ACT: shamelessly campaigning with your money

81 comments on “ACT: shamelessly campaigning with your money ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Hoolian 1

   18 April 2008 at 4:01 pm

   Have you not worked it out yet – Heather Roy is an ACT MP. She is there from Party Votes from the NZ public. She has every right to be in contact with her constituency.

   The Parliamentary Crest wasn’t always an authorisation stamp to ensure proper spending. Once upon a time it was an emblem used by MPs and their staff to explicitly show that the communication (in whatever its form) was offically from the MP and Parliament.

   I recieve newsletters from most MPs, accross parties, and all of them do this.

   Its called politics. Get over it, or get onto something new.
2. Robinsod 2

   18 April 2008 at 4:05 pm

   Pay it back Act! Corrupt! Corrupt!
3. illuminatedtiger 3

   18 April 2008 at 4:21 pm

   What a pathetic bunch of hollow men (and women) ACT are!!!
4. Nicholas O'Kane 4

   18 April 2008 at 4:39 pm

   So labour has never used taxpayer money on its campaign?
5. higherstandard 5

   18 April 2008 at 4:51 pm

   Agreed Hoolian

   It’s an email at least it’s close to no cost to the taxpayer.
6. MikeE 6

   18 April 2008 at 4:52 pm

   Ummm… Wait a second, shes a list MP. She got in on Party votes, this is her newsletter.

   What exactly is the problem here?

   Its an email newsletter… these things are pretty much free to run.
7. all_your_base 7

   18 April 2008 at 5:25 pm

   “Pretty much free” [cough]. Read the Act.

   She’s using taxpayer money to explicitly ask for Party votes for ACT. There’s not even any wiggle-room: “I was talking about policy” or whatever.

   It’s hard to get more brazen about it than Roy has been here.
8. randal 8

   18 April 2008 at 5:37 pm

   only natural gals wiggle..if they dont then its guranteed that they are tight *sses…

   [lprent: that is definitely over my bounds – please grow up. And please concentrate on your spelling at school..]
9. higherstandard 9

   18 April 2008 at 5:45 pm

   Randal you are a git.

   AYB – What taxpayer money it’s an email – if you want it costed against campaign expenses I’m sure it’s all of 5c.

   This is the absurdity of the EFA – if its main purpose is as the posters on this site say to have complete transparency in electioneering I can’t see the issue.
10. peteremcc 10

    18 April 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Actually, just because it contains a parliamentary crest doesn’t mean its neccersarily parliamentary funded anymore. It could just be there to show Heather’s an MP (a perfectly legitimate use of the crest), or they just haven’t removed the crest from the template yet…

    If it’s still parliamentarily funded (all ~$1 of it) then that’s not good, but my guess is that its now being paid for by the party as they might as well be using it to advertise if its going to count towards the election cap anyway.
11. big bruv 11

    18 April 2008 at 6:20 pm

    More faux outrage from the supporters of the most corrupt govt in our nations history.

    Never mind chaps, THE BOOK comes out on Monday.
12. Hillary 12

    18 April 2008 at 6:58 pm

    “only natural gals wiggle..if they dont then its guranteed that they are tight *sses ”

    What?????????????
13. MikeE 13

    18 April 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Now how many millions of taxpayer dollars have been used marketing (not informing, marketing) Working for families, interest free loans, etc
14. Monty 14

    18 April 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Pathetic socialists. How much tax-payer money funds or has funded this client blog of the close to broke Labour Party?

    [lprent: I’m paying $70 per month. Taxpayers have never funded this blog. Are you suggesting that I’m the Labour party, or that I’m a state employee? I’ll expect an apology]
15. dave 15

    18 April 2008 at 7:53 pm

    shock! horror! I wonder how much the taxpayer is funding this newsletter – betcha it is not as much as the Labour server the Standard used to be on… I bet it is not as much as the union fees that are paid by members to assist a certain blogger who works for a union to blog in work time.. or another blogger who works in parliamentary services who gets taxpayer funded wages to blog in work time – -or it is not as much as the proportion of downtime in salary paid to public servants who, instead of woking, comment on political blogs like Kiwiblog and teh Standard in work time on work computers using taxpayer funded broadband.

    [lprent: Astonishing – as far as I’m aware even the most rabid conspiracy wingnuts did not suspect that the taxpayers were funding a donation to the labour party that the blog was on temporarily. What you’re referring to, I thought it was a donation from a company to the NZLP.

    dave, I think your fantasies are starting to tip you over the edge.

    Unless you’re suggesting that the newsletter cost the taxpayers nothing?

    I’ll expect an apology]
16. Psycho.Milt 16

    18 April 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Now how many millions of taxpayer dollars have been used marketing (not informing, marketing) Working for families, interest free loans, etc

    Now Mike, the WFF info is actually very useful. When I came back to NZ and found that I now qualified for social welfare, it was a handy tip-off that the govt is bribing the middle class with the proletariat’s money. Didn’t qualify for long, but it was a salutary wake-up call.
17. Macro 17

    18 April 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Fortunately we don’t have the MOST corrupt govt – that infamy would have been if the Brash lot had won a few more womens votes in the last election – THEN we would have had a corrupt govt! Thank god for the women of this country who had the perception to see thru the lies and double dealing that was being offered by Brash and his cronies. And if you don’t believe me its time you read “The Hollow Men”. Despite ALL the consternation by Brash and his lot over the “stolen” emails, he has never DENIED the fact that they convey the most cynical attempt to gain power by the ultra right of this country in the most underhand and deceitful way possible.
    Somebody, and that person deserves praise not condemnation, had the gumption to pass on this damning correspondence so that the rest of NZ could learn what these people were up to.
18. randal 18

    18 April 2008 at 8:30 pm

    dave how do you know all that crap you just spouted…your assertions about what other people are doing have as much veracity as your claim to have an MA which by the way is an offence if you are found to have lied.
19. dave 19

    18 April 2008 at 8:56 pm

    Randal, I know a lot, despite not having a MA. I wish I had an MA. I have never said I had one. Kindly point out where I have done so or piss off.

    Lynn :”funding a donation to the labour party that the blog was on temporarily”.

    The blog was not on a labour party. The blog was on a server.

    [lprent: yes – but getting back to the point. Where is my apology? You suggested that I don’t finance this blog, and that you as a taxpayer do. Put up some evidence, apologize, or leave.]
20. burt 20

    18 April 2008 at 9:09 pm

    dave

    May I recommend that you don’t discuss the Labour party server that was “temporarily” hosting the standard, that’s an incident that shall not be talked about unless you want to be banned.

    It’s just a religious thing I guess, like you don’t walk into a Synagogue and tell everybody you saw the Rabbi having a bacon sandwich in the park at lunch time – even if he actually was.
21. randal 21

    18 April 2008 at 9:10 pm

    dave you said here last week in this blog that you had an MA…stop lying.
22. burt 22

    18 April 2008 at 9:29 pm

    I note you guys here at the standard have made comment about Niki Hager’s position but have not mentioned the possibility that the ‘The Hollow Men’ might be breaching the EFA?

    rOb

    If your about how about a backdown challenge like the EPMU one? Want to wager a near fatal humiliation that the play breaches the EFA and will need to register as a third party?
23. dave 23

    18 April 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Lynn, I never commented on who funded the server. I never commented on who funds this blog. I never commented on any donation or who any dontation was from – or even how much it was, as I dont really care. I merely said that the server cost money and it was more than Heather Roys newsletter. You must have read somethihngelse int it, and it is probably not surpriseing given that you have been looking at too many of Steves graphs.

    [lprent: Well, a sense of humour. I’m very sure that Heather’s e-mail cost the taxpayer more than this blog (anything is greater than nothing). Her share of the creative input in the parliamentary crest cost more. I’m unsure if that was an apology, but it is close enough]
24. Gooner 24

    18 April 2008 at 10:01 pm

    I realise this post is a semi piss-take but do remind you all that Act did pay it back, immediately, all $16K of it. Meanwhile Labour took 18 months and your coalition partner still hasn’t!
25. reltih_a 25

    18 April 2008 at 10:09 pm

    diddums
26. burt 26

    18 April 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Gooner

    ACT also moved very quickly to seek Police investigation into allegations of corrupt behaviour by one of their members. No whitewash inquiries or “Only guilty of helping people” claims for 18 months while using the MP’s vote. ACT also didn’t vote for retrospective validation of theft.

    It’s absolutely laughable for people who support Labour to claim ACT has acted with low integrity. Heather Roy’s email (for all the years she has been running it) will have cost a lot less than the Labour party material that recently breached the EFA and cannot be distributed.
27. reltih_a 27

    18 April 2008 at 10:19 pm

    In reality, it is one stuffed law if a news letter is caught in this law. You guys here are defending the un defendable.
28. burt 28

    18 April 2008 at 10:23 pm

    reltih_a

    The EFA has been staunchly defended on this blog, cries of right wing hysteria when warning were being issued about such things.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out, it is indeed ridiculous that lawyers were required to decide if the EPMU could promote Labour (and a judicial review has been called on that decision as well) and it’s ridiculous that an MP can breach the law sending out a regular news letter to voluntary subscribers.
29. Hillary 29

    18 April 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Gooner, can we deduce from the length of time ACT took to repay $ compared to Labour that ACT is better funded than Labour? Maybe ACT cook a better sausage at their fundraisers than Labour do.
30. lprent 30

    18 April 2008 at 10:42 pm

    “It’s just a religious thing I guess”

    Grin. The reality is that I’ve described the circumstances that lead to the blog using resources donated to the NZLP. No-one has come up with any evidence to refute my statements. I’ve lost patience with explaining it.

    So I let my normal sweet and charming nature come through. It is more tolerant than Genghis Khan, but not by much. People are able to say about that topic,whatever they like. So long as it is outside the confines that I’m forced to read. But they can’t say it here unless they manage to do it intelligently and without me getting a sense of repetition. Otherwise I treat it as an personal attack on my credibility. If I’m in a good mood they get a warning. If I’m in a bad mood then I will find new ways to restrict their access.

    Most of the stuff that goes on here, I couldn’t really give a toss about. It is dialogue. But I get territorial about comments or posts that diminish this blog as a site for dialogue.

    Think of me as a boundary condition. I know that the posters do. They can ask me to leave at any time, but haven’t. They have to tolerate my vagaries if they don’t.

    I’m just a bastard sysop from hell. Don’t annoy me, and I won’t annoy you. I’m sure the ACT supporters will appreciate this position, even if no-one else does.
31. Ted 31

    18 April 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Watching the ACToids squirm on this one is hilarious. ACT has a shocking record on adhering to the EFA – at least National, for all of it’s opposition the Act has the decency to stick with it. I’d take this as an opportunity to point out that ACT’s website is not properly authorised – the statement reads AUTHORISED BY NICK KEARNEY, FINANCIAL AGENT, 11-13 CLOVERNOOK RD, NEWMARKET, AUCKLAND. Now unless Nick has moved to ACT’s headquarters (which is unlikely, given that Nick authorised Heather’s Diary using his actual home address) ACT is in breach of the law.

    The use of the Parliamentary Crest is inappropriate unless this was produced out of Roy’s support budget which I suspect it was. In order to have been produced out of Roy’s support budget, it must meet the following Client Service criteria.

    It must have a parliamentary purpose.
    It must not contain electioneering.
    It must contain contact details and authorisation [meaning the crest, not an authorization statement].
    It must not contain inappropriate/misleading representation or descriptions of electorates.
    If it includes the party name or logo, it must clearly differentiates from others. does not constitute sponsorship.

    If this was a funded purely by the party, then it would be inappropriate to put Heather’s Parliamentary contact details on it. Either way this has been poorly handled by ACT.

    The EFA is deeply flawed legislation and a cheap attempt by Labour to screw the scrum in election year but that doesn’t excuse the incompetence of the ACT party. You go in to an election with the electoral law you have and if ACT is deliberately breaching those laws – as it appears to have done here – then it is just as bad as Labour.
32. Phil 32

    18 April 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Re; WFF advertising/marketing…

    WFF is managed through WINZ and IRD. These organisations share a great deal of information, and have at their disposal probably the richest dataset you can think of.

    That information contains everything needed to administer WFF without any intervention from other departments, or even individuals themselves in most cases.

    That leads me to the conclusion that either WFF advertising is nothing more than maketing to retain the current government, OR the management of WFF administration has been woefully incompetent.
33. r0b 33

    19 April 2008 at 12:14 am

    rOb If your about how about a backdown challenge like the EPMU one? Want to wager a near fatal humiliation that the play breaches the EFA and will need to register as a third party?

    I’ll take that bet Burt, if you agree on a price to be paid if you lose this one too (e.g. because no formal referral to the EC occurs within a month, or because a formal referral occurs and the EC decides that registration is not required).

    The price is that you will restrain yourself from further blithering about “retrospective validation” on The Standard. I know it’s pretty much your signature rant, but you never have been able to say what is actually wrong (and you’re the last person in the world still banging on about it). The last time we discussed this was here:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=856

    Deal Burt?
34. burt 34

    19 April 2008 at 1:09 am

    [Deleted as requested]
35. burt 35

    19 April 2008 at 3:24 am

    rOb

    No deal, Your blatant attempt to stop me mentioning a shocking scandal of Labour rorting the tax payers. Then claiming their extra spending didn’t effect the outcome of the election while changing laws to restrict unknown spending because it’s not democratic is something people will be talking about for decades.

    No deal on that attempt (in true Labour fashion) to silence dissent.

    No deal at all, your gloating over me for winning the last one is enough, two in a row and you would be intolerable and the odds of me winning are low.
36. Santi 36

    19 April 2008 at 6:39 am

    Heather had the guts to defy the absurd EFA.

    What’s the difference between this and Labour’s pledge card after all? Does ACT have a Mike Willians-equivalent prepared to lie here?

    The stupid EFA deserves to be ridiculed and broken as often as possible.
37. higherstandard 37

    19 April 2008 at 6:50 am

    Santi

    “What’s the difference between this and Labour’s pledge card”

    Several thousand dollars ……. oh that’s right they paid it back finally, I’m sure H Rpy will do them same if required to.

    Can anyone enlighten me on where the EFA stands on paid up members of a political party blogging ?
38. randal 38

    19 April 2008 at 7:27 am

    Ted, websites are exempt from the EFA, go ask the Chief Electoral Officer.

    It’s actually Labour and the Greens that have been breaking the law in this regard, by publishing leaflets, billboards etc with party office addresses.

    [lprent: there is another commenter here that uses ‘randal’ (see below). You might want to use a different moniker, or change capitals or something so people know which randal they are talking to]
39. lprent 39

    19 April 2008 at 9:59 am

    randal: Websites are not exempt. Blogs are. I’m sure someone will point you in the direction of the relevant part of the act.
40. randal 40

    19 April 2008 at 10:03 am

    ha…gotttcha…are there two randals or is someone using information they are no entitled to. criminals and liars at work again eh

    [lprent: The comment above uses a different e-mail and IP range. I suspect a coincidence of names. It was bound to happen. I can confirm that you are the origional randal that we have come to know.]
41. r0b 41

    19 April 2008 at 10:53 am

    No deal on that attempt (in true Labour fashion) to silence dissent.

    Curses, the Ninth Floor will be cross with me for failing in my mission. I hope they don’t send a cleaner.

    No deal at all, your gloating over me for winning the last one is enough,

    I don’t recall gloating Burt, I thought I was quite restrained.

    the odds of me winning are low.

    Well yeah, I woulda thought so.
42. r0b 42

    19 April 2008 at 10:58 am

    randal: Websites are not exempt. Blogs are. I’m sure someone will point you in the direction of the relevant part of the act.

    Glad to help.

    Part 1 Section 5 (2) “The following are not election advertisements:”

    (g) the publication by an individual, on a non­commercial
    basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political
    views (being the kind of publication commonly known
    as a blog).
43. ghostwhowalks 43

    19 April 2008 at 11:27 am

    Good to see ACT officials reading this blog.

    THis at the bottom of Heater Roys page on ACTs website

    Authorised by Nick Kearney, 137 Beach Haven Rd, Auckland

    yet the header of ACTs web pages still says

    Authorised by Nick Kearney, Financial Agent, 11-13 Clovernook Rd, Newmarket, Auckland

    Does Nick have a dose of The John Key itis and not be sure where he is living
44. randal 44

    19 April 2008 at 12:04 pm

    thanks lprent…when they cant rely on the cogency or validity of their arguments they resort to dirty tricks but the real randal will never die…and he doesnt lie either or claim to have university degrees to which he is not entitled to.
45. peteremcc 45

    19 April 2008 at 12:45 pm

    ACT website shows up with the correct authorisation for me and has done for quite a while. Have you cleared you cache ghw and Ted?

    I’ll note also that the Labour website only added an authorisation 2 weeks ago, the Green’s website still lists an office address and the NZFirst website has no authorisation at all…
46. Ted 46

    19 April 2008 at 1:22 pm

    GWW, Kearney is not confused. The Newmarket address is ACT’s headquarters, it’s been done deliberately.

    Peter, the ACT website has been authorised incorrectly for quite some time. Simply because some ACToid has changed it now doesn’t make it ok.

    The Labour website shouldn’t really be authorised at all as it is Parliamentary funded as is the NZfirst website from memory. The Greens are in error but that doesn’t excuse ACT. Particularly when Heather Roy writes stuff like this in the newsletter in question:

    “It should be noted that the two Parties that were most vocal and adamant about financial agent’s home addresses being published – Labour and the Greens – are the ones who are now breaking the law by using Party office addresses. This hypocritical and cowardly action highlights further the Nanny State at its worst.”

    So Peter, how do you feel about being a party that labels itself “hypocritical and cowardly” and says it is “breaking the law”?

    I’ve got a screenshot to record ACT’s shame here:

    http://conservatoroccidentalis.blogspot.com/2008/04/act-caught-out-breaching-efa.html (apologies for the self-linking)
47. burt 47

    19 April 2008 at 1:47 pm

    rOb

    Isn’t it hysterical, the multi author status of the standard seems to allow it to slip through a technicality of the ‘blog restrictions’ yet the same authors denigrate other parties for nit picking through clauses to enforce the EFA.

    So on one hand it’s OK to exploit a loophole but on the other hand it’s not OK to enforce the law as written.
48. randal 48

    19 April 2008 at 2:13 pm

    burt…you get your say so what are you whingeing about then?
49. peteremcc 49

    19 April 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Ted, you’ve missed the whole point of the Heather Roy’s Diary issue that has come up over the last week…

    The Electoral Commission have ruled that just because something is parliamentarily funded, doesn’t mean it is excluded from the EFA. Meaning that something that is crested may need to be authorised as well (ie, the Labour and Greens and NZFirst website). I’ll note that Frogblog (clearly not a personal blog) is also not authorised at all.
50. burt 50

    19 April 2008 at 3:04 pm

    So that’s really the choice for 2008 then isn’t it.

    Do we vote top keep the EFA and start tinkering madly with it taking up another 2 productive years of the three year term to argue over it or do we repeal it and focus on more pressing issues than how much money the PM gets to spend to win a forth term while third parties are told to shut up.

    Your choice NZ – status quo or paradigm shift! Power to the people rather than the lawyers and politicians, they have had it for the last 9 years – it’s time to get parliament working for voters rather than working for votes.
51. r0b 51

    19 April 2008 at 3:47 pm

    it’s time to get parliament working for voters rather than working for votes

    Wow Burt, excellent slogan!

    Labour working for voters: unemployment down, crime down, numbers on benefits down, economy growing, KiwiSaver, superannuation, minimum wage raised every year, working for families, four weeks leave, 20 hours free early childhood education, etc etc etc.

    National working for votes: Ummm – time for a change. Ahhh – but we’ll keep doing what they do…
52. Psychobunny 52

    19 April 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I’m just more shocked at the fact that ACT party propaganda now comes with an “unsubscribe” function. Welcome to the modern age, guys!
53. higherstandard 53

    19 April 2008 at 4:07 pm

    rOb

    It’s perverse but NZer’s do have a tendency to vote against rather than for something in elections.

    I suspect that’s why we will see a change of government.

    You should ask SP to do a series on “what worries me about a National , Labour, Act, Greens etc in government much as he’s done for his if I was campaign strategist series, would make for some interesting debate and perhaps go to the heart of what people really want for NZ.

    One’s things for sure if there are more teachers coming through the system like the outstanding young teacher who lost his life at Mangatepopo I think we’ll be well looked after in the education system whomever gets in.
54. burt 54

    19 April 2008 at 4:59 pm

    rOb

    Yes yes tout the ‘good’ list and completely ignore the economic and social consequences of 9 years of public spending driven inflation. Has govt super kept pace with the price of a shopping trolley full of basics, the cost of power, the housing market? The minimum wage certainly hasn’t gone up 25% in the last year to match the supermarket basics inflation. When you are on minimum wage a trolley full of basics is a big portion of your income.

    Come on, get some balance into this. Yes I agree there are less people on specifically ‘the unemployment benefit’ but I don’t regularly get told how many people are encapsulated in the magic 75% of all families that receive WFF. The people are getting poorer and the govt richer enablimg them to flatten the earnings in some bizarre social experiment.

    Lets do some numbers:

    A guy earning $30,000/year with 2 kids fully tax paid and WFF cash injected takes home $199 week in WFF and $464.42 in after tax salary. Total $663.42/week ( take home pay is 115% of gross income ) Total tax paid: -$4,497.84

    A guy earning $80,000/year with 2 kids fully tax paid and WFF cash injected takes home $25 week in WFF and $1,106.35 in after tax salary. Total $1,131.34/week ( take home pay is 73% of gross income ) Total tax paid: $21,170.32

    What where one person starts out earning 37.5% of the rich pricks (who still receives $25/week in welfare) gross pay, they end up earning 58.6% of their take home pay. Conversely the rich pricks starts out earning 266% more than the other guy, he ends up receiving 170.5% more.

    The guy living next door to the family of 2 kids on $30,000 who has no kids receives zero WFF and $464.42 in take home pay, he gets to keep 80.5% of his pay. Total tax paid: $5,850.16

    Do you think the average voter understands quite what is going on here? Do they know that effectively some two children families are tax free and receiving an additional $4,497.84 to have children while other families with two children are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxation.

    I’m sure there is a deep rooted Labour party philosophy somewhere that says that everybody has a responsibility to contribute something to the greater good of society. I think this policy flies in the face of that principal and is at worst social engineering of the worst kind and at best blatant vote buying welfare.
55. r0b 55

    19 April 2008 at 5:11 pm

    It’s perverse but NZer’s do have a tendency to vote against rather than for something in elections.

    I suspect that’s why we will see a change of government.

    HS, I quite agree, except that I would say “possibly” see a change of government.

    You should ask SP to do a series on “what worries me about a National , Labour, Act, Greens etc in government much as he’s done for his if I was campaign strategist series, would make for some interesting debate and perhaps go to the heart of what people really want for NZ.

    I think that’s an excellent suggestion HS, bravo. But I’m in no more of a position to ask SP or other editors than you are, I just comment on this blog same as you. I hope an editor will read this thread an pick up your suggestion (maybe later in the year when the campaign strategist thing has run its course).

    One’s things for sure if there are more teachers coming through the system like the outstanding young teacher who lost his life at Mangatepopo I think we’ll be well looked after in the education system whomever gets in

    Hear hear.
56. r0b 56

    19 April 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Yes yes tout the ‘good’ list

    I sure will, I’m damn proud of it. Unemployment down, crime down, numbers on benefits down, economy growing, KiwiSaver, superannuation, minimum wage raised every year, working for families, four weeks leave, 20 hours free early childhood education. Oh – Let’s add an independent and sane foreign policy while we’re at it. Etc etc etc.

    and completely ignore the economic and social consequences of 9 years of public spending driven inflation.

    Earth to planet Burt, NZ has an inflation rate amongst the lowest in the industrialised world.

    Has govt super kept pace with the price of a shopping trolley full of basics, the cost of power, the housing market?

    No it hasn’t, and I would dearly love to see Labour do more in these areas. Resting on our laurels is not enough – there is too much more to do.

    But Burt, do I think National would do any better? Pardon me, but Hell No. National would be great for big business, and terrible for working Kiwis. Same old story.
57. lprent 57

    19 April 2008 at 5:21 pm

    “But I’m in no more of a position to ask SP or other editors than you are, I just comment on this blog same as you.”

    And you too can have that grey background colour. All you have to do is login (at the top of the page), and tell your computer to remember you.

    Offhand I can only only think of a couple of people apart from rOb and the posters who do it.
58. burt 58

    19 April 2008 at 5:50 pm

    rOb

    What do you think of this form of core social policy funding?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base

    It seems only fair to me that when it comes to paying for social services that once you have paid perhaps 10 times the national average you have done your bit and that taxation is then removed from your earnings above that level.

    Note: I’m not saying rich pricks should pay more because they can, I’m saying what business has the state taking 200 times the national average contribution from them, surely there is a point where it becomes grossly unfair.
59. burt 59

    19 April 2008 at 5:53 pm

    oops, I’ll reword that last bit.

    Note: I’m not saying rich pricks shouldn’t pay more than their share because they need to or the system isn’t going to work. I’m saying what business has the state taking 200 times the national average contribution from them, surely there is a point where it becomes grossly unfair, 10x, 20x ?
60. Richard Hurst 60

    19 April 2008 at 6:11 pm

    This all just goes to prove what bad, poorly drafted, shoddy and rushed legislation the EFA was and still is. After election night 2008, the election will then be decided in a courtroom. Whoever can afford the best Q.C wins. Nice one Helen.
61. BoomTownPrat 61

    19 April 2008 at 6:49 pm

    oh the irony.

    A Labour funded Annymous blog, going after a perfectly legal email (even within the bounds of the dogs breakfast that is the EFA), from a hard working MP to her electorate.

    you guys are so fucking desperate its hilarious!!!!!
62. randal 62

    19 April 2008 at 7:03 pm

    well it might be all that richard and more but at least for now it stops act, the national party and the exclusive brethren from buying the next election and that seems fair to me…now they will have to come up with some policy!
63. BoomTownPrat 63

    19 April 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Ummm

    were is the home and address authorization for this blog?

    [lprent: read the act on the section about blogs.]
64. bill brown 64

    19 April 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Yeah but burt, the guy next door with no kids doesn’t have 2 extra people to support on his wage, that’s why he gets money from working for FAMILIES.
65. burt 65

    19 April 2008 at 8:55 pm

    bill brown

    The person earning $30k with no children is paying what the Labour party think is an equitable contribution toward the social services provided for him. The one with 2 children is being paid by the state (a net cost to the country) to have children.

    On the assumption that one is single and the other has a partner who is a stay home mother one consumes (and contributes toward) social services for one and the other is paid to consume the social services for four people.

    It’s undeniable that the policy delivers positive outcomes to certain targeted groups, but how can we justify paying people to live in NZ by having them paying negative tax?
66. randal 66

    19 April 2008 at 9:03 pm

    yep, well for all the round and round ridiculousness exhibited here Labour will still win the election and the nats and the acts and other alsorans will be licking their wounds in november..if you want to split hairs then you wont get any satisfaction here….haw haw haw
67. Steve Pierson 67

    19 April 2008 at 9:11 pm

    BoomTown. Blogs are not electoral advertisements for the purposes of the Electoral Fiance Act (neither are media reports on politics). only electoral advertisemtns require authorisation – see the relevant sectiosn in the thread, above.

    There’s no funding from the labour party; there are no costs to cover, expect the connection for the server and Lyn carries that becuase he would have it anyway.

    as for why we (except Lyn) don’t use our real names. from our policy page:
    We choose to blog anonymously for a variety of reasons. Some of us have professional reasons for doing so, others of us are reluctant to expose ourselves to the kind of personal threats sometimes made online. We discussed this issue long and hard before we began and came down on the side of anonymity. We hope you can see why. You might also want to contemplate the implications of this link. http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=947

    [Lynn: Hey – at least spell it correctly 🙂 ]
68. BoomTownPrat 68

    19 April 2008 at 9:17 pm

    So steve,

    explain to me how Mrs Roy, email is any different from your blog?

    Please tell me that even you can see the rank incompetence in the law that you have championed?
69. burt 69

    19 April 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Steve P.

    On the implications of using real names etc.

    I made the this comment at the time and I still stand by it.

    Now lets just check I have the point of this thread. IrishBill justifies staying anonymous because there are stalkers that could be dangerous. He also supports electoral law that requires people to publish their name and residential address to express political opinions. The double standard at it’s finest.
70. ak 70

    19 April 2008 at 11:53 pm

    ……and to the death valiant sir burt gamely attempts to justify his champions’ and his own attempt to remain anonymous via the god-given “right of might” – the ancient and revered WASP/Masonic association of wealth/innate superiority.

    Spare us burt. Winebox/Richwhite dispossessed Joe Public of any remnant delusions in that regard, and Brash’s serial adultery buried it : disgusting Iwi-kiwiesque propaganda bombardments financed by the self-ordained elite are off the menu – and this is accepted by Joe and Joanna Public as evidenced by the NZH poll. EFAggravate all you like, but you’re whining off-Key in the wind, as usual.
71. r0b 71

    20 April 2008 at 12:18 am

    You’re exaggerating Burt, no one needs to publish their names to express political opinions. You and I are doing it anonymously right now. Vote Labour! Ooops – I did it again.

    You could more correctly phrase your comment with respect to have a name on political advertisements. Then I would sort of agree with you, in that there is an inherent tension between the individual’s right to anonymity vs the public’s right to an open and honest democratic process. It’s not a simple debate and you can make a strong case from either side.

    The EFA (like other similar electoral laws) tries to draw a line in this complicated debate. As it is the law considers blogs, editorials, books and similar to fall below the line (they are not “election advertisements” so they can be anonymous). I don’t think you’d want to argue that that is wrong, would you?

    More significant advertisements need to be attributed (not anonymous). I’m not necessarily convinced that the EFA got the line in exactly the right place (I hope that some test cases will clarify the situation), but I am convinced the a line has to exist somewhere, for the good of the democratic process.
72. burt 72

    20 April 2008 at 10:04 am

    rOb

    Since you said above “vote Labour” and you support the law that requires people to publish their full name and residential address you (if you have any integrity at all, having just advocated for a specific party) will now publish your full name or residential address.

    If you don’t, then what we see is you think others should be required to do so (under the law you support) but you see it as something not required of you.

    Show us how much you support the EFA rOb, you claim it’s a good law and yet you flaunt it yourself. I don’t support the law so I’m not being a hypocrite when I post “don’t vote Labour” without publishing my full name and residential address – unlike yourself who wants it both ways.

    I’m sure if you ask lprent he will edit your authorisation statement into your comment above so that when you say “but I am convinced the a line has to exist somewhere, for the good of the democratic process.” that you actually mean what you say.
73. r0b 73

    20 April 2008 at 10:36 am

    Since you said above “vote Labour’

    So I did. Vote Labour! Or vote Green! Don’t vote National! Oh dear – I just can’t seem to help myself.

    and you support the law that requires people to publish their full name and residential address

    Wrong Burt, and you know you’re wrong, so that means you’re lying. The Act reads: Part 1 Section 5 (2) “The following are not election advertisements:’

    (g) the publication by an individual, on a non commercial
    basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political
    views (being the kind of publication commonly known
    as a blog).

    if you have any integrity at all

    If you had any integrity at all Burt you wouldn’t go around lying.

    yet you flaunt it yourself

    The word you were looking for was “flout” Burt.
74. burt 74

    20 April 2008 at 10:37 am

    rOb

    BTW: If you & I were actually breaking the law by saying “Vote Labour’ or “Don’t vote Labour’ then it’s not a problem.

    I simply claim the law was confusing and others were doing it too and you say move on. Then one of us passes retrospective validation for our law breaking and we continue on like nothing happened. We will however need to make sure we change the law so that we can continue doing what was previously illegal and make sure nobody else can do it.

    I’ve been studying Labour’s methods and I think that having complete self serving control of the law is great for me – it’s a trainwreck for the country but I’ve learned to have their very narrow focus of what is best for me as my principal concern. Move on.
75. randal 75

    20 April 2008 at 12:58 pm

    keep it simple stupid…act , the eb’s, the gnats and others want to influence the election by spending vast amouts of money and having no policies or at least policies acceptable to the electorate. if you want to split hairs rather than adress the principle of the matter then it would seem that you have no principles and support those who have no principles as well. so Vote Labour and I am not going to tell you my address. ha ha ha!
76. bill brown 76

    20 April 2008 at 1:07 pm

    burt:

    “… The one with 2 children is being paid by the state (a net cost to the country) to have children.”

    1) The money that the state contributes is far less than the cost of bringing up the children
    2) Those children will, hopefully, grow up and become consumers and tax payers and maybe even employers.

    The contribution of the state is therefore an investment rather than a payment. There may well be a net cost to start with but this will be paid back over the longer term and as those children grow up they will in turn have more children and so on. This is called a society.

    “… On the assumption that one is single and the other has a partner who is a stay home mother one consumes (and contributes toward) social services for one and the other is paid to consume the social services for four people.”

    I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here, however I might say that of the four people, one is a wage earner directly contributing to the economy, one is an unpaid all round support service and two are the future. Sure this is subsidising one to support three, but the alternative may be to send them all out to work, is that what we want?

    “… It’s undeniable that the policy delivers positive outcomes to certain targeted groups, but how can we justify paying people to live in NZ by having them paying negative tax?”

    It depends how much we value the future contribution of those targeted groups.

    Captcha: structure reverses – I hope not.
77. big bruv 77

    20 April 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Only one day to go, no doubt you will all be running out to purchase your own copy of Iain Wisharts latest book?

    It should be great reading.
78. higherstandard 78

    20 April 2008 at 1:53 pm

    BB

    While I’m sure your tongues firmly in your check, it will certainly be a tome filled with supposition and drivel.

    if this is not the case the alternative is frankly depressing as it would mean it has taken until now for these revelations to reach the light of day which would say more about the appalling state of our journalists and parliament in general than the Prime Minister.

    Instead of a public casting votes on the basis of books by the like of Hagar and Wishart an informed public voting on real issues would be my preference.

    Fat chance as usual I suspect.

    That’s enough of my moaning for a Sunday.
79. randal 79

    20 April 2008 at 4:48 pm

    hey hs you the doctor…take three thorazine and go to bed!
80. higherstandard 80

    20 April 2008 at 5:59 pm

    If I took three thorazine I’d be lucky to make it to bed, hideous medication.
81. Matthew Pilott 81

    21 April 2008 at 10:17 am

    “You better pray to God there’s some thorazine in that bag, or you’re in big f%&king trouble!”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS