Written By: - Date published: 9:33 am, August 26th, 2008 - 58 comments
Categories: same old national, transport -
Tags: booths, roads, toll, transport, williamson
He just doesn’t give up does he? Maurice Williamson was spotted this morning still trying to sell his toll booth idea to Auckland motorists. Spy photos below.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
TE: You could be correct – I don’t know enough for certain. My memory from earlier in the year was that you didn’t have to put authorizing statements unless you were going beyond the cost limits. Someone can probably clarify.
This site is covered by the specific exclusion for blogs in the EFA and because each poster does their posts individually. I must have a look to see if a decision by the electoral commission has been made on the subject of multi-poster blogs yet. However it only costs $160/month and everyones spare time – in my case right now time while I wait for this [expletive deleted] code to compile in gcc on linux in a VirtualBox.
[update: Looks like the complaints by various people are still awaiting legal advice. http://www.elections.org.nz/news/ ]
Tim, your detailed and explanation and multiple disclaimers make that sentence make some sense (although I really challenge your assumptions), but at the end of the day if you’re going to use throwaway lines like that with no context you get the response such lines deserve.
Instead of “” it doesn’t change the fact that the very same group of left wing activists who defended the passing of the EFA are now going about and breaking it.’
You’ve gone with: I assume that this person is a Labour activist because I can’t believe that anyone who doesn’t like National might dislike the for a reason apart from support of Labour.
Furthermore, I believe that the Labour Party is a singluar and monolithic entity, and that if the Party supports something, each and every member, activist, voter and person who has had a left-wing thought must wholeheartedly support said idea.
Furthermore, it is impossible to concieve that someone would paint a box blue, without the collusion of levels of the Labour party that were responsible for the advent of the EFA.
Thus, the man in a blue box is an EFA supporter and secretive colluder with multiple Labour Party contacts.
Pity the photo isn’t in high def, you’d se H1′s phone number in his pocket I reckon.
Not a big leap? I don’t know which is worse, making a careless throwaway line (which could be construed as insisting that those involved with this site supported the EFA but are happy to break it), or constructing a detailed and solidly thought through assessment that has less credibility than the first.
Either way, it’s not a sensible comment to make.
it’s also important to realise that intent doesn’t matter, only the impression that it creates. therefore even if this guy wasn’t intending to turn voters off National it clearly could create the impression that he was.
Good point Rocket Boy
I don’t see why it couldn’t quite easily be a pro National supported. It does not defame National in any way. It is merely a way of actually promoting what Maurice was talking about on Agenda.
OK, I think I understand know. The guy in the blue box is a product of the knowledge economy.
BTW – The only reason why National is perceived as having a “secret” agenda is that; everytime it is caught telling the truth, it denies it.
However, Maurice should at least be commended on this point. At least he, unlike the rest of National, has enough courage to also care about the issue of toll booths, rather than just voting booths.
I’ve been told that the EFA is the reason that Facelift isn’t on this year due to the confusion around satire and non ridiculisation of Politicians.
Shame… at least pranks like this go some way to lightening the political environment.
BTW: On facelift, anyone seen ‘Dead Ringers’ on UKTV? Hilarious.
and on another note, my captcha said “Public Muzzle”
coincidence?
Interesting points, Matthew, and I used hyperbole, as no doubt you often do, in leaping to my conclusions that the failure to have a promoter’s statement was illegal under the EFA, and that it was a labour party activist involved in the stunt, rather than an activist from any other political party, or merely a street theatre artist. The fact that it happened the day after it was the issue for the government, had a photographer ready to take the pictures, and arrived with the Standard within minutes of it taking place, says to me it was a coordinated effort with a genuine political motive, most likely to be connected to the Labour Party.
I don’t ask you to agree with that assumption, although in stating it I do expect that many people, particularly from the right, would assume that it’s reasonable. But it raises an interesting issue as to what political parties should take responsibility for. I will try to be concise, and I’m not always good at it.
Let’s say a small group of enthusiastic National Party supporters decide on their own that they’re going to run an attack campaign against Helen Clark. The senior National Party finds out about who the people are, their connections to the National Party, and wink wink, the senior party does nothing about it. Should the National Party take responsibility for that? Because that sounds a lot like what happened to the exclusive brethren saga a few years ago. I think the Nats were stupidly naive to do anything other than nip it in the bud, if they had the authority to do so. The fact they didn’t was a big failure and caused a lot of embarrassment and cost National probably two or three percent in the polls. It probably lost the Nats the election. So you would say, yes, on that basis, National should take responsibility for not distancing themselves from the EBs at the outset.
It’s my view that National should take responsiblity, and has taken responsibility, for the EBs conduct in 2005. They paid the price for it electorally. Do you think by the same measure that the Labour Party should take responsibility for the actions of over-enthusiastic members, supporters, and officers breaking the law as well?
I don’t like to put words in people’s mouths, but you can argue, yes, but there’s no evidence that the person here was a Labour Party activist. That’s true. There isn’t. Not yet. But there wasn’t immediately any evidence of real connections between National and the EBs last time, either. That only came out after some time. The EBs initially misled about who they were. Labour and the Greens didn’t believe the EBs responses then, because they were deliberately being obscure about their identity.
Isn’t it the case that two of the key purposes of the electoral finance act is to identify who is funding whom and who is campaigning on behalf of whom, rather than running secretive, anonymous campaigns? And if there is a duty for National to take responsibility for everyone campaigning on their behalf, isn’t there also a duty for the Labour Party to establish that these people are not part of them, rather than simply saying they don’t know who the people involved are? Furthermore, haven’t the admissions from various young Labour activists that they know who the people behind stunts like this, and the secret recordings, are, suggest that it would be very easy for Labour to find out if it is one of their own?
I think after the EBs fiasco last time, it just isn’t credible anymore for a political party to say they don’t know if any secret, parallel campaigning has any links to them, because they haven’t inquired. I think political parties have a duty to make those inquiries, particularly when it’s clear that those campaigns are going on.
I’m not saying that standing on a busy road with effectively a “don’t vote National” sign around your neck is of the level of what the exclusive brethren did in 2005. But that isn’t the point. The point is that the EFA specifically outlaws anybody from engaging in anonymous campaigning like this, and sets the bar at zero. It wouldn’t be hard for the Standard to independently verify, through its close Labour Party connections, whether this person is a Labour Party activist. If I read what SP says above, instead he’s repeated an anonymous third party source saying that the person isn’t a financial member. In my mind, that isn’t an adequate response.
I am dumbfounded.A person standing on the side of the road wearing a box is now likened to the exclusive bretheren 1.5 million dollar campaign.
The issue here is NOT the efa it is Nationals SECRETE agenda.Tolling is a BIG issue.I don’t know about you but having to spend $50 dollars a week plus based on Nationals spokesperson on transport ,makes a real problem for me.Is anyone going to debate that?
Tim Ellis,
Many thoughts!!
1) I’m never sure why the left is seen as a cohesive group. Many, for example, are not connected with Labour, don’t support Labour, are deeply disappointed in Labour, and believe that the only thing worse than a Labour led government is a National led government.
2) If some people decide to set up a small group to campaign on the election and all or some are members of a political party (or some other group) that doesn’t mean their campaign is a part of that party’s (or group’s) campaign. There are issues here of whether it is a separate campaign, but it’s not necessarily the same campaign.
3) The EFA allows 3rd parties to campaign for or against parties or candidates. Those campaigns are not (and must not be) co-ordinated by or with the party or candidate, and the party or candidate has no responsibility for them.
4) Even if we believe the National Party line on the Exclusive Brethren, it still hurt them. It is entirely possible a bunch of young enthusiastic lefties could run a pro Labour/Green/Progressive/Alliance/Workers’ Party campaign which would hurt one or more of those parties. Such is life. That doesn’t mean the party gets to control the radical group, but it does get to be nervous about it
5) The EFA is about transparency, of money and voice. If the man in the cardboard box had stuck something on his box to say who he was (or who one of his mates’ was if they were willing to take responsibility for him) then we’d be sweet; his campaign would be transparent, he would be standing up for something he believes in.
6) NZ is small, but it’s not that small. The man in the box may belong to one of the same organisations as me, he might even be related to me, but I have no idea who he is – it would take some effort for me to find out who he is, and I have no desire to do so. Why should SP? Or anyone at The Standard? Or anyone at the Labour Party?
7) I think it’s very very cool that some guy somewhere (and his mate with the camera) are actually doing something. If more people acted on what they believe in (and comments in blogs really don’t count) we would be a much better country.
Getting cars off the road = good thing.
On that premise, a $50 toll would work wonders. If a worker doesn’t want to wear the $50, then s/he can of course demand the $50 from their employer during collective bargaining as a ring fenced claim apart from pay negotiations. Then catch the bus and save a packet!
More seriously, whenever a move is made away from individualised transport, it is the poorer who are going to be whacked first. There WILL be a two tier transport system before too long.
And avoidance/denial as in toothache and dentist will not change the outcome.
So toll charges simply result in the inevitable arriving sooner rather than later.
george,
I think likening people to the Exclusive Brethren is the new black. One of my happiest moments of last year was being likening to the Exclusive Brethren in parliament
(I should say that one of the reasons for my joy is that it reminded me of the strength and courage of one of my great grandmothers, who is the reason I’m not EB. It reminded me that individuals have enormous power to bring about change).
SP:
“It’s your right to get your knickers in a twist over technical breachs of the law if you like. Why not take it to the EC and waste their time too?”
Love your work. If at first they bring up a point you find hard to defend, seeek to denegrate and humiliate them. Don’t ever address his point – that is to say, if someone believes it’s all in humour then it’s exempt from the EFA – let’s just point fingers and laugh like a child in a preschool.
In your opinion, is Bryce a chinless scarf wearer? Is he in fact a hater and/or a wrecker?
captcha: “the apology”. Oh, only if it were so.
Does anybody know if Jasper is right about Facelift?
Tim Ellis:
Wrong from what I understand.
There is no such requirement for parties to be responsible for 3rd parties. It is the 3rd parties that are responsible to the EC/police.
There is a requirement for the parties to govern their own activities and of their people doing it as part of the organization. Effectively if the ‘party’ is in effective control of the activities or is paying for the activities.
It has no real control of members acting of their own accord and not as part of the parties activities. Therefore it is not responsible for them. This is in exactly the same manner that I’m a member of southern cross, but they are not responsible for my political activities.
There is a requirement for the people acting as a 3rd party in the election to comply with the ERA or face prosecution.
If however, the EC decides that a 3rd party is effectively acting as part of, or directly on behalf of party – then they can add the allocation to the parties election expenses. Bearing in mind the level of collusion between the EB and the Nat’s last election this might have been the case if it was repeated this election.
However there are a number of exemptions, in particular for news media and blogs. This is there to allow free and fair comment.
Basically you’re incorrect. There is no requirement for either party to be responsible for activists unless they are directly acting on the parties behalf and under their control. It is actually the Electoral Commissions responsibility or police, (and ultimately the courts on charging or appeal) to make those determinations. They will do so after they receive a complaint.
I think some people are missing the point. User pays is exactly that. If you dont want to pay the toll, then drive on the old road. All the old existing roads will be toll free. If you want to drive on the shiney new expressway, then you will have to pay for that privilige.
As it is, with the 10c petrol tax, everyone in the auckland area pays the same whether they use the roads or not. So the masses pay for the few that use the roads. That’s not very fair now is it?
Living in england i do a lot of driving around europe. France has thousands of miles of toll roads and they are marvelous! you pay 3 – 10 euros (depending on the length) and you get to travel at 130kph with no police to be seen anywhere, and you get to where you are going in half the time. A month ago i did 2,500 miles around france in 10 days, some times we used the slow roads, sometimes the toll roads.
Not that it will happen in my lifetime but wouldn’t it be nice to have a 4 lane expressway from auckland to wellington (as well as SH1 for people that didnt want to pay). This would NEVER happen if we had only tax revenue to pay for roading. Just because Maurice said that ‘some’ people would be prepared to pay up to $50 a week to drive on toll roads, didnt mean that he implied that ALL people will have to pay $50 to drive on roads.
Labour is (or was) scoping out public opinion for a $6 a day congestion charge for driving in Aucklnd. After living in London for 4 years i would say stay well away from that! It costs £8 pounds a day to drive in London and the congestion is just as bad as before it was introduced. The congestion has just moved from the center of town to outside the zone. It’s great at producing revenue though.
It’s just another spin campain from Labour to frighten people that are not smart enough to think for themselves. Even Labour are looking seriously at PPP’s and the use of toll roads, where is the vast media hysteria on that headline?!?!?
Do you really think people are going to be happy to drive through Greenhithe to get to work in the mornings form the shore? From what I understand there are discussions around tolling both the harbour bridge and an underground tunnel. Where is my other option if I live on the shore?
And let’s also remember there are a lot of jobs out there where a car is actually a necessity of a job, and has to be taken to work every day.
“And let’s also remember there are a lot of jobs out there where a car is actually a necessity of a job, and has to be taken to work every day.”
Then it would be paid for by the employer?
Andrew:
Wrong – I think you haven’t read Maurice’s comments. Try Granny Herald.
In effect what he is saying is that there will be PPP’s or tolls that are not viable unless everyone pays. In which case why bother with the tolls? It will be simpler and cheaper to just get the funding with regional or national taxation.
Incidentally, this has been the effect of PPP’s elsewhere that I’ve looked at. They usually require that alternate access routes are also ‘blocked’ to be viable or the taxpayers wind up paying through those interesting codicils.
Quoth: Facelift isn’t an advertisement, so I really doubt it. Read the exceptions on the link Steve provided.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4669955a6160.html
ahhh irony
captcha- embossing shipley- what’s she got to do with this?
Phil – I would hope it was paid for by the employer….I can’t imagine them all jumping at the opportunity to give their employees more money. It would turn all employers against the tolling idea if they had to fork out more money (potentially $2600/yr) for their employees.
Lucas
What is the irony?National voted against ppp in the house.What is important is that national has yet again kicked their own spokesman for telling the truth.There is transparency as regards tolls from labour as you can see with the Pohoi extension.Get with the game.Truth will always out.