How to harm your brand

83 comments on “How to harm your brand ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Nedyah Hsan 1

   19 June 2008 at 1:49 pm

   If certain industry insiders are to be believed, the interweb has no distinction as to where ads are placed.
   I’ve been informed in this instance, it’s more than likely Kiwibank approached their advertising based on making it visible on .co.nz domain addresses.

   Unless there’s another explanation, I’m inclined to go with this.

   captcha: Geller Cash …
2. all_your_base 2

   19 June 2008 at 1:53 pm

   My understanding is that you can screen unwanted domains – porn sites, kiwiblog etc
3. Steve Pierson 3

   19 June 2008 at 1:55 pm

   Well, the Bank can still choose not to have its name on a site and another recently withdrew its ad from Whaleoil’s site.

   http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/funny-karma-ii/

   I wonder if Kiwibank realises that Farrar opposes its existence?
4. Lukas 4

   19 June 2008 at 1:57 pm

   SP I see that Rabobank are now back advertising on Whaleoil.

   One would imagine that Kiwiblog would be a great audience for Kiwibank, if we are to believe Mikey Cullen most National Party voters are rich aren’t they?
5. Scribe 5

   19 June 2008 at 2:06 pm

   Kiwiblog is the most visited blog in the country, according to some stats I saw yesterday. Kiwibank advertising on Kiwiblog seems like a reasonable business strategy to me.
6. all_your_base 6

   19 June 2008 at 2:15 pm

   I can think of a lot of popular sites I wouldn’t necessarily want my brand associated with Scribe – the image of “the peoples’ bank” doesn’t fit well with DPF’s taste in humour.
7. andy 7

   19 June 2008 at 2:28 pm

   Mr Farrar had a post explaining scoop media would be running his adds.

   IMO most people who frequent kiwiblog would take a good deal even if it meant holding their ideological noses.

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

   this is a job for kiwiblogblog……

   not the standard..my 2c..
8. MikeE 8

   19 June 2008 at 2:39 pm

   I believe the advertising is handled by scoop media, who also do Public Address and scoop.co.nz

   The irony is that this page is titled (look up) “How to harm your brand at the Standard 2.01”

   😛
9. Stephen 9

   19 June 2008 at 2:52 pm

   Agree with Scribe. The site has about 3,000 registered users too I think. Though visits are a bit more important.

   This is like saying the owner of a chain of conference centers is having their brand harmed by drunken Irishmen disrupting the odd function, or by letting used car salesmen hire them out…
10. all_your_base 10

    19 June 2008 at 2:59 pm

    2943 of whom are rabidly opposed to Kiwibank 😉
11. djp 11

    19 June 2008 at 3:07 pm

    MikeE, Yeah the page titles have been bugging me too

    eg. “Keeping it in the family at The Standard 2.01”

    As to this post.. I dont think anyone really gets all that uptight about what blog their particular bank advertises on
12. Disengaged 12

    19 June 2008 at 3:11 pm

    After being caught up in the traffic jam that Kiwibank’s container in the Wellington harbour stunt caused last November I don’t have any faith in the intelligence of their marketing department.
13. Stephen 13

    19 June 2008 at 3:27 pm

    AYB, and half of *them* probably think Jim Anderton sets the interest rates.
14. Policy Parrot 14

    19 June 2008 at 3:28 pm

    I’m wondering when Michael Botur is going to do a cartoon on the people that died in the river canyoning tragedy, since he obviously thinks “tragic death” is funny? Surely it wouldn’t be hard to link rivers to electricity?

    Or maybe its only “funny” when it happens to minorities he is bigoted against?
15. Fairfacts Media 15

    19 June 2008 at 4:16 pm

    [Tane: SP, don’t bother with him. FFM, don’t think you can come on here and call Lynn Prentice a liar. And you can take your Islamophobia to Kiwiblog.]
16. Lampie 16

    19 June 2008 at 4:35 pm

    To be honest, It may need to be brought to their attention as seems as someone has already said one of general ad packages. Mind you, one must remember there is most likely Kiwi bank customers who visit the site and the bad cartoons would be more associated with the site than banner adverts.

    There really is no conditioning towards the consumer there
17. MacDoctor 17

    19 June 2008 at 5:04 pm

    I find Botur’s cartoons to be puerile, rather than funny, but I note that most of the Standard guys seem to appear in Kiwiblog comments, so I assume you all go there. Seems to me that makes it a good place for Kiwibank to advertise! 🙂
18. expat 18

    19 June 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Desperate guys, real desperate.
19. Karl Rohde 19

    19 June 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Hmmm… I like Kiwibank – I don’t have to talk to some idiot at a branch. Being a self-employed, tax-hunting, generally capitalist type person I probably don’t match the average demographic of a Kiwibank customer. But I have been with every bank currently with a presence in NZ other than TSB, and have to say Kiwibank is pretty damn good. Now if only this habit of charging $30 for an invisible direct debit default could be removed from their charges, I would be very happy.
20. NX 20

    20 June 2008 at 12:23 am

    Isn’t it ironic that Jim Anderton does his banking with the Commonwealth bank of Australia rather than the New Zealand owned Kiwibank he insisted New Zealanders wanted.

    ^he’s a crock of….
21. burt 21

    20 June 2008 at 8:35 am

    NX

    Isn’t it ironic that Jim Anderton is a shareholder in the Commonwealth bank of Australia. He’s a bit like Labour using an American stock photo for their advertising campaign.

    Do as we say and not as we do – YOU buy NZ made because WE don’t….
22. Ari 22

    20 June 2008 at 8:51 am

    Why do I suddenly have “Wave of Mutilation” on my head? 😉
23. Stephen 23

    20 June 2008 at 8:57 am

    Why is it ironic to be a shareholder in a company that does banking? Not like you can have shares in Kiwibank…

    How does anyone know what bank Jimmy has his money with?
24. Stephen 24

    20 June 2008 at 9:05 am

    Though yes it would be very odd indeed if he did his banking somewhere else, especially with THAT add campaign.
25. Phil 25

    20 June 2008 at 9:43 am

    ” making healthy profits,”

    So, let me get this straight, ayb… It’s not OK for an Australian owned bank to make healthy profits from it’s customers, but it is OK for Kiwibank to do so?

    What you are really saying is that the legitimacy of an outcome (ie; making profit) is dependent on who makes it, right?
26. DS 26

    20 June 2008 at 1:19 pm

    “What you are really saying is that the legitimacy of an outcome (ie; making profit) is dependent on who makes it, right?”

    The point is where those profits go.
27. Pascal's bookie 27

    20 June 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Phil
    It’s not OK for an Australian owned bank to make healthy profits from it’s customers, but it is OK for Kiwibank to do so?

    I’m not saying that AYB did not say or imply this, but could you point to where it comes from. Quoting is easy and makes following threads easier.

    What you are really saying is that the legitimacy of an outcome (ie; making profit) is dependent on who makes it, right?

    That’s a bit of a weasely worded construction. (The ‘what you are really saying… formation is a classic tell. You should stop using it).

    I might think that it makes sense to support my brothers company over a stranger’s. That doesn’t mean that I think the stranger’s business cannot legitimately make profits.
28. the sprout 28

    20 June 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Strange, Kiwibank normally seems quite clever with its marketing – but advertising in the Bog is quite a significant screw-up.

    Surprising too that the Bog is willing to accept commercial advertising for the affect it will have in EFA terms – i’d have thought Farrar’d prefer to pretend to be non-professional?
29. Nedyah Hsan 29

    20 June 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Stephen

    Have a look on the pecuniary interests register over at the parliament site.

    There’s literally a handful of people with a Kiwibank account. Maori Party holds the majority here.

    The majority are with BNZ (possibly from when it used to be a Bank of New Zealand before getting sold out thanks to that money-whore SRB.

    Some of the older folks have it with the old Postbank, now ANZ.

    And the technophiles seem to have theirs with ASB (best internet banking ever)

    I guess it is true. NZ’ers really don’t like changing banks.. though I’ve changed mine 4 times in as many years.
30. Matthew Pilott 30

    20 June 2008 at 3:53 pm

    “Literally a handful”? Tsk tsk.
31. T-rex 31

    20 June 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Lol.

    Cheer up Matt, at least he didn’t say “bank’s”.

    Oh – and Nyed? Second best. I give my price to Rabobank, which actually gives me a sense of security unlike all others!
32. KIllinginthenameof 32

    20 June 2008 at 6:12 pm

    the sprout

    Surprising too that the Bog is willing to accept commercial advertising for the affect it will have in EFA terms – i’d have thought Farrar’d prefer to pretend to be non-professional?

    The whole idea behind the advertising on kiwiblog (and whale oil too) is to push buttons with the efa. Farrar woudl just love to be a martyr, and with all nationals spare cash floating around at the moment he could get large scale tv and news paper coverage fighting it in court.
33. burt 33

    22 June 2008 at 8:31 am

    KIllinginthenameof

    What a sad cynical outlook you have.

    So it goes like this….

    Labour pass one of the most horrendous laws the country has ever seen in an attempt to silence political opposition. It explicitly makes the law so that things that were illegal (and they always did anyway) are now legal and things that other parties did that were legal are now illegal. The bill is so bad it offends the human rights commission. The left, not wanting to look past what has to be done to win a glorious forth term for Labour ignore all the bad stuff about his ridiculous law and support Labour. Calling opposition to the law partisan grandstanding.

    People object to the law, Labour seem to be unable to understand it and start breaching it all over the show. Yet it’s DPF and WhaleOil that are bad because they don’t like th EFA and they have advertising on their blogs….

    Far out… are the satellites watching you as well ?
34. burt 34

    22 June 2008 at 8:44 am

    KIllinginthenameof

    Here is an example of why we need got electoral finance laws.

    Stuff: Generation why bother – the no man’s land of politics

    Young voters helped swing the last election but only after Labour’s shock campaign promise to cancel interest on student loans drove a surge of late enrolments from young voters and helped Labour pull in an extra 100,000 votes. Many older relatives also piled in out of concern for young people’s heavy student debts. A late promise to massively boost Working for Families also attracted young families’ votes.

    But let me guess, policy on the fly just before an election with advertising funded by stolen tax payers money is good – DPF using advertising to help pay for his blog is bad.

    Where did you buy your tin-foil hat?
35. RedLogix 35

    22 June 2008 at 9:45 am

    Burt,

    And at the same time you are happy for National to be telling us to wait for policy until just before the election? In what way is that different to “policy on the fly”?

    Your continued reference to “stolen tax payer’s money” has been dealt to over and again. It was completely unreasonable for Brady to declare 7 of 8 parties in Parliament to have “stolen tax payer’s funds” AFTER the election. He fucked up but Parliament protected his office by not sacking the useless drongo.

    And of course you forget the GST funds that National STOLE from a broadcaster and NEVER paid back.
36. burt 36

    22 June 2008 at 9:50 am

    RedLogix

    Oh I know, anything is OK if others were doing it as well…. It’s all about National, they made Labour draft partisan laws and pass them under urgency….

    So RedLogix, how long have National been in control of the country with Labour being a hand-puppet reacting to what they do ?

    The AG, he’s wrong right ? Is that why all the parties who stole tax payers money repaid it ? (Except Winston because he’s special – there was a sign on his short bus that said so)
37. burt 37

    22 June 2008 at 10:00 am

    RedLogix

    IF National announce random fell good policies weeks before the election I will call them ‘election bribes’ just as I would/have when Labour do the same.

    It’s probably hard for you to understand but I don’t think as long as both parties are doing something crooked then it’s OK. A bit like using stolen tax payers money, it wasn’t OK because there was more than one party doing it. It’s a hard concept I know, it requires first looking at what was actually done to determine if it was wrong rather than making that judgment based on who did it. You should try it – but be warned you may stop supporting morally and ethically bankrupt political parties once you realise integrity is something we should judge on parties actions not their names.
38. randal 38

    22 June 2008 at 12:48 pm

    money doesn’t talk it swears and sometimes the president of the united states must stand naked…bob dylan: “it’s allright ma’, I’m only bleeding”
39. KIllinginthenameof 39

    22 June 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Sorry burt, you lost all credibility in the first 4 lines of what you said. But I’ll give you an answer all the same, my cynicisim (your right on that one) leaves me with a very positive outlook on life.

    David Farrar, along with Nationals lawyers (Bell Gully and that lot which helped them hide thier donors from the public last time) have been over and over the law, he knows it inside out, the advertising on his site probably only generates a couple of dollars a day, it is just there to push the limits of what counts as a blog. He knows that, I know that, you know that, he is intentionally trying to push the limits of the law to get free publicity, just like National has been doing with thier other court cases.

    Oh and you and the rest of the right’s new found concern for what the human rights commision has to say is very cute.
40. burt 40

    22 June 2008 at 2:53 pm

    KIllinginthenameof

    You missed one thing… If Labour hadn’t rushed badly drafted laws through under urgency then none of this would be happening.

    But keep shooting the messenger, the message is Labour suck at drafting electoral finance laws and we simply can’t talk about that can we. Oh no… It’s all DPF and Bell Gully’s fault…

    Please remind me again who has been caught by the EFA to date? Who’s suffering because of it? and last but not least – how many warnings do Labour need to receive that a law they want to pass is broken before they listen rather than use urgency to bypass the normal process to ensure this sort of crap can’t occur ?

    I must be hard watching your team loose when you know it’s all becasue you keep scoring own goals.
41. burt 41

    22 June 2008 at 4:16 pm

    KIllingthenameof

    Oh and you and the rest of the right’s new found concern for what the human rights commision has to say is very cute.

    Simply because Labour, who are good, choose to ignore the advice of the HRC you can’t assume that National, who are bad, have never cared about the opinions of the HRC.

    Are you using some kind of ‘It’s OK for Labour to do it because National did it first’ reasoning? You do know that this is a typical response for a young child and a justification that is not supported in the adult world or in law.
42. RedLogix 42

    22 June 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Are you using some kind of ‘It’s OK for Labour to do it because National did it first’ reasoning?

    It’s you who keeps repeating slanderous drivel and innuendo about the Labour govt in this blog, all the while never once bothering to acknowledge any of the following:

    1. It was National who blatantly and grossly breached the intent of the 1992 Electoral Act with their use secret trusts to anonymously launder 90% of their campaign funds.

    2. It was National who connived with a secretive third party to run a massive million dollar plus parallel electoral campaign.

    3. It was National who broke the observed conventions around electoral campaigning by leading out three months earlier than ever before, effectively demolishing the traditional boundaries that all parties had observed for generations.

    4. It was National who with a nod and a wink from a conniving official ensured that they had spent ALL of their Parliamentary Services funding BEFORE the traditional threee month campaign … a period that he then subsequently obdurately insisted on limiting his audit to.

    5. It was National who never paid the GST they owed a broadcaster because to do so would have broken their own law.

    6. It was National’s leader who was caught in an affair with the Deputy Chairperson of a major backer of the National party and whose behaviour was so damaging that he had to resign.

    6. It was National who conducted a hypocritical attack campaign, accusing every other Party of the very behaviour they themselves are demonstrably guilty of, in order to cover up their own gross mendacity and corruption.

    7. It is National that is now entering an electroral campaign with the deliberate intention of withholding substantive policy until the last possible moment. It might prove good tactics, but it is ethically bankrup, being both contemptuous to the electorate, and to the very to the purpose and nature of democracy. What a deeply dishonest basis on which to be seeking high office.

    8. It is National who is led by a man who got rich, not through honest endeavour, but as a currency speculator. In the old days we used to despise tax collectors. Well meet their modern counterparts… currency speculators are thieving parasites who STEAL money from whole nations for purely personal gain. This is how Key got rich, not from talent, skill or by making the world a better place…. but by gambling against the currencies of nations. It may be legal, but is not ethical, not by a long bloody shot.

    9. Read the Hollow Men again. Be ashamed, not by Hagar’s words, but by the irrefutable source material quoted. National is that Party that stands humiliated by the truths it has spoken when it thought no-one else was listening. Over and again we see plain public domain evidence of a National Party willing to set aside any trace principle in order to gain short term tactical advantage.

    This is the whole point that you keeping missing Burt. The National party is NOT a party representing conservative policy, personal responsibility and private initiative that you quite legitimately believe in. They do not believe in these things. Look at what they have DONE, not what they say. Look at their track record Burt. Look at my short list above and you will see that the National Party run by a clever gang of fast suits who operate just this side of the law, but are devoid of an ethical bone in their bodies.

    They accuse Labour of corruption and arrogance because it is the only thing they know, they only thing they feel comfortable talking about, the only way they know how to measure us.
43. T-rex 43

    22 June 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Red. Brilliant.

    Please please send that to Labour. God knows that they need some of that sort of material.

    Or try to arrange for it to be published. Or something.

    I think I’ll just email it verbatim to everyone I know.
44. r0b 44

    22 June 2008 at 6:55 pm

    RedLogix – excellent. Thanks for reminding me why this struggle matters. Onwards!
45. Billy 45

    22 June 2008 at 8:54 pm

    It was National who blatantly and grossly breached the intent of the 1992 Electoral Act with their use secret trusts to anonymously launder 90% of their campaign funds.

    You are wrong about the intent of the 1992 Act. Anonymous donations were the whole point. They were regarded as a virtue: the anonymity being between donor and political party. You might be skeptical about whether this actually occurred but a lot of lefties seem now to be pretending that the 1992 Act had some intention it clearly did not.
46. burt 46

    22 June 2008 at 9:01 pm

    RedLogix

    So rather than;

    Are you using some kind of ‘It’s OK for Labour to do it because National did it first’ reasoning?

    But ‘It’s OK for Labour to do it because here are 9 things National did’ reasoning?

    We just can’t get past this “they did it too” thing can we.
47. dad4justice 47

    22 June 2008 at 9:09 pm

    RedLogix

    Labour only know how to play the blame National or the “they did it too” card, as they are devoid of any alternative strategy that will deter their self destruction and eventual political annihilation.
48. T-rex 48

    22 June 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Man, this is like David vs Goliath.

    Well, sort of.

    Redlogix is Goliath.

    The difference is that Goliath is a nice guy, and a ninja, and a genius; whereas David’s been hitting the turps pretty hard, tripped over his sling, forgot the stones, and doesn’t even know what they’re fighting about (but if pressed can come up with some stuff about tax, one law for all, ‘justice’, and Australia, before rounding it off with some accusations of corruption).

    Goliath just tolerantly sorts sh*t out (regardless of who happens to be in government), while David staggers around being annoying.

    A parable for our era.
49. randal 49

    22 June 2008 at 9:21 pm

    are you guys on “P” or something. Its way past your bedtime.
50. dad4justice 50

    22 June 2008 at 9:37 pm

    Don’t you just love the left, you got T -rex quoting from the Bible and nasty randal calling us P addicts.
51. RedLogix 51

    22 June 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Burt,

    Let’s get it straight.

    The so-called “theft of taxpayer’s money” stemming from Brady’s audit was a contrived piece of bogus political game playing. The giveaway is this. Brady was setup. He was supposed to embarrass Labour, but he got carried away with his “honest and courageous civil servant” role and found ALL the parties guilty… except one.

    Even the Greens, whose recently deceased leader Rod Donald had chaired the most recent review committee on the rules around PS funding. How insanely implausible is it that Rod Donald, after leading an effort to clarify the rules in 2004, then deliberately ran his own party into a $68,000 “theft of taxpayers moneys” in the 2005 election? It makes no sense on any level. Such a result simply tells you that Brady was suckered into applying an overzealous intepretation that Parliament had not intended.

    Yet we all know that National spent their full allocation of PS funding right to the hilt as did every other party. They just spent it all before the pre-arranged three month cutoff period, thus avoiding Brady’s quixotic scrutiny. Legal, yes. Ethically…. it stinks to high heaven.

    But our democracy rests on some basic Parliamentary institutions, and one of them is respect for the Office of the Auditor General. Everyone KNOWS that Brady’s gullibility was exploited by National to carry out this sordid scheme, but in order to protect the office of the Auditor General the parties have all (except Winston who is still pissed by the whole slimy jackup) have accepted the ruling of the office and repaid the misallocated funds.

    In other words the referee may have blundered, but in the end respect for role of the referee is more important than winning an argument with him. Any team player knows this. (Well Winston was never a great team player…)

    Compare and contrast this with my list above. National has NEVER, not once accepted that they have done anything wrong. Even in 2006 right up to the introduction of the 2007 EFA, National were still using secret trusts to launder substantial donations:

    http://www.elections.org.nz/record/donations/donations-summary.html

    Despite widespread condemnation of the practice, National were still using trusts to hide the real source of their donations right up until the time the law stopped them.

    We just can’t get past this “they did it too’ thing can we.

    See if you cannot understand the difference between breaching a letter of the law… and grossly abusing the spirit of it.
52. burt 52

    22 June 2008 at 10:00 pm

    D4J

    They just don’t get it.

    A) I’m not a National party supporter. RedLogix did a fine job of pointing out some of the reasons why.

    B) Supporting a party that you say is fine because ‘It’s only done the same sort of things’ as a party you criticise for the ‘same sort of things’ makes you look like an imbecile and/or the partisan twat you really are.

    It’s been a tough polling weekend again D4J, I suspect the standardistas are all a bit grumpy.
53. burt 53

    22 June 2008 at 10:05 pm

    RedLogix

    The so-called “theft of taxpayer’s money’ stemming from Brady’s audit was a contrived piece of bogus political game playing. The giveaway is this. Brady was setup. He was supposed to embarrass Labour, but he got carried away with his “honest and courageous civil servant’ role and found ALL the parties guilty except one.

    So why then were all parties except one not charged? Oh I know, it wasn’t in the public interest…

    Look this is getting stupid, Labour retrospectively validated 14 years of questionable election spending returns. Now it’s all about what National did wrong. For god sake you got your get of jail free card and killed of Darnton vs Clark to boot – now you want to paint National black – I don’t get it?
54. dad4justice 54

    22 June 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Yes burt, the polls are all doom and gloom for Labour and I can understand why they are perturbed and disturbed.

    Isn’t is funny that any critic of Labour is automatically linked too the National Party.
55. burt 55

    22 June 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Two party mentality D4J, the golden days of socialism and all that. They are romantics at heart.
56. burt 56

    22 June 2008 at 10:21 pm

    RedLogix

    Brady was setup. He was supposed to embarrass Labour, but he got carried away with his “honest and courageous civil servant” role

    The tone you use here implies you think it’s wrong or worthy of distain that Bradly was honest and courageous. Would you like to elaborate on your opinion of him?
57. randal 57

    22 June 2008 at 10:36 pm

    make that “C&P” addicts. neither of you are bright enough to keep making this stuff up.
58. r0b 58

    22 June 2008 at 10:49 pm

    RedLogix: It was National who blatantly and grossly breached the intent of the 1992 Electoral Act with their use secret trusts to anonymously launder 90% of their campaign funds.

    Billy: You are wrong about the intent of the 1992 Act. Anonymous donations were the whole point. They were regarded as a virtue: the anonymity being between donor and political party. You might be skeptical about whether this actually occurred but a lot of lefties seem now to be pretending that the 1992 Act had some intention it clearly did not.

    Billy is right to the extent that we often oversimplify the 1993 Electoral Act (not 1992). If I can steal from NRT: “Section 214G of the Electoral Act 1993 requires party secretaries to file an annual return of donations, including the name and address of each person donating over $10,000 a year, or just the amount if the donation is anonymous. In order to be considered “anonymous” for the purposes of the Act, both candidates and party administrators must be unaware of the donor’s identity (s3(1)). Knowingly making a false return is a corrupt electoral practice and carries a penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a $20,000 fine.”

    So donations are supposed to be either (1) genuinely anonymous or (2) publicly listed – this is the intent of the law. National evaded the intent of the law by setting up shell trusts (like the “Waitemata trust”). Big money backers gave to the trusts which then gave to National. These people are not publicly listed so (2) is violated. And they are not genuinely anonymous either, as shown in The Hollow Men (see NRT link above), hence (1) is violated. The intent of the law is violated, but the letter of the law wasn’t technically broken, because the donations were listed as coming from these trusts.

    Hence RedLogix’s summary is essentially accurate: “National … blatantly and grossly breached the intent of the [1993] Electoral Act with their use secret trusts to anonymously launder 90% of their campaign funds.”
59. r0b 59

    22 June 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Look this is getting stupid, Labour retrospectively validated 14 years of questionable election spending returns.

    On the advice of Treasury, and as per standard practice (National once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending). And still for the three dozenth time Burt can put “retrospectively” in bold, but he can’t tell us what is wrong with it.

    Now it’s all about what National did wrong.

    Yes it is, for a change!

    I don’t get it

    And you probably never will.
60. RedLogix 60

    22 June 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Look this is getting stupid, Labour retrospectively validated 14 years of questionable election spending returns.

    You have are possessed of a common misunderstanding.

    The spending HAD to be retrospectively validated for technical reasons as Rob outlined above. (Thanks for getting the details right.) It is has been done on a number of occasions in the past for all sorts of reasons without arousing the slightest political comment. You have fallen for the trap of misusing the technical term “retrospective validation” that means a very specific thing in a Parliamentary context, and loaded onto it a completely unwarranted and spurious meaning in a wider one.

    What validation did NOT do was “make null and void” the AG’s report. You cannot have it both ways. Validation was NOT a dodge to ‘legitimise the mis-spending’. If it had done so then none of the parties would have been under any obligation to repay any monies. Which with one exception, is a ruling they have complied with. That is the end of the matter.

    And yes it is about what National did wrong. As Opposition their current tactic of ‘being a small target’ is only useful as long as they remain out of power. But if the polls translate into a win for them this election, it will not only remain about what is wrong with National; they will have nowhere to hide… and no clue about what is going to hit them.
61. burt 61

    23 June 2008 at 9:13 am

    National once retrospectively validated $50 million in illegal spending

    Oh that makes it all OK, a bit like this:

    Mr. [X] on trial for 17 murders said that Mr. [Y] murdered 25 people and that his 17 was not so bad. The Jury took 17 minutes under urgency to say that Mr. [X] was not as bad as Mr. [Y] and therefore we should call Mr. [X] good and Mr. [Y] bad.

    Thanks, I’m starting to get that breaking the law must be viewd relative to other law breaking and that there is no absolutes when talking about right/wrong in the context of dear leader.
62. bill brown 62

    23 June 2008 at 9:30 am

    Hahaha, burt and d4j crow about how the latest polls show a lead for the Nats and then we get a mutual love in from them both: ha ha they all think we’re Nat supporters.

    Well if you’re not Nat supporters then talking about bad poll results is a bit of a laugh – what result did the party you support get? Was it above the margin of error? I doubt it.
63. burt 63

    23 June 2008 at 9:38 am

    bill brown

    The party I support was below the margin of error. However I don’t feel compelled to make up justifications and/or stories about that.

    It just the way it is and the good thing about it is that I don’t actually care. It’s not like it actually matters because we all know that the parties with the biggest advertising budget spend will pull the rabbits out of the hat anyway. Then after stealing the election they will validate their illeagl campaigning and we will move on – or leave the country.
64. bill brown 64

    23 June 2008 at 9:43 am

    “The party I support was below the margin of error.”

    That’s a relief, I’m glad to find you’re part of an insignificant minority.
65. r0b 65

    23 June 2008 at 9:47 am

    Oh that makes it all OK, a bit like this:

    No Burt, that makes it all OK a bit like this: The retrospective validation of Government spending is a perfectly natural procedure that happens in most years.

    You are here whining and whining about Mr X, and you completely ignore Mr Y. You have already admitted that you are not interested in holding National to the same standards as Labour. Hence all of this is just your completely partisan National Good Labour Bad agenda.

    Fine, carry on.
66. higherstandard 66

    23 June 2008 at 9:50 am

    Bill

    What you seem to ignore is that persons like D4J and Burt are also part of a significant majority in NZ which the polls have accurately represented for some time.

    That is the majority that want the current government out – it may grate significantly with many who post or communicate on this site but Labour will be voted out rather than National being voted in, this has happened repeatedly when governments have changed over the last few decades.
67. burt 67

    23 June 2008 at 9:56 am

    That’s a relief, I’m glad to find you’re part of an insignificant minority.

    Do you really think I would be bagging the “one size fits all’ parties if I was a sheep who believed that one major party is good because it’s red OR one major party is good because it’s blue ?

    This is the good think about a democracy, you get to cast your vote based on your principals every now and then. Once you have done that people with no principals can claim that the unprincipled actions of the party that stole the election are OK because it’s the party they voted for. Then we can all move on. Funny how principals become something to denigrate somebody for when you can’t hold the actions of your own party up as a good example.

    rOb – I don’t support National, but they didn’t vote to hide 14 years of dishonesty. Can you clarify why if it pretty much happens every election why then were 14 years of validation required – surely 3 (or 6) would have done it? Was there possibly something different about this case?
68. T-rex 68

    23 June 2008 at 9:57 am

    HA!

    Quoting from the bible? Yup, rewording and mocking a religious parable is me at my most reverent. Sorry if the reference was too obscure for you there D4J, I should have realised I hadn’t dumbed it down far enough.

    Burt, it’s like this. I have a choice between totally immoral and self interested with complete disregard for the wellbeing of the majority of NZ (National), and the relatively moral and reliable Labour who seem to be genuinely working towards the best result for the most people and who I know AREN’T just paying lip service to it, because they’ve spent 9 years walking the talk.

    The choice is fu*cking obvious.

    As to the polls, thus far National has essentially been campaigning on the following platform:

    Vote National. We’ll do everything Labour will do, but better and with more spending allocated, and we’ll give you a huge tax cut. How? By the magic of ANTI-WASTE!

    People are already asking questions though – soon National are going to have to add the postscript of:

    It’s kind of like selling your soul, only you can pretend ignorance if you try really hard. Anyway, by “we’ll give you tax cuts” we really mean “we’ll give you tax cuts if you happen to be a you who earns quite a bit”. And if you’re one of those “you’s” then your gross abuse of the rest of society (through our proxy action) probably won’t hit to close to home initially so hey, forget it.

    Frankly, anyone who responds to a phone poll with “if there was an election tomorrow I’ll definitely Nationa” is basically just gullible. They’re choosing the mystery box. And really they’re choosing the mystery box while crossing their fingers and turning a blind eye to the aura of deceit. There’s still plenty of time for them to realise they’ve been suckered, so break out the banjos and get stuck into the grain alcohol while you can 😛 And perhaps pause to consider whether you’ve been suckered while you’re at it.

    End of the day, I’d lend 20 bucks to Cullen or Clark. I’d probably lend money to Key. But I wouldn’t go anywhere near English or Brownlee.
69. bill brown 69

    23 June 2008 at 10:00 am

    Well you’d better hold on tight to those principles because if the Nats get in there goes proportional representation and your dissenting views will be obliterated by the FPP levelling machine.

    Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
70. T-rex 70

    23 June 2008 at 10:00 am

    Burt = United Future

    Surely.

    Interesting. I’d always wondered who the hell voted for them!!!
71. r0b 71

    23 June 2008 at 10:02 am

    That is the majority want the current government out

    The majority of a somewhat biased sample who (1) get surveyed and (2) respond to the survey. It probably does represent a majority of the true general population, but not by as much as the polls claim.

    it may grate significantly with many who post or communicate on this site but Labour will be voted out rather than National being voted in

    Sure does!

    this has happened repeatedly when governments changed over the last few decades.

    Yes, the big wheel keeps on turning, it’s a very hard trend to buck. But rest assured that we’ll do our best. Change just for the sake of change needs to be weighed in the balance with 9 years of excellent government vs. a probable return to the 90’s.
72. higherstandard 72

    23 June 2008 at 10:06 am

    r0b

    Don’t give the NZ public too much of a hard time they have chosen a very worthy person to replace Sir Ed as our most trusted living citizen.
73. dad4justice 73

    23 June 2008 at 10:07 am

    ” Sorry if the reference was too obscure for you there D4J, I should have realised I hadn’t dumbed it down far enough.”

    Don’t be sorry T-rex, just look at the polls and see who is the dumb one.Bad luck dear!
74. bill brown 74

    23 June 2008 at 10:12 am

    “Frankly, anyone who responds to a phone poll with “if there was an election tomorrow I’ll definitely National’ is basically just gullible”

    Then you get the one’s who think the question is “Who do you think will win the next election” – well that’ll be the Nats – I heard it on the news.

    Or the ones that say what they think the pollster wants to hear – and I wouldn’t underestimate this number, especially after the EB’s push polling last time.

    And then there’s people like me – “none of your business and don’t call this number again I’m trying to eat may tea”
75. bill brown 75

    23 June 2008 at 10:14 am

    Oh yeah d4j – is the party you support above the margin of error? Does it even show up in the poll? has it ever? are ya a party of one?
76. r0b 76

    23 June 2008 at 10:20 am

    Ok Burt, you are trying to ask rational questions. Good development. I hope it’s a sign that yo are ready to move on from the Kiwiblog Right partisan lies on this topic.

    rOb – I don’t support National, but they didn’t vote to hide 14 years of dishonesty.

    It’s not 14 years of dishonesty – argh! (and if it was 5 of those years would belong to National governments). It’s 14 years of perfectly normal practice that the Auditor-General’s decisions after the 2005 election called into question.

    In 2006 Treasury advised that on the basis of the Auditor-General’s report all party spending since 1989 had probably been unlawful, which therefore left the Government’s books for that period unlawful. Legitimate accounts, which were nothing to do with election spending, were being refused for payment. This situation had to be resolved. Treasury advised retrospective validation to restore the long accepted status quo and so that the Government of NZ could function (pay its bills).

    Can you clarify why if it pretty much happens every election why then were 14 years of validation required – surely 3 (or 6) would have done it? Was there possibly something different about this case?

    Yes Burt, there was something different about this case, the spending involved related to elections (under both National and Labour governments since 1989. Why 1989 (why 14 years of spending) – because that is when the Public Finance Act 1989 (which created the existing regime for election spending) became law.

    To sum up Burt – law in 1989. National and Labour governments operate under that law. AG’s decision in 2005 challenges standard operation. On the advice of Treasury, so that Government can function, retrospective legislation validates established practices of National and Labour governments since 1989. Life goes on as normal. The Kiwiblog Right successfully paint all this has some kind of Evil Plot, and Burt runs that line forever more. Sigh.
77. burt 77

    23 June 2008 at 10:22 am

    T-Rex

    Burt = United Future

    You really don’t get this ‘principal’ thing do you? Dunne is a windsock, anyone who can vote for (or abstain on) retrospective validation isn’t going to get my vote . You have shown that although you do a good job of keeping up the denigration you don’t actually listen to what is being said.

    Compare how one party treated an MP who was suspected of being involved in illegal activities did they hand over said MP to the police to get it all cleared up or did they put said MP on garden leave and continue to use their vote for 2 years ? (IE: Look after their position in parliament before all else)

    Moving on from retrospective validation because people with no principals have no issue with that, how about Taito Field, we can get onto how Benson-Pope survived for so long after that.
78. r0b 78

    23 June 2008 at 10:22 am

    Don’t give the NZ public too much of a hard time

    Didn’t do any such thing HS.

    they have chosen a very worthy person to replace Sir Ed as our most trusted living citizen.

    Good for us.
79. bill brown 79

    23 June 2008 at 10:26 am

    I thought UF might be a bit popular for Burt – need to move down the pecking order a bit.

    I mean I’ve actually met people who’ve voted for it – well for Peter Dunne anyway. Mind you I did live in his electorate then.
80. higherstandard 80

    23 June 2008 at 10:31 am

    Bill

    Burt does indeed make a good point there are very few parties in NZ that have behaved as fast and firmly as Prebble did in the relation to Huata issue when dealing with their own MPs.
81. T-rex 81

    23 June 2008 at 10:35 am

    I’m pleased you think Dunne is a windsock at least. I was fooled by the fact that he’s forever bleating on about principles.

    Ok, you vote for someone else then. I don’t actually care who, flaky inrealistic parties are a dime a dozen in the bottom end of the spectrum.
82. burt 82

    23 June 2008 at 11:10 am

    HS

    I’ll wait now for a defender of the status quo to tell me that what ACT did was highly irregular and the normal practice (as seen with Taito Field) is “the norm’ and since it’s “the norm’ it’s not only acceptable but it’s also defendable on the grounds of convention. Then we can debate about how ridiculous it was for ACT to take any notice of the law when they could have just pretended that it never happened. After all one only needs to look at how decimated ACT were in the election that followed that to realise that they did the wrong thing from a power at any price perspective.

    I have no issue with being an irrelevant minority, the upside is I get to say what I think without needing to consider how it might reflect on my political party of choice. There are enough sheep in this country to ensure that major parties continue to be elected on mass, the little voice from the corner saying “something is wrong here’ won’t make much of a difference but that’s the way it is.
83. T-rex 83

    23 June 2008 at 11:34 am

    The upside is that you get to say what you think. The downside is that you’re still irrelevant.

    If the little voice in the corner was smart he/she would join a major party and change it from within.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS