Electoral Finance – Apoplexy at Kiwiblog

84 comments on “Electoral Finance – Apoplexy at Kiwiblog ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   19 November 2007 at 2:34 pm

   it could cost Farrar money

   That would be a good thesis if Farrar could actually get advertising but unless you’re selling anti-psychotics there are probably better ways to spend your advertising dollar…
2. milo 2

   19 November 2007 at 2:37 pm

   Okay, here are my concerns.

   If I say “Vote/Don’t Vote for Helen Clark” that is clearly an election advertisement under Clause 5. Under clause 53 1 (A), I am then also required to say: My name is Milo, and I live on the Palatine at Rome. Under clause 111 I am then required to file a return of my election expenses, and under Clause 112, this return must be audited.

   “Free Speech” doesn’t sound so free any more. I have to tell my listener or all viewers my name and address and cough up the costs of participating in the regulatory regime. Now maybe I’ve got this wrong, but it seems any individual trying to persaude another about their vote is a third party engaging in election advertising. So I’m basically shut down from 1 January until the election.

   And that doesn’t even consider the spending limits. Do you think those limits will be indexed for taxation? Not farking likely. If they’d wanted to, they’d have done it in the bill.

   Please show me I’m wrong.
3. The Double Standard 3

   19 November 2007 at 2:40 pm

   Milo – prepare to be shouted down for disagreeing with The Party line.
4. Daniel 4

   19 November 2007 at 2:42 pm

   Now we know why Kiwiblog wants the Electoral Finance Bill killed – it could cost Farrar money! Kiwiblog “has some significant advertising lined up” which may be “at serious risk”.

   Uhhh, without wading into the EFB debate, it should be known that before DPF went to WordPress he had some advertising on the blog and I’d expect that he’s planning to put it back at some stage which is fair enough (got to cover hosting costs somehow). How long have you been reading Kiwiblog for?
5. Nih 5

   19 November 2007 at 2:42 pm

   Milo – prepare to be shouted down for disagreeing with The Party line.

   Well that’s new. Attempting to suppress the speech of others by pre-accusing them of suppressing free speech.

   Just kidding. It’s not new at all. It’s tired and dishonest.
6. Dean 6

   19 November 2007 at 2:43 pm

   Robinsod – are you able to engage in debate without feeling the obviously overwhelming need to engage in personal attacks?

   I know you’re not the only one guilty of it – and I know a lot of the “right” engage in this as well – but really. It’s not a particularly good way to emerge victorious from any debate.
7. Graeme Edgeler 7

   19 November 2007 at 2:44 pm

   milo – you are wrong. If that’s all you’re doing (i.e. you’re not also spending $12,000) then you won’t need to file a return or have it audited (moreover, auditing only applies to third parties spending over $30,000).

   Clauses 111 and 112 only apply to registered third parties. And if you’re spending less than $12,000 you don’t have to register.
8. pete 8

   19 November 2007 at 2:44 pm

   Milo: legislation has to be interpreted, where possible, in such a way that it does not contradict the Bill of Rights Act. So the definition of “election advertisement” should not be interpreted too broadly. So “speech” will have to be an advertisement before it’s tested for being an election advertisement. Letters to the editor and blog posts are specifically excluded from the definition; ordinary conversation is so far below the threshold that it’s not even worth mentioning.
9. Robinsod 9

   19 November 2007 at 2:50 pm

   Dean – no.
10. milo 10

    19 November 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Thanks Graeme,

    But the name and address issue still applies. The courts must acknowledge parliamentary intention in the clear definition of election advertising as “any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persauding voters to vote, or not for …. etc”.

    So under Clause 5 and Clause 53 I am guilty of an illegal practice if I stand on a soapbox to persaude people to vote, or not vote for a particular candidate, unless I also state my name and address.

    Every single public opinion on voting is an election advertisement, regulated by the bill.

    How can anybody support that? I don’t want my political opinions to be regulated. Nor do I want my right of anonymous participation in a sponsored blog to be eliminated.
11. milo 11

    19 November 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Well in the absence on any reassurance on Clause 5 and Clause 53, I guess my interpretation stands.

    On that basis I declare this bill repugnant to democracy.

    Kill the bill.
12. John A 12

    19 November 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Here’s where you are wrong, milo

    You say “Every single public opinion on voting is an election advertisement, regulated by the bill.”

    But the Bill clearly defines what is not an election advertisement.

    Section 5 (2) says “The following are not election advertisements: …. 5 (2) (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).

    Sleep easy Milo, you can tell the world as often as you like not to vote for Helen Clark. You’ll be wrong on that too.
13. milo 13

    19 November 2007 at 3:15 pm

    Sorry John A – that only applies to blogs, not to speech. Not to free speech, which is abolished by the bill in its current form.

    Perhaps The Standard should set up a thread that could propose amendments to fix this problem?
14. John A 14

    19 November 2007 at 3:36 pm

    So it’s nineteenth-century campaigning you’re worried about milo? Then Graeme Edgeler’s point is right – the air in your lungs is free, and you would have to buy an awful lot of soapboxes to get up to $12,000 worth of speech. Mind you, based on this line of argument there would be a credible defence that the speech was valueless.
15. r0b 15

    19 November 2007 at 3:40 pm

    milo – “Sorry John A – that only applies to blogs, not to speech. Not to free speech, which is abolished by the bill in its current form.”

    Please calm down. Read the bill (that’s what I’m doing), wait for the informed commentary, don’t necessarily believe that DPF is correct in his interpretation / spin.

    I’m just asking that we take the time to actually understand the bill (it’s complicated) before pronouncing the death of free speech!
16. milo 16

    19 November 2007 at 3:40 pm

    No John, if I say “Vote for Helen Clark”, that is an election advertisement under Clause 5 of the bill. Under Clause 53 of the Bill I then have to provide a statement that sets out my name and address. Non-commercial blogs are exempt. Editorial opinion and news are exempt. My everyday speech or attendance at a meeting or standing on a soapbox is not exempt.

    That is what the legislation says. Free speech is dead from 1 January 2008.
17. Robinsod 17

    19 November 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Milo – A fella called Pete over at the bog has this to say (it’s as succinct an explanation as I could wish to provide):

    Clause 5 defines “election advertisement”, and then goes on to exclude the borderline cases. The cases which aren’t borderline (e.g. YouTube, Usenet, ordinary conversation) don’t need to be specifically excluded, because they’re clearly not advertisements.

    Y’see Milo the point is when you are defining things you don’t include everything they are not (hint: if you did the definition for anything would be infinite). What you do is make your definition and then clear up any obvious grey areas.

    I think you’ll find the definition of electioneering as banned on polling day also fails to expressly exclude speech – and as far as I know nobody has ever been busted for talking politics on election day…
18. r0b 18

    19 November 2007 at 3:55 pm

    DPF’s main line of attack is that individuals who express an opinion (even verbally) will have to publish their address. This appears to me to be quite incorrect, given the revised draft page 58 (2)(d)(i). The requirement doesn’t seem to apply unless you spend over $12,000 promoting your opinion. (Disclaimer, IANAL – I Am Not A Lawyer).

    It seems like common sense eh – that would be a silly requirement.
19. Spam 19

    19 November 2007 at 3:55 pm

    I’m just asking that we take the time to actually understand the bill (it’s complicated) before pronouncing the death of free speech!

    Fair enough. And you might want to recommend that John A and others here follow that advice, before launching into ad hominems against Farrar and others.
20. milo 20

    19 November 2007 at 3:58 pm

    I’m sorry Robinsod, but I don’t find the “trust us, you won’t be prosecuted” approach very reassuring. The comment in italics above is also seriously misleading. The Clause does not exclude borderline cases. It excludes the following:

    – Official Electoral office advertising
    – Editorial material in a periodical.
    – Broadcasts of news and current affairs programmes
    – Material on news media websites
    – Books
    – Documents published by societies for their members
    – Non-commercial blogs

    That’s it. So if I go to a public meeting and say “Vote for Hone Harawira!” I then have to immediately state my name and address. If I hold a placard saying “Don’t vote for Horomia Parekura” it needs to include my name and address. I’m sure the people of Ruatoki will feel good about that.

    So I’m afraid the evidence does not support your contention. And I don’t believe in asking the police and courts to fix faulty legislation through selective enforcement. I mean, really?
21. r0b 21

    19 November 2007 at 4:05 pm

    I wrote – “This appears to me to be quite incorrect, given the revised draft page 58 (2)(d)(i).”

    I now think I am incorrect about that claim, and I withdraw it. I will keep reading and try to make sense of it all…
22. milo 22

    19 November 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Cheers r0b. It is tricky to wade through it all. I would be pleased to be wrong, but at the moment this looks like a serious problem in the revised bill. It should be a fixable problem, but it doesn’t inspire much confidence in the process. What other problems are lurking? More to the point, what does it say about the intent of those drafting the bill? Or rather their point of view of what politics should consist of?
23. Matthew Pilott 23

    19 November 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Milo, you ever played rugby, or watched a game?

    Sucks how they arrest everyone for assault afterwards huh?

    I mean, really?
24. The Double Standard 24

    19 November 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Nih – Tired and Dishonest? I’m merely quoting one of the calm discussers who follow The Party line here:

    “your views are the ones in opposition to the majority here – don’t be surprised you get shouted down.”

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=691#comment-4089
25. milo 25

    19 November 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Matthew Pilott. There is no legislation specifically covering Rugby games, and defining illegal practice in a Rugby match. There is now legislation specifically covering political speech, and defining illegal practice to include what was previously free speech. I refer you to Clause 5 and Clause 53 of the Bill.
26. Robinsod 26

    19 November 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Farrar Claws – Nice decontextualising of Matt’s remark. Why do you want to debate old threads when this one is so interesting?
27. Matthew Pilott 27

    19 November 2007 at 4:25 pm

    The Double Standard, if you read the rest of thos comments you’d see that what you’ve put there isn’t exactly very honest of you: “I meant that there are likely to be plenty of strongly opposing views”.

    And I’d like you to explain how it is that I follow “the party line” and what that is, because I’m not sure myself. I don’t like what you’re implying though, becuse my opinions are my own, and it’s fairly obnixious to imply otherwise.

    Milo is also able to argue rationally (and relevantly, and on topic), unlike yourself, and therefore more likely to elicit a considered response than yourself.

    Feel free to prove me wrong and post intelligently on the topic, I dare you…
28. The Double Standard 28

    19 November 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Farrar has his line, RB has his line. This place has The Party line. If you disagree with The Party line, prepare to be shouted down.

    As usual Robbo, you are unable to focus on the topic, and have to resort to personal abuse. Have you managed to read more than a paragraph of the select committee report yet?
29. Tane 29

    19 November 2007 at 4:33 pm

    TDS, are you accusing David Farrar of not running the National Party’s line? Careful mate, HQ might cut the pay cheque if they find out he’s thinking for himself.
30. milo 30

    19 November 2007 at 4:36 pm

    So how do we fix the bill? What further amendment does it need to avoid abolishing free political speech from 1 January 2008?
31. Matthew Pilott 31

    19 November 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Milo, regarding discression, what do you reckon the average munber of assaults are that occur in a rugby game (hint – tackle count)?

    How many rugby players are arrested for these assaults (hint – it’s equal to the number of world cups we’ve won this year)? Now do yuo think that discression is never used. that’s one example, and I think you’ll find that the country is full of them because, as has been pointed out, you can’t define everything!

    TDS – I have my thoughts which are sometimes in line with The Standard. I formulate them myself, so I don’t need you to tell me how I come up with them thanks mate. Care to elaborate on that one maestro, or are we backtracking a bit?
32. The Double Standard 32

    19 November 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Tane – obviously it suits you to keep on pushing the Farrar=National line. If it helps you to believe that, then go ahead. He makes his affiliations explicit on his site:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

    When each of your authors publish under real names,and provide a similar statement, then you will have earned the respect necessary to credibly attack Farrars connections.

    Until then you should just STFU.
33. r0b 33

    19 November 2007 at 4:47 pm

    OK, again re DPF’s main line of attack, that you need to publish your address in order to express an opinion.

    Page 12 of the revised draft “The following publications are not election advertisements:” and goes on to list editorials, comments, current affairs programs, blogs and the like.” I put it to all calm readers that this is the mechanism that also excludes “comments to my mate in the pub” or “shouting through a megaphone at a rally”. They aren’t explicitly listed because basic sanity tells us that they are below the radar. (Why should they be ruled out when editorials, blogs etc are fine?).

    In support of this view, see the introductory commentary (p4): A number of submitters raised concerns that the bill may limit their
    ability to express their opinions and participate fully in the electoral
    process. In particular, many issues-based organisations were con-
    cerned that they might be required to list as third parties as their
    advertising might be captured by the bill, and that their ability to
    spend on issues-based advertising would be limited. We considered
    the issues raised by these submitters, and recommend a number of
    amendments to address their concerns.

    Clearly the intent of the revised bill is not to have us all publish our addresses before we venture an opinion.

    Once again, an appeal for calm….
34. Matthew Pilott 34

    19 November 2007 at 4:47 pm

    Threadjack alert!

    Very… wait for it… Tedious!!! hahaha geddit?
35. milo 35

    19 November 2007 at 4:54 pm

    rOb, I appreciate your reasoned response. However, the section of the preamble you quote refers exclusively to advertisements. The clause you quote excludes blogs, and newsletters, but fails to exclude public meetings or public addresses of other sorts.

    Also, please bear in mind that the starting point of Clause 53 is to make all communications expressing a view on votes illegal. It then goes on to exempt communications that meet the regulations.

    The acid test is having a Hikoi from Ruatoki in election year. If the member say “Dump Parekura Horomia”, this legislation requires them to also state their name and address. To my mind, that is repugnant. Probably an unintended consequence of the legislation, but repugnant nonetheless.

    Hope I’m wrong. Haven’t seen any evidence of it yet.
36. The Double Standard 36

    19 November 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Matthew – what has rugby got to do with anything?

    Didn’t you listen to H1 on ZB today – if you are a National or Act member you are marked by Teh Party.

    Of course discretion is used – if you are Teh Party, you cannot be prosecuted. Everyone knows that.

    The issue – is freedom of expression being unreasonably denied 11 months out of 36 – is far from clear. Besides, it is very dangerous lawmaking to rely on prosecutorial discretion. The law should be clear and precise, and should not subject citizins to the depredations of a police state.

    I know this is Teh Party’s answer to many difficult questions (terrible abuse of children – ban smaking, questionably pills – ban them, a few fireworks injuries – ban them, tuhoe shooting in the hills – TSA them, out of control dogs – chip them etc) but all it does is put the police in a position where ‘discretion’ becomes a tool in the wrong hands, and makes no real difference to the underlying problems.

    The attempts here to excuse the EFB on the basis of ‘police will use discretion’ fail.
37. r0b 37

    19 November 2007 at 5:13 pm

    milo – “The clause you quote excludes blogs, and newsletters, but fails to exclude public meetings or public addresses of other sorts.”

    I agree that it is still poorly drafted in this respect (while again arguing that the sanity test tells us that these are below the radar). But only an alarmist with an agenda can read this bill as requiring every opinion ever expressed to include an address, or as “the death of free speech”.

    My last comment on the issue today, think I’m going to go ride a bike up a hill…
38. milo 38

    19 November 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Have a good ride rOb. Cheers.
39. the sprout 39

    19 November 2007 at 5:25 pm

    hmm, milo’s line of arugment seems familiar?

    oh that’s it… “s59 will have good parents slammed in jail for smacking their child’s hand”

    yet another issue where it turns out the sky hasn’t fallen after all, despite the best attempts of the right/Herald to convince us otherwise.
    http://publicaddress.net/default,4614,meet_the_new_bob.sm#post4614

    i do so hope nobody has an embolism over at the bog, they seem a bit excited.
40. milo 40

    19 November 2007 at 5:28 pm

    So to sum up my position: the bill fails the acid test – which is allowing the Ruatoki Hikoi to have a reasonable degree of free speech. Instead, the Hikoi would have to either: restrain from calls to vote people out; publish their names and address; set up an organization to do the publishing before they were allowed to march; or rely on the restraint of the police …

    Thus, in my view, the Electoral Finance Bill remains repugnant.
41. milo 41

    19 November 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Oh, Sprout – didn’t see your post while I was writing mine. Just for the record, I am a strong supporter of the anti-smacking bill, and delighted to have seen that change pass into law.
42. Sam Dixon 42

    19 November 2007 at 5:43 pm

    guys, I’m not normally one to blow my own trumpet – but this is a lot of fun – http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/19_problems_still_remaining_with_the_electoral_finance_bill.html#comment-369147
43. Robinsod 43

    19 November 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Man Sam – I’ve been reading that and it’s great – I almost felt sorry for the frothing fools. Especially when Farrar was accusing you of lying. His credibility is bleeding away by the minute even, I suspect, amongst his own crew.
44. The Double Standard 44

    19 November 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Matthew –

    “Very. wait for it. Tedious!!! hahaha geddit?”

    You’re a bit slow there. I expected Robbo to put that up first though.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=728#comment-5076
45. Graeme Edgeler 45

    19 November 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Pete said: “So “speech” will have to be an advertisement before it’s tested for being an election advertisement.”

    Unfortunately, no. That was the situation under the Electoral Act 1993, I submitted (and COG submitted) that this should be the case, but it is not. Under the EFB (as drafted, and as amended) “Speech” will have to be a “form of words or graphics” before it’s tested for being an election advertisement. I’m sure you agree that this is pretty broad.
46. unaha-closp 46

    19 November 2007 at 6:53 pm

    oh that’s it. “s59 will have good parents slammed in jail for smacking their child’s hand”

    yet another issue where it turns out the sky hasn’t fallen after all, despite the best attempts of the right/Herald to convince us otherwise.

    Sprout,

    The s59 repeal was subject to a compromise deal that National proposed. National’s ammendment was a limit on intrusion and now you are pointing out that the bill is not as intrusive as it could have been. The whole saga gifted National a 10% lead in the polls, nice of you to point it out.
47. Robinsod 47

    19 November 2007 at 6:57 pm

    closp – Key’s amendment offered nothing to the anti-child-abuse bill. It was a bait and switch.

    Haha – just say this at the bog, it seems rather than take Mr Dixon to task face to face DPF waited until he left and then slandered him:

    [DPF: Apart from the fact you lied repeatedly and are wrong. But I love the towering mastubatory ego where Sam is so lacking in self esteem he feels the need to self proclaim that he has destroyed the post. I mean seriously what sort of w***er really jerks off like that. If would be different if other people came in and said hey Sam I thought that was a great job. But to congratulate yourself on “destroying” the arguments is really sad and pitiful. And even worse he is 100% wrong on the facts relating to name and address.]

    Poor DPF seems to have a few issues to work through. Bravo Mr Dixon!
48. Robinsod 48

    19 November 2007 at 7:01 pm

    sorry – I meant “just saw this at the bog”
49. The Double Standard 49

    19 November 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Gee Robbo, it is soooo clever how you pretend to be DPF commenting on your posts here. Unfortunately you are only fooling yourself.

    Looks like you are having some problems with Santa at KB too. My my you do attract trouble.
50. Robinsod 50

    19 November 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Um DPF Claws/Double Standard – how do I pretend to be DPF here? I was merely pasting Farrar’s shitty and cowardly comment to Sam up here so I could mock him for it (I’m not allowed to post on KB – remember when you banned me?)

    Anyway you wee man – how’s the new name going? I’m kinda flattered you used my little joke name for your handle: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/little_may_stand.html#comment-360421

    Is it ‘cos you fancy me DPF Claws? (I’ve noticed your blog has got very dull in my absence) XX
51. the sprout 51

    19 November 2007 at 7:21 pm

    ud
    “National’s [s59] ammendment was a limit on intrusion”
    you have got to be kidding. are there really people who can read and are still that gullible? National’s pretend “ammendment” made precisely no substantive to the bill whatsoever. perhaps you should re-read s59 before and after the ammendment.
    hilarious. explains your stripes though.
52. unaha-closp 52

    19 November 2007 at 7:41 pm

    the sprout,

    The compromise made was added to modify police enforcement (intrusive effect of the bill) so that police gain discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. You are correct it did not effect the repeal of s59, but made all the difference in the rate of prosecution.

    When some fool says “yet another issue where it turns out the sky hasn’t fallen after all,” and points to a post showing there have no prosecutions it just lends credence to the importance of discretion on prosecutions. Which offers credibility to National.

    Please shut up about section 59.
53. The Double Standard 53

    19 November 2007 at 7:46 pm

    Robbo – by posting comments [DPF:…]

    In my haste I thought that you had faked that comment. If I had read it more carefully I would have realised that big words in it would be too much for you. Terribly sorry old chap.

    Perhaps you could mention here which of Sam’s pathetic “destroy’s” you actually beleive? That way you can be mocked here instead of a KB.

    And honestly, calling me DPF all the time is just a reflection on your inability to actually have a point of view. I suspect the only humans who would fancy you are the sort that swirl their faces in electronic pictures. Infantile is big in those circles I understand.
54. the sprout 54

    19 November 2007 at 8:34 pm

    ud
    that’s what’s so hilarious. the police always had that discretion.
    did you think that was something jonkey added?
    hilarious. tragic, but hilarious.
55. the bean 55

    19 November 2007 at 8:38 pm

    wow unaha, you just keep showing yourself to be dumb and dumber. “so that police gain discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution.”

    police exercise their discretion all the fucking time you tosspot. john key is a total flip flop dick wad who can’t make a policy decision to save himself. this amendment was all about clark playing him for the dumb-arse he is and key thinking he had saved face after, for a long time, being on the same side as bob ‘bash ya kids’ mcfucktard.

    also please don’t tell people to shut up- it is not very polite and as you can see i am a stickler for politeness
56. the bean 56

    19 November 2007 at 8:45 pm

    well tds/dpf does that mean we can mock you in all our infantile glory for you writing ‘beleive’. that is a big word that obviously got away on you.

    also i for one fancy the pants off robinsod and… whilst i am dirty… i can’t say that kiddie fiddling has ever been a pastime. but i am astounded that you would feel this was a conclusion you could draw from a few scattered electronic communique with robinsod. what gave it away? you must be a genius…perhaps the fbi is your calling? you could be catching crooks left, right and centre.
57. Robinsod 57

    19 November 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Jeez bean – you’re makin me blush…

    Jeez, santa/dpf/double – you never told me why you named y’self after my particular witticism. Go on, don’t be shy…
58. The Prophet 58

    19 November 2007 at 9:34 pm

    I just love it when you get all paranoid Sod,

    Love it.

    Makes me laugh.

    We all stand around the computer laughing at you.

    We laugh, and laugh, and laugh at your paranoia.

    Your paranoia is very funny Sod.

    Keep up the good work.
59. the bean 59

    19 November 2007 at 9:41 pm

    wow, did anyone else envisage prophet rocking back and forth as they said that? or was that just me…being paranoid?
60. Robinsod 60

    19 November 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Profit – “We laugh, and laugh, and laugh at your paranoia” shouldn’t have any commas in it. When you use the conjunction “and” it makes the comma redundant. I learned that when I was ten years old, profit – did you even finish primary school?

    Now d’ya think you could post something on-topic?
61. The Double Standard 61

    19 November 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Bean – please leave my errors for Robbo to find – it is his big daily thrill. I’d put a spelling error as a 1-tissue thrill, while a misplaced apostrophe rates at 2-tissues. What a waste of an english degree eh?

    Robbo – sorry, I try not to lower myself to answering questions from morons like you.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=728#comment-5184
62. the bean 62

    19 November 2007 at 9:53 pm

    oh tds i see what you are saying. how witty. robinsod masturbates when he finds spelling or grammatical errors. is that it? goodness i hadn’t though about using peoples personal pleasuring habits as a way to ridicule them but you have just hit on a winner. magic.

    perhaps key can try that in the house when he runs out of flip, flop non policy comments to make. ‘oh what ever michael. you just like masturbate and stuff when there is low unemployment and a managed surplus.’ genius.
63. Robinsod 63

    19 November 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Nah DPF/TDS – you just name yourself after their witticisms. Still not gonna tell me why eh? I s’pose I’ll just have to keep thinking you’re stalking me or something.
64. thomas 64

    19 November 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Is it me , or does DPFSANTADOUBLE
    seem angrier then normal ?
    He seems to have totally lost it today.
    Polling not going well perchance?
65. Robinsod 65

    19 November 2007 at 10:00 pm

    Jeez Bean – don’t you know that masturbating is evil? That’s why it’s funny to people like TDS – he’s being “edgy”. Don’t worry SC/DPF/TDS bro you’re not gonna go blind, your mum was just lying to you (kinda like when she told you you were special.)
66. the sprout 66

    19 November 2007 at 10:01 pm

    hey Beany, looks like they’ve given up on trying to defend the objections to the EFB.
67. the bean 67

    19 November 2007 at 10:06 pm

    maybe they are too busy masturbating?

    am i getting it tds?
68. Robinsod 68

    19 November 2007 at 10:09 pm

    Way to go Bean – very edgy. You could almost move onto the KB circuit if you could just get the homophobia and racism right. Oh and I noticed Farrar’s rebuttal of everyone who’s pointed out he is wrong is “you’re lying!” – he’s been taking debating tips from impotent punter methinks.
69. the sprout 69

    19 November 2007 at 10:10 pm

    well he obviously isn’t
70. burt 70

    19 November 2007 at 10:11 pm

    Seem like the Green’s agree with DPF.

    see: Oh for all those claiming I am wrong

    What happens next guys… Do you all denigrate me and shoot the messenger or do you guys take a deep breath and be reasonable people and admit that your excitement “Labour good” “Kiwiblog bad” might have been a bit premature?
71. r0b 71

    19 November 2007 at 10:12 pm

    Milo – “Have a good ride rOb. Cheers.”

    Thanks, I did. I’m not the cyclist I was 30 years ago, but I’m getting back there slowly.

    “Thus, in my view, the Electoral Finance Bill remains repugnant”.

    In my opinion what is repugnant, Milo, is the way that DPF uses you and those like you. It is clear from his recent post “Oh for all those claiming I am wrong” that he was fully aware that what he was pushing, while technically not incorrect (due to poor drafting), was in no way the intention of the bill. The Greens will fix the wording, and that’s that, even DPF seems ready to move on.

    Those like you who leapt on DPF’s very hurried bandwagon, and loudly proclaimed your disgust with the death of free speech in NZ, are left high and dry, and looking rather silly. DPF doesn’t mind, you served his purposes, helping him to spread FUD. He’s pretty clever at this kind of thing, but I do wonder how he sleeps at night.

    I hope you’ve been paying attention to the “mainstream media” Milo. The way this has played out on TV3 news and National Radio (EFB reigns in National’s covert funding) is the way most people are going to perceive it. I haven’t seen anyone (other than team DPF) proclaiming the death of free speech.

    So – anyway, you have been used Milo. My suggestion is, learn from this. Do your own reading and thinking about issues. Don’t let DPF, or The Standard, or whoever, tell you what to think about things. Read, think, and don’t rush to judgement.
72. burt 72

    19 November 2007 at 10:16 pm

    messenger milo shot at – I guess I’m next.
73. the sprout 73

    19 November 2007 at 10:18 pm

    no burt, it’s the rightwingers that do that sort of stuff.
74. r0b 74

    19 November 2007 at 10:24 pm

    “messenger milo shot at – I guess I’m next.”

    Sorry if you’re feeling left out Burt. Yes by all means, my advice (which is free, and worth every penny) can certainly apply to you too if you wish.
75. burt 75

    19 November 2007 at 10:30 pm

    the sprout

    At least you are consistent, it’s not “Labour good” “Kiwiblog bad” it’s just the regular “Labour good” “National bad”. Top job.

    rOb

    Various punters have supported the bill as being the good and pure at every stage of it’s life. These people are clearly incapable of rational thought but make great party line towers. To not realise that they have defended multiple stuff up’s and have abused everybody for every flaw they point out with such tenacity makes you wonder about their intelligence. Great attack dogs – piss poor thinkers.
76. r0b 76

    19 November 2007 at 10:34 pm

    “Great attack dogs – piss poor thinkers.”

    Well there’s a lot of that about to be sure. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are many at The Standard who have “supported the bill as being the good and pure at every stage of it’s life. “
77. milo 77

    19 November 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Thanks rOb, but I was relying on my reading of the bill, particularly Section 5 and 53, and the definition of “publish”. I’ve been asking people to point out where this was wrong, but nobody has been able to.

    So while I appreciate your kind concern for my independence of thought, I suggest instead you apply your intellect to two problems.

    (1) The private prosecutions that may be brought against anybody saying “Vote Labour” without giving their names and addresses.

    (2) The likely movement of sponsorship to support positions in the Leader’s office, freeing up Parliamentary funds to be spent on campaigning.

    There is always a way to rort the system. The best defence is to foster a feeling of inclusiveness and participation. Can’t see much of that going on.
78. r0b 78

    19 November 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Well Milo, first I would need to understand what you mean by these issues, and then I would have to (following my own advice) find out a bit about it for myself. Maybe I’ll have an opinion for you later on, if they seem like sensible questions, but it ain’t gonna be tonight.

    “The best defence is to foster a feeling of inclusiveness and participation. Can’t see much of that going on.” You need to look beyond Kiwiblog to find these things Milo. I suggest joining and working for the party of your choice. One feels included and participatory.

    Goodnight…
79. burt 79

    19 November 2007 at 11:13 pm

    rOb

    I’ll agree that perhaps only a few hare have claimed the bill has been perfect or will be perfect after this latest perfect redraft unfalteringly.

    There are unreasonable interpretations being interpreted in several camps. This just shows the pitfalls of not taking an inclusive approach to constitutional finance issues. Simply the fact it’s a hotly contested partisan bill should be enough to encourage resistance. Meanwhile the party faithful defend every detail ignoring the rotten foundations of this bill.

    I simply can’t believe the Green party can support any restriction on ‘third parties’ spending in an election year. The Green party is founded on activism and the bloody puppets are selling out for a crack at the treasury benches. How many protesters want to have their name and residential address on their placard to use their democratic right to peaceful protest for one third of the time. Outrageous!
80. unaha-closp 80

    19 November 2007 at 11:46 pm

    It is clear from his recent post “Oh for all those claiming I am wrong” that he was fully aware that what he was pushing, while technically not incorrect (due to poor drafting), was in no way the intention of the bill. The Greens will fix the wording, and that’s that,

    That is it. Nats criticise and Greens correct Labours incompetently written law.

    Here we are coming up to an election and NZ is asked to vote for a party that is seemingly incapable of wording law as it actually intends it to work. That seems like a fairly critical flaw if we’re to be choosing lawmakers, which we will be. Of course we could always vote Green because they are the only party of the left capable of writing law, but that is not a good thing because they are the Greens and most Labour voters (myself included) do not consider them a viable choice. Is it that much to ask for competence?

    PS – sprout, s59 meant a 15% swing in the polls to National which is okay with you – not even slightly like the sky falling. Some of us do not want National to take another 15% chunk out of Labour so we examine and try to learn from the mistakes. But not you, you insert your head up some crevice – saying it never happened & there was no change – hope you do not suffocate.
81. the bean 81

    20 November 2007 at 9:59 am

    ud
    i was referring to the false nature of the opponents’ predictions about what the s59 bill would mean, not political expediency. regardless of the votes it would cost labour stuck to their guns because they believed it was the right thing to do. and lo, the sky did not fall in for parents. and lo, the sky will not fall in over the EFB either, just like it didn’t with civil unions, women’s suffrage, charging husbands for rape, and all the countless other hysterias the right tries to whip up against progressive policies.

    now true, s59 did cost labour votes, thanks to a comprhensive misinformation campaign, just like EFB. but votes gained by bullshitting are soft and temporary. votes gained by concrete and effective action are not. indeed the more a party like national lies to gain support the more it damages its long-term credibility. assuming you believe polls, six months down the track and how much is national leading by now? more than the margin of error even?

Links to post

1. Farrar Lies, But The Bill Won’t Die « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 19 November 2007 at 3:14 pm
2. COG vs ICA - Smackdown « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 19 November 2007 at 5:07 pm
3. Calling all bets « Thesproutandthebean: posted on 19 November 2007 at 5:34 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS