Electoral Finance Bill passes

17 comments on “Electoral Finance Bill passes ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Double Standard 1

   18 December 2007 at 5:49 pm

   Hmm, reminds me of this moment

   http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/01/sprj.irq.main/index.html

   Is the war over, or not? Time will tell for sure, but I foresee an ongoing insurgency. Good thing that sedition is still on the books eh?
2. westmere 2

   18 December 2007 at 7:49 pm

   Judging by the infantile NZ media, today was apparently not about election funding at all, but Tim Shadbolt.

   Ooh! A celebrity! Ooh! He was on Dancing with the Stars! Ooh! That makes politics nice and easy to understand!

   Questions apparently not worth asking:

   What is Shadbolt prevented from saying?
   What is Shadbolt prevented from buying? (Hint: not the same)
   What is the government’s tertiary funding policy anyway?
   What is National’s tertiary funding policy?

   Facts, schmacts … boring! Give us another smile, Tim.
3. Kimble 3

   18 December 2007 at 7:59 pm

   “What is Shadbolt prevented from saying?”
   We dont know until he says it. Thats the great thing about the POS EFB, you wont know you are breaking the law until you’ve gone and broken it.

   “What is Shadbolt prevented from buying?”
   OOOH! I know! He is prevented from buying the election. He is what is known as a shadowy, third party who plans to run a parallel campaign in support of National using an overflowing warchest of cash stolen from hard working New Zealanders!

   “What is the government’s tertiary funding policy anyway?”
   Does it include reducing funding for his town’s Uni? If it doesnt then why hasnt someone told Tim?

   “What is National’s tertiary funding policy?”
   What has that got to do with anything? Even if it was Nationals policy as well, it changes absolutely nothing for Tim Shadbolt, his town, and the EFB.
4. westmere 4

   18 December 2007 at 8:03 pm

   Kimble, I can see I’m going have to go more slowly for you.

   i) Change the policy
   ii) Change the government

   Not the same thing.

   A campaign to do ii) is a campaign to have National’s tertiary funding policy instead.

   So what is it?
5. Kimble 5

   18 December 2007 at 8:09 pm

   A campaign that stops the current government doing something is also likely to stop the next government from doing it too.

   You really need to start thinking beyond step one.
6. Kimble 6

   18 December 2007 at 8:16 pm

   PS. Lamest. Lolcatz. Ever.
7. westmere 7

   18 December 2007 at 8:28 pm

   This is National’s 2005 election policy:

   “Introduce spending controls across all tertiary funding.
   National wants to ensure that the government can control the spending on tertiary education. We will end the pattern of unpredictable uncontrolled public spending growth over the past five years by introducing tight annual spending caps for tertiary enrolments.”

   Maybe that’s what Shadbolt has in mind?
8. the bean 8

   18 December 2007 at 9:45 pm

   shouldn’t really be a problem for Shadbolt either way, didn’t his illustrious metropolis fund all SIT fees anyway as a means of luring students down there?
9. Barnsley Bill 9

   18 December 2007 at 10:20 pm

   I think National have found a new coalition partner.
   As the saying goes “my enemies enemy is my friend”
   Hone Harawiras speech here.

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00417.htm

   Powerful speech, sums up what most of the country are thinking.
10. Dean 10

    18 December 2007 at 11:20 pm

    “What is Shadbolt prevented from saying?”

    Well he certainly can’t send a letter to every household in New Zealand anymore.

    But hey, who would ever want to do that, right? I mean, it’s not as if that’s an infringement of rights in a democracy, is it?
11. Dean 11

    19 December 2007 at 3:04 am

    Also, I bet everyone was delighted to hear what the Haters and Wreckers had to say.

    “If this was only about election finances, then why did this Labour government push through special legislation to validate their $800,000 over-spend at the last election, rather than let the legal process take its natural course?

    If this was only about election finances, then why didn’t this Labour government ask the Auditor General and the Electoral Commission, to present a range of options for public consideration, and presentation to the House?

    If this was only about election finances, then how come the Human Rights Commission says this Bill is a dramatic assault on fundamental human rights & freedom of expression, and the right to participate in the election process?

    If this was only about election finances, then how come the Human Rights Commission says that even this rewritten, flea-bitten, revised and patched-up version should still have been given back to the public for full discussion and debate?

    I’ll tell you why Madam Speaker, it’s because this ain’t just about election finances.

    It’s about the sweet scent of power, and the lust for control. It’s about the decadence of corruption, the stench of deceit, and the refusal to accept the reality of impending defeat.”

    With that kind of talk I imagine they’ll be upgraded to being Cancerous and/or Corrosive next.
12. r0b 12

    19 December 2007 at 7:43 am

    Dean – No time this morning, but re the validation of spending you can find plenty of discussion here:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=788 and also p=856
13. insider 13

    19 December 2007 at 10:18 am

    No Kimble, Shadbolt was upset about loosing funding for his local polytech opperating in Christchurch. The strange thing is I would have thought you tories would have supported more responsible spending of ‘taxpayer money’?
14. BeShakey 14

    19 December 2007 at 1:13 pm

    “What is the government’s tertiary funding policy anyway?”
    Does it include reducing funding for his town’s Uni? If it doesnt then why hasnt someone told Tim?
    “What is National’s tertiary funding policy?”
    What has that got to do with anything? Even if it was Nationals policy as well, it changes absolutely nothing for Tim Shadbolt, his town, and the EFB.

    These questions are both actually fairly critical, and at different times the medias failure to attend to questions of this type will undermine both major parties. The first question is important because if a fair and sensible policy has been developed, but that happens to disadvantage some group (as most policies tend to do), that is quite different to a grossly unfair policy that also disadvantages that same group.
    The second question is important because it shows the alternative, helps to show whether this is a case of policy differences or simply someone scorign cheap political points.

    It shouldn’t be a left vs right issue that the media should do a better job of reporting on this issue and others.
15. Kimble 15

    19 December 2007 at 1:16 pm

    insider, you really dont understand us at all, do you?

    You really think that we want to cut every piece of government spending. You arent arguing us, you are arguing against some charicature or us.
16. Kimble 16

    19 December 2007 at 1:31 pm

    BeShakey, National’s policy isnt the alternative. Labour not cutting the funding is the alternative.

    Shadbolt wants to campaign for the “not cutting funding” alternative. Of course you lot (and everyone who voted for the EFB) cannot distinguish between being against Labour policy and being for National.

    This story would be just as relevant even if Nationals policy was exactly the same.

    It isnt about the next election, it isnt about the difference between National and Labour. It is about the ability of a Mayor to do his duty under a law Labour has brought in.

Links to post

1. World Ends « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 19 December 2007 at 10:13 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS