National under fire over unauthorised advertising

80 comments on “National under fire over unauthorised advertising ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   8 April 2008 at 4:12 pm

   so remind me. Which party has broken the law over election advertising. Of course, Labour. You should blog that sometime…. Cant even obey its own law, so its a bit hypocritical pointing out other lawbreakers. thats called hypocrisy.
2. Billy 2

   8 April 2008 at 4:14 pm

   Check out Nanaia Mahuta in the background. I have never seen anyone looking so unimpressed.
3. all_your_base 3

   8 April 2008 at 4:16 pm

   dave, I just think it’s a bit petty for English to bleat on about this day after day when he can’t even get his own party in order.
4. Matthew Pilott 4

   8 April 2008 at 4:19 pm

   Great, Dave, so National is hypocritical for complaining about Labour’s breach. Good point.
5. dave 5

   8 April 2008 at 4:23 pm

   No Matthew, I didnt make that point. Really, I didnt. I made the opposite point that Labour is hypocritical for complaining about Nationals breach.

   Did you not notice. Good analysis. Well done. Time for a wee lie down.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   8 April 2008 at 4:27 pm

   Incidentally, the full policy is

   “National will:
   * Abolish TVNZ’s Charter, and redirect Charter-allocated funding through New Zealand On Air.
   * Institute appropriate adjustments to New Zealand On Air to ensure comprehensive accountability framework, clear statement of objectives, and transparent funding processes.
   * Through New Zealand On Air’s funding arrangements, seek to strengthen minimum levels of quality New Zealand produced programming on television.
   * Develop a new appointments process for the Boards of Radio NZ and TVNZ to secure apolitical appointments, and to recognize their role in our constitutional framework. ”

   – wow, that’s thinking big. At least they’ll get rid of the quality and New Zealand content aims of the Charter
7. Robinsod 7

   8 April 2008 at 4:28 pm

   No Dave I’m pretty sure you just pointed out National’s hypocrisy. Good on you for opening the other eye, I say.
8. lyndon 8

   8 April 2008 at 4:30 pm

   Speaking as someone who thinks the internet is for storing information, I wouldn’t have thought it’s doing anyone any favours to bring archive material into the debate.

   I also don’t imagine it was too clever of King to say they thought there was only one copy of Labour’s offending pamphlet went out this year.
9. mike 9

   8 April 2008 at 4:33 pm

   “Check out Nanaia Mahuta in the background. I have never seen anyone looking so unimpressed.”
   And if Pete Hodson ain’t Gollum then labours ahead in the polls..
10. slightlyrighty 10

    8 April 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Oh come on.

    What Annette King has produced in Parliament is a printout of a PDF from the National Archives from 2005.

    If the best that they can come up with is a web archived copy of a 2005 policy document then that is particularly sad.

    If you still have doubts, you can link to it from this page

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=5115

    So in effect, we have a constituent saying “Annette, you know that law you passed in dec 2007? Well National broke it in 2005!”

    LOL!
11. mike 11

    8 April 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Sorry I’m being a bit Precious..
12. higherstandard 12

    8 April 2008 at 4:44 pm

    Two things spring to mind.

    1. Have these people nothing better to do ?

    2. Is the legislation so poorly conceived that we’re going to have nochoice but to have crown resources put into reviewing this mindless cak from now until well after the election ?
13. Matthew Pilott 13

    8 April 2008 at 4:46 pm

    sorry dave, I gave your comment a bit too much credibility by responding to it there. I know you didn’t *actually* say that, but the effect is there all the same.

    Just to clarify, say I was in jail for fraud. Would I be hypocratic if I were to report another fraudulent act to authorities, if I was aware of one that had taken place?

    Lyndon, you make a good point, but much of National’s 2005 policy has no more recent equivalent, as is the case here – http://www.national.org.nz/PolicyAreas.aspx?S=47 – so I wouldn’t classify it ‘archive material’ until there’s a replacement…
14. slightlyrighty 14

    8 April 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Should the Electoral Commission now ensure that all historical material that may breach the act is now destroyed as well?
15. BeShakey 15

    8 April 2008 at 4:50 pm

    On National’s website, under the header ‘Broadcasting Policy’ is a link to the item discussed in the house. The fact that it is the same policy as the one they ran under in 2005 wouldn’t exempt it from the electoral law if it is still their policy (which the website implies it is).
16. Steve Pierson 16

    8 April 2008 at 4:52 pm

    What King has done is point out the asburdity of the Electoral Commission’s interpretation of the Act.

    But these are all side issues: the EFA is making sure that kiwis know who is trying to influence their vote. That’s a good thing, and that’s what National and its secret backers oppose.
17. Matthew Pilott 17

    8 April 2008 at 4:53 pm

    slightlyrighy, you are wrong. Click on ‘broadcasting’ from national.org.nz, and you’ll see the item in question under the heading ‘policy’. No such archival, sorry, it’s on their main page for broadcasting.

    Not that it’s a surprise that there’s no new policy (no new policy being the only policy) but if there is nothing else out there, it is fair enough to expect people will refer to it – it’s the only ‘current’ policy they have for broadcasting.
18. Steady 18

    8 April 2008 at 4:54 pm

    “Incidentally, what we can see of “national’s broadcasting plan’ in a_y_b’s pic uses exactly the same wording as their 2005 policy, so presumably it’s still the same”

    Go and read the post again Steve, the thing she is holding up actually is National’s 2005 broadcasting policy, it’s just still on their website.
19. all_your_base 19

    8 April 2008 at 4:59 pm

    slightlyrighty – if National didn’t believe that historical material might still pose compliance problems it’s strange that they’d go the the trouble of pulling Slippery John’s “Ambitious” DVD from YouTube and their own site – especially given the tens of thousands it cost to produce. No?
20. Daveo 20

    8 April 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Technically National are publishing it by putting it on their website. It’s absurd and petty, but then so is National’s dogging of Labour over a booklet that was handed out without permission from party HQ.
21. slightlyrighty 21

    8 April 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Matthew. It is clearly labled “2005 broadcasting policy” and is an archived PDF.

    And here’s a thought. How is it that the PDF in question has only one header, and yet the document brandished by Annette King has SEVEN! Why the obvious manipulation of the document? Can you explain this to me at all?

    Has Ms King registered as a third party campaigning for National or something?
22. Tane 22

    8 April 2008 at 5:06 pm

    I think she’s holding up seven different pieces of paper.
23. Occasional Observer 23

    8 April 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Oh, how lame. In response to Labour breaking its own law by distributing now, after the Act came into force, material that was not authorised, the Labour Party dredges up a policy statement published in 2005, before the law came into force.
24. hmm 24

    8 April 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Labour has all of its 2005 policy on its website as well. No authorisation. You can see the ECE one here http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/education/early_childhood_education.html

    I’ll admit it doesn’t say “Vote Labour” but it is clearly material that falls under section 5(1)(a)(ii) – “encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party of for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions or policies.”
25. all_your_base 25

    8 April 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Right you are Steady – interestingly though, I’m lead to believe there are rumours of the Nat’s forthcoming broadcasting policy doing the rounds at the moment. Expect a post on this in the not to distant future… Apparently the word “sell” features prominently.
26. Steady 26

    8 April 2008 at 5:32 pm

    a_y_b, selling what exactly? I know Shane Jones was running a line to the effect of National wants to sell Maori TV because they won’t say they don’t and Dail Jones still thinks it’s 1999 but other than that I’ve heard no serious suggestion – be it from within National or from Labour – that National is committed to selling things off.
27. Steve Pierson 27

    8 April 2008 at 5:32 pm

    hmm. Nah, the Act is clear that there’s a difference between stating policy and encouraging people to vote for you.

    OO. the phamplets that a labour candidate distributed were also printed before the Act came into force. the problem, according to the Electoral Commission’s overly zealous interpretation, was they were distributed (published) after the Act came into force and they ask people to vote Labour without having Mike William’s home address on them. that’s the same problem National faces having material on the internet (which counts as publishing)
28. Mike Collins 28

    8 April 2008 at 5:44 pm

    Can anyone advise me on this?:

    I would think that if the EFA captures in 2008 previous material such as National’s broadcasting policy from 2005 simply because it says “party vote National”, then shouldn’t it also count it to its 2008 spending cap?

    I would think that’s a logical assumption to make although if correct highlighting exactly how ludicrous this law actually is once again.
29. all_your_base 29

    8 April 2008 at 5:45 pm

    I’m afraid you’ll have to wait Steady.
30. dave 30

    8 April 2008 at 5:47 pm

    .. yet the stuff on the internet was published before the law came into force too so whats your point.

    perhaps it is that this post on Annette King should really be under the “fuckwits” category on your blog.
31. Occasional Observer 31

    8 April 2008 at 6:02 pm

    That’s a bloody good point, Mike.

    I guess the answer is that if it were ruled to be an election advertisement, the cost of the server space would be counted as an election expense: I imagine the National Party website is considered an election expense and included anyway, just as is the Labour Party’s website, and so too, according to Mike Williams, is the Standard’s hosting costs likely to be included in the Labour Party’s election expenses. No authorisation statement here, though.

    Funny how the Standard, which is clearly breaking the law by being a multi-author blog, as opposed to an individual blog, not carrying an authorisation statement as is required, making an issue of a 2005 policy release by National. Since the policy statement is on the National Party’s website, which presumably does carry a prominent authorisation statement from the National Party, it doesn’t seem to me to be material that the policy document itself does not have it.

    The ruling last week from the Electoral Commission does seem to give the Standard some hope that they can register as a third party organisation and host their multi-author blog on that, despite its clear connections to the EPMU and the Labour Party.
    
    IrishBill says: So OO what clear connections would they be? We’ve had no contact from the commission about Camerons “complaint” either. I’m starting to think he made the whole thing up.

    [lprent: Mike Williams said that they would account for the server that we were on for 3 weeks. It was a donation to the NZLP, and some kind techs allowed us to use it when we were having server issues. He never said that the NZLP had anything to with The Standard. What he said was that some labour activists (like me) helped setting the thing up (along with a few greenies and unionists and god knows what else). I realise this may be a hard concept for you to understand, but being a supportor of a party does not mean that I am the party.

    Our hosting now costs $70/month + an annual domain registration (paid by me). So even in the worst possible case we can do this site as a third party individual or organisation. We won’t get close to spending limits. But I’d be more likely to restructure the site so it is multiple individual sites, with a access site. However I don’t interpret the sections of the act the way you or Whale does. Each author is writing their own posts and there is essentially no editorial control. I think that conforms to the act sections about blogs – it isn’t like it is run as an organisation.

    When (and if) the electoral commission rules on the subject of multi-author blogs, then we will do whatever is required. At present the legal position is ambigous. So virtually every blog site that does political comment is awaiting clarification. An extreme interpretation would prevent guest posts for instance. But I haven’t been contacted yet.

    So you are an idiot, because you don’t bother turning your brain or ears on before writing. You certainly don’t ‘observe’ much because all of this has been written here before. Based on your comment I’d also suggest that well as being legally illiterate you are probably technically illiterate as well.]
    
32. hmm 32

    8 April 2008 at 6:08 pm

    Steve – sorry but you’ll have to point me to the place where the Act says that just stating policies isn’t covered. I don’t believe it says that at all. The definition of Election Advertisment is quiet clear – the section I quoted shows that if you persuade people by reference to your policies it falls within that.

    The EC ruled the pamphlet last week is an Election Advertisement and that only mentions policies (it doesn’t say Vote Labour anywhere – it just says we’re doing a good job look at all the good stuff we’ve done). The problem also isn’t a lack of Mike William’s (actually it would be Mike Smith who should be on there) address on it – its the lack of a promoter statement at all.

    The stuff on this page http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/education/early_childhood_education.html clearly tries to persuade people to vote for Labour by saying we’ve done a great job so far, look at all the stuff we’ve done and look at what we’re going to do in the future.
33. slightlyrighty 33

    8 April 2008 at 6:08 pm

    By the way, those saying that the information from the website is unauthorised should note that the national party website does carry an authorisation statement.

    At the bottom of the first page you will read “Authorised by M Oldershaw, 276a Fergusson Dr, Heretunga, Upper Hutt.”

    I would assume that this would cover all contents of the website.

    Incidently, the Labour website carries no such authorisation whatsoever.

    The Green Party website does have an authorisation statement, as does ACT. The Maori party and NZ first do not appear to have any authorisation statement.
34. Occasional Observer 34

    8 April 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Oh, and I’ve just checked. Yes, the National Party website does have a clear and prominent authorisation statement. The content on the website appears to be covered by that blanket statement on the front page of the website.

    The Labour Party doesn’t have an authorisation statement on its website.
35. randal 35

    8 April 2008 at 6:14 pm

    CUT TO THE CHASE: all their advertising {NATIONAL}is slightly creepy anyway and appeals to the most base prejudices and bigotry of the greedy and the cliques who like to dominate for pleasure and extort for profit
36. IrishBill 36

    8 April 2008 at 6:22 pm

    When it comes to websites, unless the authorisation is in the template and thus viewable on every page it needs to be printed on each published election advertisement. When it is electronically published the server cost and the labour cost need to be included in the party’s return. If content does not fit the description of an election advertisement it does not need to be authorised or included in the return. Anything with “Party Vote National” on it certainly falls into the category of an election advertisement unless it is contained in an established periodical as editorial content.

    It’s a funny old law.
37. Mike Collins 37

    8 April 2008 at 6:27 pm

    “It’s a funny old law.”

    Heh that’s one way of putting it.
38. Higherstandard 38

    8 April 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Randal I agree

    From the Nat’s website

    We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:

    • Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign
    as Head of State
    • National and personal security
    • Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
    • Individual freedom and choice
    • Personal responsibility
    • Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
    • Limited government
    • Strong families and caring communities
    • Sustainable development of our environment

    this is clearly slightly creepy and will only appeal to the most base prejudices and bigotry of the greedy and the cliques who like to dominate for pleasure and extort for profit
39. slightlyrighty 39

    8 April 2008 at 6:33 pm

    I would also have thought that a 2005 policy document archived in PDF form on a website might be overlooked given Annette Kings referral to the “Law of Common Sense” given that a law drafted in 2007 probably cant be applied to a document written in 2005?
40. insider 40

    8 April 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Steve

    if Annette King was pointing out the absurdity of the EC view, why did she not say that instead of saying she supported the EC’s view of the law
41. dave 41

    8 April 2008 at 6:40 pm

    probably because she doesnt know if she supports the ECs view of a law that she does not understand, and to state support for the ECs view would be tantamount to showing ignorance of her stated position if chanllenged on it.
42. reid 42

    8 April 2008 at 6:42 pm

    Yeh, individual freedom and choice is such a creepy concept – to collective thinkers.
43. IrishBill 43

    8 April 2008 at 6:45 pm

    HS – I do find some of those lines a bit creepy when their subtext is taken into account. For example Equal citizenship and equal opportunity is a line that grew out of Orewa and used to dog-whistle racial discontent and Individual freedom and choice has been synonymous with privatising social services since it was first used in the 1980’s.

    Speaking of which captcha is “besieged colleges”, a foreshadowing of the nat’s education policy perhaps?
44. Higherstandard 44

    8 April 2008 at 8:02 pm

    IB

    Nice spin – however I’m afraid your comments are about as partisan as someone on a right blog taking offence at the Labour party charter.

    If you’re looking for racial discontent I’d go no further than NZ First (I note Winston is also not supporting the FTA with China – bizarre !)

    If you’re alluding to the Nat’s privatising 2dary education I can’t really see it myself.
45. burt 45

    8 April 2008 at 9:18 pm

    all_your_base

    dave, I just think it’s a bit petty for English to bleat on about this day after day when he can’t even get his own party in order.

    And what about Annette (I can appoint my mates to DHB’s) King? How bizarre for an adult to take the child’s approach that even though Labour have broken their own law they will still point at National and scream like a baby They did it too.

    What a complete waste of space – the woman is sad example of what happens when a person with little intellect is given far too much power.
46. burt 46

    8 April 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Occasional Observer

    The Labour Party doesn’t have an authorisation statement on its website.

    Why would they, just because they say others must have it is no reason for them to do the same. Just remember that Labour make the laws for others to follow, Labour are above all that shit. Move on!
47. Lyn 47

    8 April 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Ok – off topic but….regarding the content of National’s broadcasting policy – the charter model isn’t working, sorry Steve. Anything made with charter money gets screened off-peak because it attracts no advertising and therefore is simply wasted. We need a real public broadcaster in New Zealand – anything else is probably doomed to ineffectually straddle the twin imperatives of being intelligent/niche orientated and attracting ad revenue. TVNZ might be getting govt funding, as National claims but it also has to make money for the government. The whole situation is oxymoronic.

    Judging from what I’ve seen in the film and TV industry here, National’s plan to redistribute charter money through NZOA will make bugger-all difference to quality programming, since NZOA is required to give money to projects that are going to attract big audiences (hence funding of things like New Zealand Idol from public funds), and I can’t see that changing under a right government who will hardly be looking to nationalise broadcasting. We need a properly funded, genuinely public avenue for moving-image programming that isn’t dumbed down, and actual budgets that are not 2/3 or less the size of those in other western countries. National’s plan for “quality” shows little grasp of the realities of broadcasting in New Zealand.
48. Monty 48

    8 April 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Annette King is a liar who misled Parliamnet is a sad and esperate effort to deflect attention from Labour’s own rorting of the EFA. This is the second time that this has happened in quick succession (the first being Cullen Lying about the DVD that has not been distributed this year.

    Are right wing bloggers going to have to spend the year showing up Labour’s Lies.
49. Razorlight 49

    8 April 2008 at 10:35 pm

    Surprise surprise surprise.

    Noone has a clue what this act, the most terrible piece of legislation in New Zealand history, covers.

    Labour was warned, warned and warned about 100 more times that the result of pushing this through, against the across the board opposition, and without the proper consultation needed for such an important law, would be this confusion.

    This argument will continue until the election with breaches coming left right and centre. And who can we blame for the shambles.

    The Labour Party.
50. dave 50

    8 April 2008 at 10:45 pm

    And Crown Law.
51. Robinsod 51

    8 April 2008 at 11:47 pm

    Oh boohoo – how many of you actually have any experience of working with the EFA? That’s right. None. The truth is the EFA is fine to work within – the problem is the expectations of vexatious litigation. From morons like Davey. PR hacks don’t like it because it means you have to log and account for anything that may be classed as an election advertisment and I say “may” ‘cos you’re not maintaining records of what is distinct campaigning but of what might be challenged as such by the shit-stirrers that want to take us back to the good old days of anonymous trusts and hidden spending.

    The EFA is new law and is thus open to interpretation. If you are a left-wing organisation or party you will need to take care to log everything (including an explanation of your interpretation). If you are a right-wing organisation or party you are unlikely to be challenged because the challenges come from the right. And that’s because teh payoff for discrediting the EFA is for the right and the right (and specifically the big money behind National) have embarked on an extremely cynical campaign to turn the testing of new law into the exploitation of new law for political gain.

    What amazes me is that all the rightie chumps who are frothing over this will never have to work with it. You have been sucked into abetting a campaign that is designed to undermine legislation that lets you know who is behind political campaigns aimed at getting your vote for control of your country. Campaigning to keep yourselves in the dark. What good little house-slaves.
52. burt 52

    9 April 2008 at 12:26 am

    Robinsod

    Attacking the messenger ( Davey ) is not undermining the truth that the Electoral Commission found that Labour had broken the law. This subtle reality seems to have evaded you. The attack from the right (and the reasoned voices of the Human Rights commission etc) was well established before this law passed, Labour were warned and they pushed it through. Now there are consequences being paid so how about you bite down on it, get a handle on the shooting the messenger behaviour and take your Ritalin.
53. Robinsod 53

    9 April 2008 at 8:22 am

    You don’t get it Burt – I don’t care that Labour broke the law. That’s their problem and it’s let you know they were using public money for the “makes the difference” booklet – what’s your problem with that? Would you rather have not known?

    And by the way burt the HRC criticised the first draft of the bill but were happy with the version that went through – by dragging them into it all you’re doing is perpetuating Davey’s lies…
54. Occasional Observer 54

    9 April 2008 at 9:37 am

    Clearly you have fallen for Labour’s spin over the Electoral Finance Bill Robinsod. The HRC didn’t say they were happy with the Bill. They said they believed that the changes made between the first and second versions were an improvement. That’s not the same thing. http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/statementontheelectoralfinancebill.php

    Given the HRC said that Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on freedom of speech, and should be withdrawn; and that they continued to criticise the Bill throughout the process, you can hardly say that they were “happy with the version that went through” Robinsod.
55. Robinsod 55

    9 April 2008 at 10:01 am

    I notice that you don’t address the main point of my comment, OO – how about you tell me why it’s a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?

    Oh, and to claim by implication (as Burt has done) that the HRC attacked the final version of is simply wrong. Your link shows that the HRC was “pleased” with the changes from the original but not happy about it not going back for further consultation. At no point in your link do they say the “Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on freedom of speech, and should be withdrawn”. I suggest that if you’re gonna post links then you should make sure they back up your point bro.
56. dave 56

    9 April 2008 at 10:11 am

    Robinsod,
    you appear to have as much knowledge of the EFA as Annette King. Less, in fact. Which is not much. Particularly as you are the only person in the country who believes that the EFA is fine to work within. Even Annette King doesnt believe that, despite repeatedly advocating for it while saying it parliament that Labour Party did not bring in the Act to regulate other parties in this House, but to address what she thought was rorting fronm Natinal

    whose rorting now? Labour, of course. Always was.
57. Occasional Observer 57

    9 April 2008 at 10:11 am

    The EFA hasn’t forced transparency over the booklet, Robinsod. Labour spent $800,000 of public money last election on the pledge card. That spending was unlawful. Labour has since introduced provisions allowing parties to spend taxpayers money for “parliamentary purposes” which also, conveniently, turn out to be election advertisements. That is not transparency. That is public funding of political parties by stealth.

    The HRC initially said that the Bill was inherently flawed, was a dramatic assault on free speech, and should be withdrawn. They never retracted those views. When the second version of the Bill came out, the HRC said that they were pleased that some areas had been addressed, but others hadn’t.

    Yes, you are correct that the HRC was concerned that the Bill did not go back to select committee. But that was not their only concern. They remained concerned that the spending limits for third party organisations were too low, and that there was no rationale, or advice, to support extending the election period from three to eleven months. The latter is a critical point, and never went away.
58. higherstandard 58

    9 April 2008 at 10:34 am

    The only thing that appears clear from the this thread is that Labour supporters favour the EFA for one major reason.

    That in relative terms the EFA advantages National over Labour.
59. Robinsod 59

    9 April 2008 at 10:34 am

    Dave – Firstly, you are a moron. Secondly – I have had had no problem with the EFA and the nature of my consultancy business is such that I regularly have to work within the EFA and and maintain contact with the EC. I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.

    Thirdly – I note you also fail to address my question so I’ll reiterate it (you being a bit slow and all):

    Why is it a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?
60. Robinsod 60

    9 April 2008 at 10:35 am

    The only thing that appears clear from the this thread is that Labour supporters favour the EFA for one major reason.

    That in relative terms the EFA advantages National over Labour.

    In what way, HS?
61. higherstandard 61

    9 April 2008 at 10:35 am

    OOps meant it the other way around – sorry early surgery this morning …… need more coffee
62. Robinsod 62

    9 April 2008 at 10:37 am

    Ok – in what way does it favour Labour over National then?
63. dave 63

    9 April 2008 at 10:43 am

    I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
    Okay. lets see, answer this without looking at the Act:
    How much money does a third party have to spend before appointing an auditor?
64. Robinsod 64

    9 April 2008 at 11:13 am

    Nah sorry Dave – you can answer my question first (you even misdirect like a moron):

    Why is it a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?

    IrishBill says: ‘Sod you can make your point without the abuse. In light of your recent banning, you should certainly think about doing so.
65. Robinsod 65

    9 April 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Sorry Irish, point taken.

    Hello? Hello righties? Hello? It’s just one little question. Not too hard to answer, surely? Hello?
66. higherstandard 66

    9 April 2008 at 1:32 pm

    RS

    Just to finsh off this post as it’s going no where I refer you back to my comment way above in relation to the forced transaparency over the booklet.

    1. Have these people (parliament, Crown Law etc) nothing better to do ?

    2. Is the legislation so poorly conceived that we’re going to have no choice but to have crown resources put into reviewing this mindless cak from now until well after the election ?
67. slightlyrighty 67

    9 April 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Robinsod.

    The EFA favours an incumbent government by enabling Govt Departments to announce Government Policies unencumbered by spending limits.

    Lets take Working for Families for example. The Government Announced WFF with wonderful ad’s showing middle class families living wonderful lives where Dad summons daughter to dinner via text even though she is 10 feet from dad. Ha ha, very jovial.

    Given that WFF is a Labour policy, and that the announcement of that policy is done in such a way as to make voters favourably view the policy, then there is a benefit to Labour, without affecting the spending limit.

    Opposition parties, responding to such advertising in election year, are subject to spending limits.
68. Steve Pierson 68

    9 April 2008 at 2:20 pm

    slightyrighty. WfF is a new Government policy. People who are eligible for assistance have a right to know about such policies, that gives Government departments a duty to advertise.

    I don’t see you complaining that Police recruiting ads are political advertising because of the 1000 new cops.
69. Steve Pierson 69

    9 April 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Do you also oppose the smear-test ads, also related to Labour policy?
70. Robinsod 70

    9 April 2008 at 2:48 pm

    HS – that’s not an answer. Electoral law is some of the most important law on teh books. It requires a lot of testing and resource to make sure everyone know where they stand. I take it you would rather not know who was paying for the booklet and consequently a lot of other materials put out by Labour and other parties?
71. dave 71

    9 April 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Robinsod, forget it, youre ignorant, arrogant, and abusive. I only engage with people who are constructive.
72. Robinsod 72

    9 April 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Dave – you mean “you’re” not “youre” (the apostrophe signals the absence of the “a” in the contraction of “you are”). You also shouldn’t use both a comma and an “and” to finish your list of insults as a simple “and” usually suffices – please bro, your poor punctuation embarrasses both of us.

    So now I’ve offered some constructive criticism you will answer my question? Or is your capacity to construct a logical argument as poor as your writing?
73. higherstandard 73

    9 April 2008 at 4:11 pm

    RS

    Correct I couldn’t give a crap.

    To paraphrase another poster on this site – if you took all the electioneering materials from the right and left of the political spectrum you’d have two equally sized piles of shite.
74. Robinsod 74

    9 April 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Well, I can’t argue with that.
75. randal 75

    9 April 2008 at 10:27 pm

    gee hs your wit cuts like a knife throught two piles of shite…plenty of practice huh? answer me this…why do you righties spend half your time telling everybody how wonderful you are and the other half abusing everyone..perhaps you need some brain surgery…sloppy axons?
76. burt 76

    9 April 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Robinsod

    You don’t get it Burt – I don’t care that Labour broke the law.

    It was their own law, they couldn’t work within it yet you say it’s easy to work within. So what was it Robinsod;

    a) Labour choose to try and work around it.
    b) Labour are so incompetent they can’t work within a law that is easily worked within?
    c) The law is not easy to work within and you make shit up to support your weak partisan arguments.
77. Robinsod 77

    10 April 2008 at 9:48 am

    I still don’t see your point Burt. Labour slipped up through poor communication with its caucus – but Labour’s incompetence is not my problem. The law is easy to work within as long as a bit of care is taken. If the best you can do is tell me I’m making shit up you then I suggest you give up now.

    You still haven’t answered my question though – Why is it a bad thing the EFA has forced transparency over the booklet?
78. higherstandard 78

    10 April 2008 at 9:56 am

    Randal

    ‘why do you righties spend half your time telling everybody how wonderful you are and the other half abusing everyone..perhaps you need some brain surgery sloppy axons?’

    I think you’ll find the majority of posts and abuse on this site is from the political left, although if you are keen to see the converse perhaps you could try Whaleoil’s site
79. James Sleep 79

    10 April 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Why the hell did I not look into that pamphlet that I was given by two National Party ‘non-partisan’ parliamentary services employees in January? They came rushing up to me with the ‘John Key for Prime Minister’ pamphlet…. Now I kick myself, why the hell did I not really look at them properly.
80. higherstandard 80

    12 April 2008 at 5:15 pm

    An interesting perspective from the Dom post

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4475805a6483.html

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS