Dunne folds under pressure

Written By: - Date published: 5:01 pm, December 18th, 2007 - 26 comments
Categories: election funding, united future - Tags: ,

According to reports, Peter Dunne has withdrawn his support for the Electoral Finance Bill at the last minute.

Newsroom says:

Mr Dunne said over recent weeks it had become clear that many New Zealanders had deep unease about the bill and he had been contacted by hundreds of people.

New Zealanders had gone beyond caring about its contents, they simply mistrusted it and saw it has a case of political utu, he said

“Legislation perceived in that way cannot suceed,” Mr Dunne told the House in the leadup to the final vote.

Full marks to John Boscawen. That’s the sign of a successful disinformation campaign: repeat the same slander enough times and the perception becomes the reality.

The bill will still pass easily, but this shows how much of a shallow PR game modern politics has become.

26 comments on “Dunne folds under pressure ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Billy 1
    18 December 2007 at 5:06 pm

    It was a very strange sort of a backdown. His argument more or less was: the Bill is fine and necessary but people who don’t understand it have become concerned, so out of deference to them, we are pulling our support. In other words, the perception about the Bill is more important than the reality. Weird.

  2. Matthew Pilott 2
    18 December 2007 at 5:10 pm

    Just shows the depth of the man’s character – he’s basically admitting to doing the wrong thing, because he is worried about what people will think of him.

    Strikes me as remarkably shallow and vain.

  3. Billy 3
    18 December 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Well I suppose he could hardly say it was flawed now.

  4. Phil 4
    18 December 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Even though I disagree with a lot of Dunnes philosophy, I’ve always respected him of having the courage of his convictions.

    It’s a strange one, this is, and all I can put it down to is pre-election jockeying for position; maybe Dunne thinks it’s the end of the road for Labour, and wants to try and ingratiate himself as first-cab-off-the-rank in National-led coalition?

  5. Matthew Pilott 5
    18 December 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Phil – Ohariu is safe, but maybe he’s selling out in the hope he can bring along a couple of mates in 2008!!

  6. Insolent Prick 6
    18 December 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Phil,

    I think Peter Dunne has shown that he’s never going to be convicted for an excess of courage.

  7. Santi 7
    18 December 2007 at 6:34 pm

    “Strikes me as remarkably shallow and vain.”

    Are you speaking ill of your Minister of Revenue and loyal lapdog of the Labour Party? Not a nice way to treat one of your partners in government (not for long though).

  8. Kimble 8
    18 December 2007 at 7:46 pm

    BUT WHAT ABOUT THE IMPORTANT QUESTION????

    How many parties voted for and against it?

    Werent a bunch of you dorks claiming that it had overwhelming support in the house because more political PARTIES supported the bill than opposed?

    What does this do to those numbers? Or can you now admit that counting political parties is an idiotic thing to do?

    49-48 was the final count wasnt it?

    To steal a great sledge from Steve Waugh, “How does it feel to drop the 2008 Election?”.

  9. Pascal's bookie 9
    18 December 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Santi, your comment fills me great joy at the prospect of watching the National party manage a coalition.

  10. Kimble 10
    18 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

    PB, you HOPE National has to manage a coalition. And it is a hope that is fading fast.

  11. westmere 11
    18 December 2007 at 7:54 pm

    Democracy has been dealt a fatal blow!

    So fatal, that the government will lose the election!

    (Er, hang on, let me think that one through again …)

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    18 December 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Kimble, if you genuinely believe that the Nats will be able to govern alone based on polls this far out, then the only thing fading fast is your credibility.

    captcha: bankers grieved (no shit)

  13. Kimble 13
    18 December 2007 at 8:14 pm

    PB I genuinely believe that National will be able to govern alone because Labour and its partners are falling over themselves in an attempt to lose the next election.

  14. r0b 14
    18 December 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Werent a bunch of you dorks claiming that it had overwhelming support in the house because more political PARTIES supported the bill than opposed?

    There you go again Kimble, getting your right wing noodle in a complete muddle. It wasn’t a bunch of dorks. It was me! I’m only one dork!

    And I didn’t claim it had overwhelming support in the house, I claimed that an overwhelming majority of parties supported it. The claim was true when I made it, but dear Mr Dunne has made it untrue.

    Now I can only claim that a majority of parties support the EFB (or maybe that an overwhelming majority of parties support the principles behind the EFB).

    Glad I could clear that up for you. Toodle pip.

  15. Kimble 15
    18 December 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Overwhelming doesnt mean a couple more. But if you close your eyes real , real tight, and wish and wish with all your might… nah even then it wont be and you will still look like a fool.

  16. r0b 16
    18 December 2007 at 10:05 pm

    The original counts was 5 for and 2 against. Even if you count Maori as against (though they support the principles of the bill) it’s 5 vs 3. About twice as many in favour seemed pretty overwhelming to me!

    (Of course, now Mr D has changed his mind – oh well)

    Goodnight…

  17. Policy Parrot 17
    19 December 2007 at 12:58 am

    A vote for Dunne is a vote for National…

    Don’t make it a Dunne deal, vote Labour for Ohariu.

  18. Kimble 18
    19 December 2007 at 1:39 am

    It doesnt matter rob, counting parties is just stupid.

  19. Dean 19
    19 December 2007 at 2:57 am

    “A vote for Dunne is a vote for National.

    Don’t make it a Dunne deal, vote Labour for Ohariu.”

    That’s actually almost amusing.

  20. Santi 20
    19 December 2007 at 5:24 am

    “Don’t make it a Dunne deal, vote Labour for Ohariu.”

    Parrot, the sage, strikes again.

    Vote neither of those. Dunne deserves the boot for his meretricious behaviour, so does socialist Labour for its unbound lust for power. Kick them both.

  21. Matthew Pilott 21
    19 December 2007 at 9:47 am

    Kimble, if counting parties is just plain stupid, why on earth would you then go and make a huge deal about how the parties are counted?

    Speaking of counting, Kimble, “49-48 was the final count wasnt it?” umm, no. Not quite.

    Santi, may I let it be known I have never spoken a nice word about Dunne.

  22. Insolent Prick 22
    19 December 2007 at 9:56 am

    r0b:

    The count was not 5-2 in favour of the Bill. That was a figure you plucked out of the air by being deliberately dishonest.

    The Maori Party were never going to support the Bill. They voted, and spoke against it, at every stage of the Bill. You took a quote from the Herald, in which the Maori Party said they supported the principles of the Bill, but felt it was totally flawed, as a “neutral position”.

    You also included Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party–a one-man caucus–as a political party. Yet you decided to omit both Taito Phillip Field, and Gordon Copeland–one-man independents–as opponents of the Bill. Your only justification for this was that the Herald hadn’t quoted them.

    There was never an overwhelming number of parties in Parliament supporting the Bill. That was vain spin, on your part.

  23. Matthew Pilott 23
    19 December 2007 at 10:33 am

    Copeland was overseas and didn’t vote.

  24. r0b 24
    19 December 2007 at 11:01 am

    The count was not 5-2 in favour of the Bill. That was a figure you plucked out of the air by being deliberately dishonest.

    No, it was a quote I plucked out of The Herald by reading.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481042&pnum=0

    I put The Maori party in neither category because, on the basis of their statement, they seemed to be in favour of the principles, but against some of the details. As per a few threads back I don’t mind if you count Maori with the noes, which makes in 5 vs 3 at the time I made that statement.

    You also included Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party&a one-man caucus&as a political party.

    And Act is a 2 person caucus, so? I don’t chose who or what is a political party – they need to be registered and have a certain number of memmbers – Phillip Field is not a party). I didn’t chose who The Herald included as party leaders.

    There was never an overwhelming number of parties in Parliament supporting the Bill.

    There certainly was, at the time I made the claim. Of course now Mr D is singing candle in the wind. Oh well.

  25. r0b 25
    19 December 2007 at 11:02 am

    ” a quote” should be “a figure”

  26. ak 26
    19 December 2007 at 12:34 pm

    westmere:
    “Democracy has been dealt a fatal blow!

    So fatal, that the government will lose the election!

    (Er, hang on, let me think that one through again .)”

    Comment of the week!!!

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.