NZ Herald to investigate Nats’ funding

19 comments on “NZ Herald to investigate Nats’ funding ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Billy 1

   13 November 2007 at 1:48 pm

   So this:

   http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=664#comments

   would be bullshit, and you’d be apologising to the Herald, then.
2. Robinsod 2

   13 November 2007 at 1:53 pm

   Billie – it’s a joke. Hint: the “Humour” tag gives it away. You might be sexy Billie but I don’t date dumb chicks – sorry love, dinner’s off.
3. Benodic 3

   13 November 2007 at 1:56 pm

   It’s a good thing you’ve got looks Billie.
4. Bryce Edwards 4

   13 November 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Ha!

   I wonder, though, when *Labour* are going to be challenged to “front up” about it’s ‘backdoor, closed-door and behind-the-scenes sources of funding from big business interests’?

   It’s interesting, because the Labour Party seems to have a worse record in terms of what The Standard might term ‘big business bribes’.

   And let’s not forget that in recent years, Labour has been receiving similar business funding amounts to National. It’s actually quite dishonest how many Labour Party partisans (such as the “progressive” Matt Robson) portray National as the recipient of big donations, when there’s really little difference between the modern Labour and National parties on this issue.

   Maybe that’s why there’s very few media exposes of such things.

   Bryce
   http://www.liberation.org.nz
5. Robinsod 5

   13 November 2007 at 2:14 pm

   Bryce – it’s a joke.
6. Billy 6

   13 November 2007 at 2:19 pm

   Hilarious.
7. Bryce Edwards 7

   13 November 2007 at 2:45 pm

   Robinsod – Yes, obviously it’s a joke, and that’s why my comment began with laughter – try reading it again.

   And, while fully knowing it was a joke, my question as to when Labour is going to be challenged, still stands. Much of the media, political commentators, and blogosphere lazily repeat ideas based on the myth that Labour is funded by unions and membership and National is funded by big business.

   The reality is that the Labour Party is very much the party of business – in terms of ideology and in terms of funding.

   Bryce
   http://www.liberation.org.nz
8. the sprout 8

   13 November 2007 at 2:49 pm

   yeah true bryce, that’ll be why Labour are trying to curb corporate influence on elections
9. Sam Dixon 9

   13 November 2007 at 3:04 pm

   Bryce – that’s rubbish. Yes A few major companies give the same donations to National and Labour but the biggest donors to Labour are still the unions, while National gets much much more funnled to it through trusts and the trust acounts of four law firms.
10. Insolent Prick 10

    13 November 2007 at 3:46 pm

    Sam,

    If Labour was so opposed to anonymous donations, why did they elect not to include a clamp-down on anonymous donations in the EFB? Perhaps we can point to the PM’s original answer: since they had to pay back the money they stole from the taxpayer and illegally spent at the last election, they have run out of money, and can’t afford to have a campaign next year without anonymous donations. Or how about we go to the PM’s other excuse? Without public funding of political parties, Labour can’t afford to go without anonymous donations.

    The National Party agreed right from the outset to dealing with anonymous and trust donations. The Labour Party instead decided to write electoral law overwhelmingly in its own favour, at the expense of everybody else.

    What a shameful, hollow act that is.
11. the sprout 11

    13 November 2007 at 5:50 pm

    hey that’s really clever how you keep inserting the word “hollow” into your descriptions of Labour, IP. it’s like it isn’t even Brash Key McCully Hooten who are the Hollow Men. ingenious.
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    13 November 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Hey Prick,

    When are you going to apologise for purporting that the Socialists are ‘hollow’ for skewing the Herald poll, when some teenager from Auckland has admitted to doing it for a laugh?

    Actually don’t bother, you talk such rubbish an apology would be a hollow gesture 😉
13. Insolent Prick 13

    13 November 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Let me get this straight, Matthew. A Labour Party-supporting chap skewers the poll, after admitting his anger that so many people were expressing anger at the Government that he decided to rig the result, and you want me to apologise for saying that Labour Party sympathisers were behind the poll rigging?

    That’s a very hollow request, Matthew.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    13 November 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Let me get this straight, you comment on how ‘hollow these socialists are’, and then magically transform that into “Labour Party sympathisers were behind the poll rigging?”

    Please. Get over yourself. Bit umm…hollow…there, maestro…
15. Insolent Prick 15

    13 November 2007 at 7:47 pm

    I said the socialists skewed the poll, and a socialist has confessed to skewing the poll.

    What’s your frigging point, Matthew? Are you still in the Russell Brown camp, that claimed that the altered poll result was the wonder of public opinion carrying the day?
16. Robinsod (moderator) 16

    13 November 2007 at 8:03 pm

    IP – his point is you can’t string an argument together so you just take two unrelated things, jam them against each other and hope nobody will notice you lack of reason. They’re called non sequiturs you fool and the grown-ups that frequent the standard see through them as quickly as we see through you. Like I’ve said before prick you should go back to Kiwiblog ‘cos you’re just embarrassing yourself over here and frankly? Being seen with you here is getting a bit embarrassing for us too.
17. Policy Parrot 17

    13 November 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Pity its a joke…

    Hypocritical of the National Party bloggers to ‘expose’ parliamentary and public sector staff (all allegedly Labour) commenting on blogs, distorting online polls, and editing Wikipedia in the name of transparency.

    Yet, they themselves in the eyes of Joe Public suffer a far greater degree of lack of credibility due to their unwillingness to identify key donors.

    They accuse Labour of impropriety with the pledge card when Labour was following established procedure (still needs to tightened up however) yet are equally as guilty on that sin, but in addition overspent their broadcasting allowance by not allocating for GST, and facilitated a pro-opposition campaign that broke the spirit if not the text of the election laws.
18. Insolent Prick 18

    13 November 2007 at 10:36 pm

    Parrot,

    The Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General, and the Chief Electoral all disagree with you that the pledge card was legitimately either an appropriate public expense, or not an election expense.

    I’m struggling to see what your point is, Parrot, because at the moment it seems pretty hollow. You seem to believe it is legitimate for the Labour Party to steal taxpayers’ money and illegally spend it on election campaigns; skew online polls in Labour’s favour; and apply “apolitical” civil servants’ time to commenting on blogs. You somehow equate this illegal behaviour with the perfectly legal act of donating to a political party.

    Being a Labour Party supporter, I’m not sure what your problem with anonymous donations is. Labour has had multiple opportunities to get rid of anonymous donations, and hasn’t even done so within the Electoral Finance Bill. Why? Because Labour has confessed that it can’t afford to do away with anonymous donations as long as political parties are not state-funded.

    You’re sounding very hollow tonight, Parrot.
19. AncientGeek 19

    14 November 2007 at 9:00 am

    IP

    If the period the the AG had looked at was 1 year rather than the 3 months before the election, then the national party would have had to pay back considerably more than Labour. The 3 month cutoff had no relationship to reality. Both major parties were campaigning for the whole of 2005.

    I understand that the iwi/kiwi billboards that the nats used in earlier in 2005 were paid for out of the leader of the oppositions budget. That campaign would have cost an order of magnitude more than the pledge cards.

    Online polls are just plain stupid and I’d have to question the judgment of anyone who believes them. Any vaguely competent programmer can skew them. I’ve seen then skewed both ways. I’m always happy to advise on techniques on the general principle that the more useless they get the less they will be used.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS