Flogging our future

18 comments on “Flogging our future ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   6 August 2009 at 9:26 am

   sheesh, I dont understand this post either..

   Act represents its supporters, which as you have highlighted include climate change non-believers who make donations.

   How does this differ from Labour representing it supporters who make large donations to the party such as the unions? labour is beholden to that support.

   Or the Greens and their supporters?

   I would have thought it is the nature of democracy IB.

   Or is it the second case this morning of malleable morality and principles of putty?
   • r0b 1.1

     6 August 2009 at 9:42 am

     “Their supporters” vs “A donor”.

     Raises interesting issues about the nature of democracy dunnit.
     • vto 1.1.1

       6 August 2009 at 9:50 am

       r0b, that is one the problems with the left view of the world – just cannot get their heads around money.

       Gibbs is a long time supporter of ACT I understand. Just like, say, Andrew Little is a long time supporter of Labour.

       Gibbs is a supporter and donor. Little is a supporter and donor (assumption there but insert as appropriate).
     • vto 1.1.2

       6 August 2009 at 10:00 am

       r0b, when does a ‘supporter’ become a ‘donor’? At what level of monetary donation in your view? And then, how much did the Labour Party receive from the unions in NZ during the last election? (I dont know but would be very very curious to see how it supported or countered your and IBs weirdo position on this).
     • r0b 1.1.3

       6 August 2009 at 10:19 am

       All good questions I’m sure vto. As I said, raises interesting questions about the nature of democracy.

       The case in the original post seems to be at one pretty extreme end of the spectrum, and certainly worth commenting on. Especially given the sheer and catastrophic stupidity of the climate change denier position.
2. IrishBill 2

   6 August 2009 at 9:30 am

   Labour was founded on union principles (although they went awry in the 80’s). Act seemed to have no interest in climate change until they got paid for it.
   • vto 2.1

     6 August 2009 at 9:42 am

     hang on, hang on, labour took on climate change due to supporter desire etc (if labour supporters thought climate change was a pile of shit Clark would not have touched it), and which is by the way zip to do with union founders.

     as has ACT.

     straw clutching IB.
3. lprent 3

   6 August 2009 at 9:50 am

   Venality does seem to be the emerging hallmark of the nact government. Certainly more interested in money now rather than future consequences.

   Interesting how cheap it is to buy a parties policy. Maybe that is the easiest way to get some sensible policy on climate change
4. Walter 4

   6 August 2009 at 9:56 am

   A measly 100k and it virtually sinks NZs credibility on climate change action – shit that’s a lot of bang for your buck. I didn’t realise Rodney was such a cheap root.

   I wonder if his raping and robbing of local government was bought so cheaply?
5. burt 5

   6 August 2009 at 9:57 am

   IrishBill

   So if ACT start giving special tax incentives to climate change denial ‘companies’ after receiving this donation we have an issue. Remember the undeclared $100,000 donation from the Vella family to Winston Firtst and the tax cut for the racing industry the same year – when ACT start behaving like Winston did we have a serious problem.

   Well a problem for some because I’m sure true to previous form some muppets will defend that sort of secrecy and policies for cash like they did for Winston because it is expedient for the National govt.

   How about you IrishBill – same standards for Winston/Labour as for ACT/National or are you going to demonstrate the true standard of the standard and prove how partisan you are about this?
   • snoozer 5.1

     6 August 2009 at 10:01 am

     they are effectively getting special treatment for Gibbs. They are working so his companies don’t have to pay for the cost of their carbon emissions. Not much different from getting him a tax break.
   • IrishBill 5.2

     6 August 2009 at 10:03 am

     Knocking over the ETS and delaying its replacement is a policy change that has saved emitting companies a lot of money. Who funds the ICSC?
   • burt 5.3

     6 August 2009 at 10:08 am

     You could say the same in reverse IrishBill – but I guess when it’s taking money off people to give to govt and that govt has a red flag then there is no need to query the motive.
6. burt 6

   6 August 2009 at 10:00 am

   Hang on a minute – did ACT declare this without needing the privelages committee to insist they did… what’s that all about ?
7. gingercrush 7

   6 August 2009 at 10:29 am

   Screw Act. Frankly I\\’ve heard enough from them. Roger Douglas just looks pathetic now days. The two new people look and act like aliens. Hide doesn\\’t use his brain enough. The only one I like is Heather Roy. Its a pity National is dependent on Act for support.While I share many economic viewpoints as Act. To be honest, they\\’re just too extreme. I know the blogs are full of far-right Actoids. That is a shame itself. As for their views on climate change. What bullshit. Them and the far-right need to get real. No matter how much you think its bullshit. The idea you do nothing is not comprehensible. Of course one doesn’t need to subscribe to the Greens or Greenpeace view. And Labour is full of talking-heads that achieve nothing. What is clear is that National will do something about global change.
   • Pascal's bookie 7.1

     6 August 2009 at 11:22 am

     “Its a pity National is dependent on Act for support.”

     National could govern without ACT if they wanted to ging. They’re not dependent on them, they just really like them and wish they could be so brave. Or something, I don’t pretend to understand it.

     But I certainly agree that it’s a pity.

     I yearn for a fewer crazy right. 😉

     What is clear is that National will do something about global change.

     Once they’ve finished driving tractors up steps, telling citizens to shut up, and paying for ACT’s review you mean? Or is that the something?
8. felix 8

   6 August 2009 at 10:32 am

   The last paragraph is particularly thought-provoking:

   The real surprise here is not Gibbs funding of ACT, or Rodney Hide’s adoption of a position calculated to please his biggest financial supporter. That’s pretty much par for the course in NZ politics, with a sometimes dubious relationship between small parties desperate for funds and wealthy business people seeking influence in Parliament. No doubt, if a green-leaning millionaire were to offer to fund ACT’s next election campaign a policy “accommodation’ could be reached. No, the question that really intrigues me is why Key caved in so readily to Hide’s demands for an ETS review. Did Key simply not think things through? Or was he happy to give Hide his head, secure in the knowledge that it would please a significant part of the National Party’s corporate and right wing support base — and give him plausible deniability in international circles? “Nothing to do with me, chaps. It’s all down to that awful Rodney.’ In either event, Key’s willingness to cut a bad deal was the lever that made Gibbs’ spend so effective. Hide will be remembered as a bumptious buffoon with wealthy friends, but Key will go down in history as a prime minister who failed his first big test.

   As wee-man would say, “indeed”.
9. randal 9

   6 August 2009 at 11:40 am

   paula bennet is right.
   talkback radio proved it!
   seriously folks the aquad has been around for years and every now and then they sell it on to someone else who needs the tax break.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS