What I was asking was “what is the problem?”. I saw a lot of people saying it was bad – my question is why?

I expect voluntary work to go on in election campaigns. I do it all of the time for political parties and other organizations. Essentially I saw a lot of comments attacking the concept for no apparent reason.

Good to hear that you do voluntary work. It is what maintains a lot of essential services (including politics).

“Why not try something different – go and do some voluntary work yourself. From your attitude it doesn’t seem to me like you have.”

You might just be very, very surpised there, lprent. But I’d hate to shatter your world view.

I mean what exactly is your point? What can you actually show is a problem in electoral law? People have been volunteering to help political parties for centuries.”

Have you asked the union members if they were driving union cars at the time? Have you asked them what time of the day it was?

Have you asked Field if any takeaways may or may not have been purchased?

No, thought not. Save your desperation for those who are willing to overlook it.

“BTW: Do you have the same attitude to people doing charitable work? To the people who do the ambulance duty like womans refuges? For PTA’s. For me to contribute my time to supporting the NZLP or womans refuges or my nieces or for that matter this blogsite?”

You just compared union employees erecting Labour billboards to women’s refuge volunteers. I’m lolling.

Nothing at all like unions helping Labour candidates erect billboards, is it?

Have you asked the union members if they they were doing it on a voluntary basis or were they forced to do it? I bet no-one has. Instead we have jerk-offs like yourself attempting to denigrate people doing voluntary work.

I mean what exactly is your point? What can you actually show is a problem in electoral law? People have been volunteering to help political parties for centuries.

If you have a point to make – then make it. Don’t just sit there and make a comment that is simply a smear of people working. That is simply pathetic.

a) unsupported in your comment – where is the reference.

b) doesn’t have a point. What is wrong in the electoral law with people in unions helping a party. For that matter what is wrong with a union helping a party. In both cases the 3rd party rules of the EFA come into effect. They’re easy enough to check on.

What is wrong legally with union members deciding to help the NZLP or the greens or whomever. Of course they are providing actual voluntary labour, and as we’ve observed, national party and act party members don’t like getting their hands dirty. They prefer using anonymous trusts to launder money from god knows where.

BTW: Do you have the same attitude to people doing charitable work? To the people who do the ambulance duty like womans refuges? For PTA’s. For me to contribute my time to supporting the NZLP or womans refuges or my nieces or for that matter this blogsite?

Why not try something different – go and do some voluntary work yourself. From your attitude it doesn’t seem to me like you have.

Basically there are those who do, and then there are some who just moan.

It could be a dog. Or a chimp.

So cute, it thinks it can read.

Yes, those despicable scumbags, aligning with the chinless scarf wearers who spent their own money to pervert the course of democracy!

Nothing at all like unions helping Labour candidates erect billboards, is it?

Sometimes I wonder if you’re not just playing devil’s advocate, r0b, because I honestly don’t believe you’re that naiive.

But if you like, have another rage against the EB machine. It’s been entertaining up until now to see Labour members and advocates splutter their way through it – including Helen and everyone’s favourite Labour membter, Trevor – so I don’t see why it should stop now.

For bonus points, get Trev to fly to Rome at the taxpayers expense and give the pope the bash. Even SP would sppreciate that.

Excellent, we can move on now in the knowledge your party literally stole the last election.

I’m kind of viewing it as a surrealistic parody of a human at present. Too intelligent to be a troll (defined as I could program their responses). Too boring to engage with because it spouts lines taken from inaccurate sources and ignores questions about the accuracy or interpretation of the data. That means it doesn’t engage.

As an viewpoint it beats getting wound up and leaves more time for more interesting personalities.

The only one in an indefensible position after the 2005 election was the National Party and Don Brash. That’s why Don was forced to resign.

The claims you have made above are not true (some of them are simply blatant lies), and all the issues were thrashed out in detail in this long thread here: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2289

And there I am certainly happy to leave it at that.

That’s very good G, well done. Now try the next page.