Reading your post above, imo you either don;t quite understand the detail of the system and how it should work, or you simply underestimate what went on re the EFA. For partisan reasons it would seem.

Our system has major flaws which allow this obscene concentration of power in the hands of the few at the top. In the end Clark was taking advantage of those flaws. If Key does the same then he will be a smelly arse as well. Muldoon was one.

(fuck this is a good ding dong – reckon we still be cyber friends in the end?)

I suppose that you approve of that act’s process right?

These sorts of laws are always complicated. Always. there will always be grey areas. this is what National seized on, grey areas, that would normally be left up to the enforcement agencies to rule on, in the spirit of the act, with commomn sense applying and what have you, and made out that every instance should be black and white.

Ever bought a beer in a pub when you’re intoxicated? Or with the intent to become intoxicated? Did the bar lose it’s license and have to pay a big fine? No, even though that’s what the law says. See, grey areas, common sense. Bad governance? You make a perfect law.

So, your ‘not understanding’ the law overplays it IMV. you obviously disagree.

So, could have been better, but far from the appalling bad governance you make it out to be. Definitely an improvement on the old Act. It’ll be interesting to see how the Nat’s deal with it.

You keep saying that this was the thing that brought Labour down, but there is no evidence for that. You obviously thought it was akin to H8LER, but that doesn’t mean most people did. There were polls before the election about what voters thought the most important issues were, and the EFA hardly even made the list.

Re you calling folks here liars, which you now deny:

Here is what you said:

“Of course nobody on here will admit such. Which weakens this site’s cred as well. But that’s par for the course.”

In my book that most definitely is calling everyone a liar. You may not have meant it, or just considered it a throwaway, but tough.

Call me a liar, based only on the fact that I don’t agree with you, and I’m going to call you out on it. Yes it is arrogant. Actual arrogance based on a belief that your opinion is the obvious truth that no one could honestly question.

who is this Burt and what lines am I using?

I was replying to Jum, and I have not called anyone stupid. How are you schooling me?

Suggest you need to read what is written a bit more carefully before you reply.

Again, love this reply function – it lets me be very clear which rightard I am schooling…

do you have a brain? can you think for yourself?

Or is it simply a case of labour good, national bad with you?

If ever there was an example of a sheep from Animal Farm its you.

Have a cup of tea and a lie-down.

I always thought economics was really easy.

Anything Labour puts forward is positive and will help people help themselves = economic progress for all.

Anything NAct puts forward is negative and helps only itself, at the expense of those who can least afford it = economic recession for all except those who were quick enough to stow their millions in safe tax havens.

That applies to countries as well as people.

If the govt did not understand the detail of how the law would apply then it should not have passed the law. That is my point. It is bad governance in the extreme. And that is where the charge of arrogance arises.
Not understanding the detail of a law at the time of passing is quite different from a court or A-G making its own interpretation of a law subsequently. The difference is a subtle but major point.

As for my own arrogance??? Ffs you took one sentence where I suggested nobody here would admit that labour conducted such reckless and shit governance and strung that out to …

I absolutely did not call everyone on here a liar.

First answer the question about whether or not such was in fact bad governance. If you decide it is then call the labour lot out on it. If you think it is fine law-making then that is fine but I disagree vehemently. Your answer to this main question, which you re-posted above does not address this subtle question, as I explained. And nobody else has tried to answer it.

Is it bad law-making or not?

I’ve explained in my first comment about the ‘not understanding the law’ business. Perhaps you missed it.

But I’m guessing it says something like that they couldn’t always be sure what was an election expense? That’s not an admission that they didn’t understand the law, it’s an admission that they were unsure about how relevant third parties would interpret the law. It’s sort of the opposite of arrogance isn’t it?

I seem to remember that in the big to do about the Auditor General last time around, he was including things as election expenses that made all sorts of people’s eyebrows twitter. If an MP flew back to his electorate for a clinic, but had a campaign meeting on the same trip, the travel costs were counted as election expenses. That sort of thing.

Are you confident that you could detail everything that someone else would consider an election expense?

Care to address it, or are you still just hung up on me calling your own arrogance out?

It is pretty simple to understand what I was saying.

You guys think you have addressed all the bits and bobs? You’re just all hooked up on the charge of arrogance.

You clearly see no problem with a govt passing a law which it didn’t understand.

The EFA and labours involvement in it was total bullshit.

said “Hmm someone named Gaylord talking about a soft cxxk.
I’m sure there’s a joke there somewhere but nope, too easy, i’m sure there are better things to do with my time.”

Who let vinsin loose with time travel?

Captcha: 18th MADMAN

Who took a jet around NZ to show how rich he was? Key. Talk about Key’s arrogance, swanning around NZ when he has already been recorded as knowing the recession (depression) was coming over a year ago. (or did Ashcroft help by paying for the fuel?)

Clark was accused of being arrogant because two bodyguards closed off a doorway for the safety of the PM and inadvertently stopped a disabled person from parking closer. Apart from the fact she had no say in it, do you finally get the drift of the worst case of arrogance.

KEY?

You’re right Vto.

Go to the top of the class for finally getting the fact that arrogance is in the eye of the beholder but it is also about Kiwi fairness.