where he says he’s not Labour supporter then parrots Labour party lines. Is he doing some ‘double standard’ thing where he’ll say anything to get the crowds attention? The man could be a replacement for Winston!
lowering the standard of lowering the standard while lowering the standard:
Are you talking about me? Also, are you drunk?
Gruela
No I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about this blog.
Daveo wade’s in at the start with:
And it was interesting to see that a twat who was involved in a counter protest, with the sole purpose of drowning out and misrepresenting another groups message, then expected to be heard some more.
He had the hypocrisy to ask for a chance to be heard, having been part of a group that was shouting down a legitimate protest and distorting it’s message to the public. Then the twit tries to say this bill is about a level playing field having just stomped over peoples democratic right to protest! The man must be a complete buffoon!
His performance and your support of it is not helping your argument that the EFB is not all about shutting down dissent. Keep it up.
I realised I spelt ‘considering’ incorrectly, but I didn’t bother posting a fourth comment – three comments about idiotic trivialities seemed a bit much.