Pay the money back, John

Written By: - Date published: 4:00 pm, February 5th, 2010 - 22 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Today’s editorial in the Herald is headlined “Class standards leaflet a misuse of public funds.”

It says:

In response to criticism from educationists and an opposition roadshow by the primary teachers’ union, National MPs will host public meetings around the country and information on the standards will be mailed out to households. Unfortunately, this material, financed by the taxpayer, features the National Party logo on every page.This is not only a misuse of public money, it discredits the campaign to sell the standards. The information leaflet, which will be financed out of the Prime Minister’s leader’s budget, bears a striking resemblance to the sort of election advertising that National criticised the Labour Party for producing under the Electoral Finance Act.

In fact, Labour used this public money to promote policies that were rather less contentious than this. It would seem National has forgotten the distinction it once made between legitimate public information and political promotions in the last term of the Labour Administration, and ignored the rulings made then by the Auditor-General. The lesson of that episode was that money allocated to ministers and parties for the communication of policies and other information of public interest was not intended to be used to sell politically charged flagship policies such as national standards.

We look forward to the Herald’s campaign for the Prime Minister to pay the money back.

22 comments on “Pay the money back, John ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SHG 1
    5 February 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Hmph. Watching this with interest.

  2. tc 2
    5 February 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Mmmmm…..it’s an editorial, so watch out for another editorial justifying it next week or so in the interests of granny heralds ‘balance’.

    All that re-hashed/non news crap about the flag over the last 2 days whilst the new unemployment figures get buried pages back…….they’d be in the classifieds if certain folk there had their way.

  3. Irascible 3
    5 February 2010 at 5:10 pm

    huffing and puffing to look like the Herald has balance… the hypocrisy of the NACT govt has no bounds – from Double Dipton to Running Hide to Nosferatu Douglas to TV Lee and now the Tolley-Key sale of pre-failed policies – the money won’t be paid back. The NACTswill bluff and bluster it out and the Herald will sing their tune.

  4. batgirl 4
    5 February 2010 at 5:35 pm

    You don’t know the difference between a pledge card just before the election and promoting party policies in the middle of a term, which is what the leaders budget is for.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      5 February 2010 at 6:59 pm

      No, the leaders budget isn’t for promoting party policies.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          5 February 2010 at 10:03 pm

          IIRC, That was legislation already passed and not party policy. Slight difference there.

          BTW, the proof either way would be if it was covered by the Labour logo such as the one issued by National which was covered by the National logo.

          • batgirl 4.1.1.1.1
            6 February 2010 at 8:27 am

            Yes it had the labour logo. national standards don’t need special legislation.

            • lprent 4.1.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2010 at 10:25 am

              National missed -standards did require special legislation.

              Legislation that is passed through under urgency in all stages and bypasses select committee is in my view very special legislation.

              That could be done for urgent fiscal or liability bill. But not for some mundane crap like Tolley and Keys baby. The problem is that it bypasses all of the checks for flawed legislation. What you’re left with is a flawed soundbite ‘policy’ becoming unworkable legislation.

    • mickysavage 4.2
      5 February 2010 at 7:57 pm

      Is there a difference?

      What about “Iwi Kiwi” billboards? Is the funding of these appropriate advertising in the middle of a term?

      • batgirl 4.2.1
        5 February 2010 at 9:18 pm

        Yes that’s appropriate and so is it appropriate for the leader’s budget to pay for a labour party blog.

        [lprent: Bullshit. The minimal amounts are paid for by a few of the MPs themselves. It costs peanuts and effort to run a blog.

        Unless of course you have a travesty like the national MPs blog – which is paid for by the taxpayer. Why is that do you think? Do they need some minders to stop them dribbling into their bibs? ]

      • Graeme Edgeler 4.2.2
        6 February 2010 at 4:34 pm

        The Iwi/Kiwi billboards weren’t leader’s fund (or otherwise) taxpayer funded.

        They were funded by private National Party funds (presumably raised through the Waitemata Trust)

  5. Rob Carr 5
    5 February 2010 at 7:54 pm

    *sigh* and I thought it was bad enough they were sending MPs to do the job. They could at least pretend it isn’t advertising.

    • lprent 5.1
      6 February 2010 at 12:27 am

      Don’t be a refugee from reality at your dumping ground. How much does it cost to run your site? Peanuts – same as this site.

      The writers at Red Alert do not require hand-holders to stop themselves dribbling all over their bibs. That is why it costs essentially nothing apart from peoples spare time, same as here.

      You should direct yourself to the pathetic excuse of a site that calls itself the national MP’s blog. That has parliamentary funds written all over it. Explains why they never publish comments.

  6. Trevor Mallard 6
    5 February 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Party leaders budget has never paid for Red Alert. No, repeat no, taxpayers funds.

    • illuminatedtiger 6.1
      5 February 2010 at 10:55 pm

      Ssssh Trevor. Don’t get in the way of a good tory lie!

    • lprent 6.2
      6 February 2010 at 12:30 am

      You could do with a better About that explains more about the site. The dickheads will probably try to stir up the same kind of crap that they did for us.

      I’m afraid the the nutters of the right have little intelligence about looking for facts. They prefer to make things up unless it is written down in simple language for them.

  7. batgirl 7
    6 February 2010 at 9:51 am

    This expense is no different from labour’s leader office expenditure promoting the 2008 budget. Did you ask HC to pay that money back John?

    Leader’s office budget is meant to be used to promote party policies.

    • Graeme Edgeler 7.1
      6 February 2010 at 4:36 pm

      I think that’s a fair comparison. I don’t believe anyone really called for that to be paid back (it was – like this – clearly lawful), but that doesn’t mean it (or this) is right.

  8. Irascible 8
    6 February 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Ahh!! The Herald on Saturday trumpets the benefit of “NACTional Standards” – Rougham – to get rid of teachers who allegedly don’t measure up. A commissioned Neilsen poll that shows the public “love” the imposition of NACTional standards… balance has been restored and the Herald can continue to promote “Do Nothing but holiday” Key and his double dipton mates.

  9. Jum 9
    6 February 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Irascible

    I answered the Neilsen poll and I most certainly do not love the National Standards farce. And for Turia to blame the teachers for the pupils failing in school – did she tell Tolley – some of Tolley’s family are teachers.

    I can almost see the next headlines – bring back the cat o’nine tails. They could be used on the pupils and prisoners. Nothing like a bit of blood and pain to get these righties excited.

Links to post