Written By: - Date published: 6:20 pm, November 28th, 2007 - 49 comments
Categories: john key -
Tags: john key
Linda Clark: “This is a gimmick, that’s all it is. if people don’t know John Key, well he needs to come to Parliament more, he needs to be more upfront on some of the policies, he needs to take on Helen Clark a bit more, then we’ll all know the real John Key”.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Well, good thing there is almost a year before the next election eh?
Plenty of time to further improve his profile.
I notice that Aussie’s were still asking “Who is the real Kevin Rudd?” even after he had been elected PM.
After all – we know the real Helen Clark – venal, vindictive, thieving, power hungry, grandstanding, forging, etc.
Honestly, Standardista’s clamouring for John Key to “front up” are about as credible as Michael Cullen proposing tax cuts.
Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.
Actually the real Helen Clark had already been Cabinet Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and then Labour leader for six years, before she became PM. People knew what they were voting for, and that’s why she’s won three elections.
Key is hoping that people won’t know what they’re voting for. That’s a strategy doomed to fail.
“After all – we know the real Helen Clark – venal, vindictive, thieving, power hungry, grandstanding, forging, etc.”
- Just because Hockey players in Canada are evil, doesn’t mean that our Hockey star Helen Clark on the NZ girls Hockey team is.
Linda Clark probably dear Leaders liarbour communist sister
Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.
Hmmm Gruela’s vote is influenced by anon internet comments he/she doesn’t like?
Quite strange really.
Gruela you’re not Robert Owen/Santa Claws are you?
I am Gruela! All cower before me!
“Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.”
I don’t think that anyone that has your communist and anti-media attitudes will ever be voting National. I’d pick you as a Green voter, except that even Keith Locke is probably not repressive enough for you.
So do try to keep the sarcasm in check.
BTW, It isn’t this the same Linda Clark “a consultant with national law firm Chapman Tripp” who co-wrote this piece on the EFB in the Herald recently?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10478254&pnum=0
“Such uncertainly about the true meaning of the proposed law fundamentally erodes the principle of the rule of law.”
“It might be good business for public law litigators, but it is bad news for the democratic process. Perversely it may also fetter free speech.
The current cost of a full day at the District Court is about $30,000. That’s a mighty deterrent to anyone with something to say who’s fearful of being challenged by a rival.”
“The Law Society has called on the Government to send the amended bill back to a select committee for further consideration. That would be the right thing to do.
Democracy and elections exist for the benefit of citizens, not politicians. Those same citizens should be given the opportunity to review the law that regulates their participation in the electoral process.”
Hey, at least we know what National’s and John Key’s position is on the EFB – kill it!
my my, the fascists really are making a concerted effort to troll this site at the moment. must be hurting them and their employers.
capcha “clients economies”
or maybe just with the failure of the anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign, and now jonkey’s abject failure at spinning to conceal his vacuity, they’re starting to get a bit worried?
Sorry Double, sarcasm being locked into a drawer as I type.
Actually, I was a Green member back in my early twenties, but their inflexibility and fundamentalism didn’t sit well with me and I drifted away. Right now there’s no party in parliament that really fits my philosophy, so I’ll probably be voting Labour just to keep the New Right out of power. I honestly believe that their free-market policies are no good for New Zealand, and will only result in a widening of the wealth gap in this country with a resultant upswing in crime and poverty. That’s not the country I want to live in. (Now, if it was still Jim Bolger in charge, instead of JK, then I would probably reconsider.)
anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign
You mean that gigantic march on Parliment?
So John Key is on his Heartland Tour (translation: getting away from pesky Wellington journalists) and opens up to the local paper. He reveals that he supports the future, which he hopes will be better, not worse:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4290709a6571.html
Key-watchers will notice that on MMP, he resorts to his favourite tactic: he’s in favour of a “debate”.
“You mean that gigantic march on Parliment”
you mean the one attended by about 100 people – which in the end is about the number of NZers the Anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign actually serves – yeah, that one.
Eric Crampton at the March today:
“Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. I studied under James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in this area. He likened it to setting out the rules for a poker game: you get everybody to agree to the rules before you deal the cards. If everybody’s agreed to the rules before the cards are dealt, the outcome of the game is fair and legitimate. What Labour and its support parties here have done is dealt the cards, taken a peek at their hands, and then declared deuces wild. This violates constitutional justice and threatens the legitimacy of any government that is elected under the new rules.
Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”
you mean the one attended by about 100 people – which in the end is about the number of NZers the Anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign actually serves – yeah, that one.
sorry I blinked and missed it
Gruela you are wasted here = visit kiwiblog, http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/electoral_finance_bill_marches.html#comment-374112
you will get the mental stimulation you clearly deserve.
Eric Crampton at the March today:
He also nearly plays a mean guitar
ok Thomas, think it was you and that mainland titbit. Mr Key mentions we are 22 out of 30 in the OECD. OK been to site, now where do I find that fact, anybody?
Hate writing those word thingys too at the bottom
Is the double mistake really DPF?
Lee C- Eric Crampton at the March today: “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. [...] Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”
I certainly agree that broad agreement is highly desirable for constitutional change. But I also note that it doesn’t always happen that way. Even in NZ. For example, MMP was introduced as a result of a referendum in 1993 (along with the election). 54% in favour of MMP, 46% against. Hardly a “broad agreement across society”. But we adopted MMP anyway, and vastly changed our “constitutional” arrangements. Life went on.
So post 2005 we were faced with 2 facts: (1) the issue of clandestine money in campaigns needed to be addressed, and (2) National was never going to agree to addressing it. That creates a situation where the only possible outcomes are (a) ignore the problem, or (b) proceed with a majority agreement (but not the agreement of National). We’ve ended up going with (b), which to my mind is the lesser of two evils, but the best that could be done given (2).
Lee C
You and your rightie chums are using a flawed argument against the EFB. Actually, you are using two arguments and although one has merit you are using it as support for the second, flawed argument which is in fact the argument you wish to validate. Therefore, your main argument is flawed and without merit.
As follows:
Your first argument, which is valid, is that the EFB is to constrictive in it’s definition of election advertising. I believe this is true. It was badly thought out legislation, and it still needs some tweaking.
BUT, (and unfortunately this is where your argument falls down), you then go on to use these faults of the EFB to argue that the idea behind the legislation itself is flawed, and the entire Bill itself should be dismissed.
To argue against the idea of an EFB because of it has been less than spectacularly drafted is no argument at all.
Once more, with proper tags this time (oops!)…
Lee C- Eric Crampton at the March today: “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. [...] Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”
I certainly agree that broad agreement is highly desirable for constitutional change. But I also note that it doesn’t always happen that way. Even in NZ. For example, MMP was introduced as a result of a referendum in 1993 (along with the election). 54% in favour of MMP, 46% against. Hardly a “broad agreement across society”. But we adopted MMP anyway, and vastly changed our “constitutional” arrangements. Life went on.
So post 2005 we were faced with 2 facts: (1) the issue of clandestine money in campaigns needed to be addressed, and (2) National was never going to agree to addressing it. That creates a situation where the only possible outcomes are (a) ignore the problem, or (b) proceed with a majority agreement (but not the agreement of National). We’ve ended up going with (b), which to my mind is the lesser of two evils, but the best that could be done given (2).
Would, by any chance, any of the people now solemnly invoking democracy and the constitution be …
… the same people who, one year ago, were supporting an online petition calling on the UNELECTED Governor-General, representing the UNELECTED Head of State, to refuse to sign a law passed by the House of ELECTED Representatives? Their only reason being – they didn’t agree with Parliament, and the ends justified the means.
So much for their love of democracy and constitution.
G’day Historian. Interesting post!
And goodnight all.
Historian
Spin it all you like, passing laws which are retrospective cover a period of 14 years Re: Unauthorised and illegal spending deserves a solid challenge. Just as passing laws making legal what was illegal last election and making illegal what was legal last election deserve a solid challenge. You are pointing at a fine act of democracy, a groups right to petition the state.
all_your_base
Great post, I’m not a major fan of Key’s, but I reckon any publicity is good publicity for a new player. The absolute fever you guys are whipping up will absolutely help him spread his message. Even if you think you are shooting him down and the partisan supporters assure you that you are, they are possibly the wrong people to be asking.
Gruela – my opposition to the EFB has and always will be that it was drawn up without the proper consulation, from either the public, other Parties or with reference to interested bodies. Presented as ‘not in contravention of our Human Rights’ on questionable legal advice, and then (and now) is being rammed through Parliament. Even MMP, by Rob’s own admission had a referendum.
As for the issue of clandestine money in elections – there are those who disagree with the ‘simplistic assumption’ that this is the case. (http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/)
The neat little package of Appropriations Bill and EFB will be a Thief’s Charter for Government. Example If a Party overspends at the next election, it will have no sanction against it, So for example, WInston can now pay back his overspend, get the interest on it, then do the same again next time – legally – I mean, come on!
These voices of opposition are not ‘hysterical right-wingers’ we hear so much about, but academics, Lawyers, Human Rights Campaigners, and concerned citizens.
Even the villification of the EB, in my opinion was a shameful episode from Labour. As others have observed, would they have bullied Muslims in the same manner?.
This bill (EFBand Appropriations) is shameful as an indictment of corrupt government practice, and abuse of the MMP system, has no intellectual or theoretical support (unless you count Nick Hager – and even he damned the present Bill with faint praise during his ‘book-plug’ (sorry Select-Committee Submission))
You need to join the dots, and stop being taken for a fool by the politicians, Gruela. If this had been introduced by National and applied tot the unions, gosh imagine how many wuld be marching then! But no, there is a strange silence from the Unions on this. Ever wondered why?
In theory of democracy we have the concept of avoiding “the tyranny of the majority”. In other words, the rights of minorities must be protected. It’s not the case that the majority should have unlimited power.
Similarly, in the practice of democracy, we have the concept of “a level playing field”. In other words, the rights of less powerful groups must be protected. It’s not the case that the rich and powerful should have unlimited power.
Consequently, every functioning democracy has limits and restrictions on campaign spending, to try and create a level playing field. (Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? – Yeah Right.)
For these reasons, like most democracies, NZ has always had laws governing campaign spending. The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.
National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “free speech”. Well, (in the slightly mangled words of Mandy Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn’t they.
Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election:
“(Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? – Yeah Right.)”
Double Standard or ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ I can’t work out which…
Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you:
“Given the significance of the changes to the electoral funding regime, there is a need for an extended public participation in a more neutral environment to allow for discussion, debate and contestation of core principles. This has not happened with the proposed legislation, and the opportunity for informed authorisation has been lost.” (HRC)
“The fact that redrafting and brokering is going on amongst political parties as to changes that will be promoted by the Government at the same time as submissions are being sought, excludes public participation and is an anathema to the Select Committee process. and:
The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.”
(Law Society)
Or as you would have it:
“It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.”
Yeah Right!
It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority.
Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.
Lee C – “Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election”
That is why electoral legislation distinguishes between electioneering and other forms of advertising and public information. However, I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour). So I’d be interested in your suggestions as to how to deal with that issue.
Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you
I said no such thing in the post above Lee, please keep it calm. As for those who have raised concerns about the EFB, they fall along a continuum. Some are impartially raising genuine concerns, and so they should. Healthy democracy and so on. Most of the substantive concerns were dealt with by the select committee, though I agree that some procedural concerns remain. It wasn’t an ideal process. At the other end of the spectrum we have clandestine money fighting for its divine right to purchase government, cynically clothed in the mantle of “free speech”. About them my opinion is less than benign.
“Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.”
The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it. The same rules apply to all.
Pesky tags – correctly formatted this time:
Lee C – “Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election”
That is why electoral legislation distinguishes between electioneering and other forms of advertising and public information. However, I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour). So I’d be interested in your suggestions as to how to deal with that issue.
Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you
I said no such thing in the post above Lee, please keep it calm. As for those who have raised concerns about the EFB, they fall along a continuum. Some are impartially raising genuine concerns, and so they should. Healthy democracy and so on. Most of the substantive concerns were dealt with by the select committee, though I agree that some procedural concerns remain. It wasn’t an ideal process. At the other end of the spectrum we have clandestine money fighting for its divine right to purchase government, cynically clothed in the mantle of “free speech”. About them my opinion is less than benign.
“Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.”
The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it. The same rules apply to all.