Will the real John Key please stand up?

50 comments on “Will the real John Key please stand up? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Double Standard 1

   28 November 2007 at 7:29 pm

   Well, good thing there is almost a year before the next election eh?

   Plenty of time to further improve his profile.

   I notice that Aussie’s were still asking “Who is the real Kevin Rudd?” even after he had been elected PM.

   After all – we know the real Helen Clark – venal, vindictive, thieving, power hungry, grandstanding, forging, etc.

   Honestly, Standardista’s clamouring for John Key to “front up” are about as credible as Michael Cullen proposing tax cuts.
2. Gruela 2

   28 November 2007 at 7:41 pm

   Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.
3. gobsmacked 3

   28 November 2007 at 8:01 pm

   Actually the real Helen Clark had already been Cabinet Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and then Labour leader for six years, before she became PM. People knew what they were voting for, and that’s why she’s won three elections.

   Key is hoping that people won’t know what they’re voting for. That’s a strategy doomed to fail.
4. redbus 4

   28 November 2007 at 8:02 pm

   “After all – we know the real Helen Clark – venal, vindictive, thieving, power hungry, grandstanding, forging, etc.”
   – Just because Hockey players in Canada are evil, doesn’t mean that our Hockey star Helen Clark on the NZ girls Hockey team is.
5. thomas 5

   28 November 2007 at 8:15 pm

   Linda Clark probably dear Leaders liarbour communist sister 🙂
6. The Prophet 6

   28 November 2007 at 8:32 pm

   Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.

   Hmmm Gruela’s vote is influenced by anon internet comments he/she doesn’t like?

   Quite strange really.

   Gruela you’re not Robert Owen/Santa Claws are you?
7. Gruela 7

   28 November 2007 at 8:56 pm

   I am Gruela! All cower before me!
8. The Double Standard 8

   28 November 2007 at 9:03 pm

   “Keep up those attacks, Double. They’re really starting to make me more more inclined to vote National.”

   I don’t think that anyone that has your communist and anti-media attitudes will ever be voting National. I’d pick you as a Green voter, except that even Keith Locke is probably not repressive enough for you.

   So do try to keep the sarcasm in check.
9. The Double Standard 9

   28 November 2007 at 9:10 pm

   BTW, It isn’t this the same Linda Clark “a consultant with national law firm Chapman Tripp” who co-wrote this piece on the EFB in the Herald recently?

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10478254&pnum=0

   “Such uncertainly about the true meaning of the proposed law fundamentally erodes the principle of the rule of law.”

   “It might be good business for public law litigators, but it is bad news for the democratic process. Perversely it may also fetter free speech.

   The current cost of a full day at the District Court is about $30,000. That’s a mighty deterrent to anyone with something to say who’s fearful of being challenged by a rival.”

   “The Law Society has called on the Government to send the amended bill back to a select committee for further consideration. That would be the right thing to do.

   Democracy and elections exist for the benefit of citizens, not politicians. Those same citizens should be given the opportunity to review the law that regulates their participation in the electoral process.”

   Hey, at least we know what National’s and John Key’s position is on the EFB – kill it!
10. the sprout 10

    28 November 2007 at 9:35 pm

    my my, the fascists really are making a concerted effort to troll this site at the moment. must be hurting them and their employers.

    capcha “clients economies”
11. the sprout 11

    28 November 2007 at 9:37 pm

    or maybe just with the failure of the anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign, and now jonkey’s abject failure at spinning to conceal his vacuity, they’re starting to get a bit worried?
12. Gruela 12

    28 November 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Sorry Double, sarcasm being locked into a drawer as I type.

    Actually, I was a Green member back in my early twenties, but their inflexibility and fundamentalism didn’t sit well with me and I drifted away. Right now there’s no party in parliament that really fits my philosophy, so I’ll probably be voting Labour just to keep the New Right out of power. I honestly believe that their free-market policies are no good for New Zealand, and will only result in a widening of the wealth gap in this country with a resultant upswing in crime and poverty. That’s not the country I want to live in. (Now, if it was still Jim Bolger in charge, instead of JK, then I would probably reconsider.)
13. Lampie 13

    28 November 2007 at 9:42 pm

    anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign

    You mean that gigantic march on Parliment?
14. gobsmacked 14

    28 November 2007 at 10:05 pm

    So John Key is on his Heartland Tour (translation: getting away from pesky Wellington journalists) and opens up to the local paper. He reveals that he supports the future, which he hopes will be better, not worse:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4290709a6571.html

    Key-watchers will notice that on MMP, he resorts to his favourite tactic: he’s in favour of a “debate”.
15. the sprout 15

    28 November 2007 at 10:19 pm

    “You mean that gigantic march on Parliment”

    you mean the one attended by about 100 people – which in the end is about the number of NZers the Anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign actually serves – yeah, that one.
16. Lee C 16

    28 November 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Eric Crampton at the March today:

    “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. I studied under James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in this area. He likened it to setting out the rules for a poker game: you get everybody to agree to the rules before you deal the cards. If everybody’s agreed to the rules before the cards are dealt, the outcome of the game is fair and legitimate. What Labour and its support parties here have done is dealt the cards, taken a peek at their hands, and then declared deuces wild. This violates constitutional justice and threatens the legitimacy of any government that is elected under the new rules.
    Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”
17. Lampie 17

    28 November 2007 at 10:32 pm

    you mean the one attended by about 100 people – which in the end is about the number of NZers the Anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign actually serves – yeah, that one.

    sorry I blinked and missed it
18. Lee C 18

    28 November 2007 at 10:33 pm

    Gruela you are wasted here = visit kiwiblog, http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/electoral_finance_bill_marches.html#comment-374112

    you will get the mental stimulation you clearly deserve.
19. thomas 19

    28 November 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Eric Crampton at the March today:
    He also nearly plays a mean guitar
20. Lampie 20

    28 November 2007 at 10:40 pm

    ok Thomas, think it was you and that mainland titbit. Mr Key mentions we are 22 out of 30 in the OECD. OK been to site, now where do I find that fact, anybody?

    Hate writing those word thingys too at the bottom
21. Lampie 21

    28 November 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Is the double mistake really DPF?
22. r0b 22

    28 November 2007 at 10:54 pm

    Lee C- Eric Crampton at the March today: “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. […] Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”

    I certainly agree that broad agreement is highly desirable for constitutional change. But I also note that it doesn’t always happen that way. Even in NZ. For example, MMP was introduced as a result of a referendum in 1993 (along with the election). 54% in favour of MMP, 46% against. Hardly a “broad agreement across society”. But we adopted MMP anyway, and vastly changed our “constitutional” arrangements. Life went on.

    So post 2005 we were faced with 2 facts: (1) the issue of clandestine money in campaigns needed to be addressed, and (2) National was never going to agree to addressing it. That creates a situation where the only possible outcomes are (a) ignore the problem, or (b) proceed with a majority agreement (but not the agreement of National). We’ve ended up going with (b), which to my mind is the lesser of two evils, but the best that could be done given (2).
23. Gruela 23

    28 November 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Lee C

    You and your rightie chums are using a flawed argument against the EFB. Actually, you are using two arguments and although one has merit you are using it as support for the second, flawed argument which is in fact the argument you wish to validate. Therefore, your main argument is flawed and without merit.

    As follows:

    Your first argument, which is valid, is that the EFB is to constrictive in it’s definition of election advertising. I believe this is true. It was badly thought out legislation, and it still needs some tweaking.

    BUT, (and unfortunately this is where your argument falls down), you then go on to use these faults of the EFB to argue that the idea behind the legislation itself is flawed, and the entire Bill itself should be dismissed.

    To argue against the idea of an EFB because of it has been less than spectacularly drafted is no argument at all.
24. r0b 24

    28 November 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Once more, with proper tags this time (oops!)…

    Lee C- Eric Crampton at the March today: “Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. […] Electoral rules – constitutional rules – require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy.”

    I certainly agree that broad agreement is highly desirable for constitutional change. But I also note that it doesn’t always happen that way. Even in NZ. For example, MMP was introduced as a result of a referendum in 1993 (along with the election). 54% in favour of MMP, 46% against. Hardly a “broad agreement across society”. But we adopted MMP anyway, and vastly changed our “constitutional” arrangements. Life went on.

    So post 2005 we were faced with 2 facts: (1) the issue of clandestine money in campaigns needed to be addressed, and (2) National was never going to agree to addressing it. That creates a situation where the only possible outcomes are (a) ignore the problem, or (b) proceed with a majority agreement (but not the agreement of National). We’ve ended up going with (b), which to my mind is the lesser of two evils, but the best that could be done given (2).
25. Historian 25

    28 November 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Would, by any chance, any of the people now solemnly invoking democracy and the constitution be …

    … the same people who, one year ago, were supporting an online petition calling on the UNELECTED Governor-General, representing the UNELECTED Head of State, to refuse to sign a law passed by the House of ELECTED Representatives? Their only reason being – they didn’t agree with Parliament, and the ends justified the means.

    So much for their love of democracy and constitution.
26. r0b 26

    28 November 2007 at 11:32 pm

    G’day Historian. Interesting post!

    And goodnight all.
27. burt 27

    28 November 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Historian

    Spin it all you like, passing laws which are retrospective cover a period of 14 years Re: Unauthorised and illegal spending deserves a solid challenge. Just as passing laws making legal what was illegal last election and making illegal what was legal last election deserve a solid challenge. You are pointing at a fine act of democracy, a groups right to petition the state.

    all_your_base

    Great post, I’m not a major fan of Key’s, but I reckon any publicity is good publicity for a new player. The absolute fever you guys are whipping up will absolutely help him spread his message. Even if you think you are shooting him down and the partisan supporters assure you that you are, they are possibly the wrong people to be asking.
28. Lee C 28

    29 November 2007 at 7:12 am

    Gruela – my opposition to the EFB has and always will be that it was drawn up without the proper consulation, from either the public, other Parties or with reference to interested bodies. Presented as ‘not in contravention of our Human Rights’ on questionable legal advice, and then (and now) is being rammed through Parliament. Even MMP, by Rob’s own admission had a referendum.
    As for the issue of clandestine money in elections – there are those who disagree with the ‘simplistic assumption’ that this is the case. (http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/)
    The neat little package of Appropriations Bill and EFB will be a Thief’s Charter for Government. Example If a Party overspends at the next election, it will have no sanction against it, So for example, WInston can now pay back his overspend, get the interest on it, then do the same again next time – legally – I mean, come on!

    These voices of opposition are not ‘hysterical right-wingers’ we hear so much about, but academics, Lawyers, Human Rights Campaigners, and concerned citizens.

    Even the villification of the EB, in my opinion was a shameful episode from Labour. As others have observed, would they have bullied Muslims in the same manner?.

    This bill (EFBand Appropriations) is shameful as an indictment of corrupt government practice, and abuse of the MMP system, has no intellectual or theoretical support (unless you count Nick Hager – and even he damned the present Bill with faint praise during his ‘book-plug’ (sorry Select-Committee Submission))

    You need to join the dots, and stop being taken for a fool by the politicians, Gruela. If this had been introduced by National and applied tot the unions, gosh imagine how many wuld be marching then! But no, there is a strange silence from the Unions on this. Ever wondered why?
29. r0b 29

    29 November 2007 at 8:35 am

    In theory of democracy we have the concept of avoiding “the tyranny of the majority”. In other words, the rights of minorities must be protected. It’s not the case that the majority should have unlimited power.

    Similarly, in the practice of democracy, we have the concept of “a level playing field”. In other words, the rights of less powerful groups must be protected. It’s not the case that the rich and powerful should have unlimited power.

    Consequently, every functioning democracy has limits and restrictions on campaign spending, to try and create a level playing field. (Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? – Yeah Right.)

    For these reasons, like most democracies, NZ has always had laws governing campaign spending. The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.

    National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “free speech”. Well, (in the slightly mangled words of Mandy Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn’t they.
30. Lee C 30

    29 November 2007 at 8:45 am

    Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election:
    “(Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? – Yeah Right.)”

    Double Standard or ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ I can’t work out which…
31. Lee C 31

    29 November 2007 at 9:13 am

    Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you:
    “Given the significance of the changes to the electoral funding regime, there is a need for an extended public participation in a more neutral environment to allow for discussion, debate and contestation of core principles. This has not happened with the proposed legislation, and the opportunity for informed authorisation has been lost.” (HRC)
    “The fact that redrafting and brokering is going on amongst political parties as to changes that will be promoted by the Government at the same time as submissions are being sought, excludes public participation and is an anathema to the Select Committee process. and:
    The bill has serious defects, which mean it will not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, it is likely to curtail the legitimate expression of opinions while failing to curb (and potentially even incentivising) clandestine conduct in relation to the electoral process. The bill as a whole represents a backward step in the integrity of democracy in New Zealand.”
    (Law Society)
32. Lee C 32

    29 November 2007 at 9:36 am

    Or as you would have it:

    “It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.”

    Yeah Right!
33. Lee C 33

    29 November 2007 at 9:39 am

    It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority.

    Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.
34. r0b 34

    29 November 2007 at 9:58 am

    Lee C – “Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election”

    That is why electoral legislation distinguishes between electioneering and other forms of advertising and public information. However, I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour). So I’d be interested in your suggestions as to how to deal with that issue.

    Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you

    I said no such thing in the post above Lee, please keep it calm. As for those who have raised concerns about the EFB, they fall along a continuum. Some are impartially raising genuine concerns, and so they should. Healthy democracy and so on. Most of the substantive concerns were dealt with by the select committee, though I agree that some procedural concerns remain. It wasn’t an ideal process. At the other end of the spectrum we have clandestine money fighting for its divine right to purchase government, cynically clothed in the mantle of “free speech”. About them my opinion is less than benign.

    “Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.”

    The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it. The same rules apply to all.
35. r0b 35

    29 November 2007 at 9:59 am

    Pesky tags – correctly formatted this time:

    Lee C – “Rob thanks for the analysyis as to why the Government spent $69 million on tv ads last election”

    That is why electoral legislation distinguishes between electioneering and other forms of advertising and public information. However, I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour). So I’d be interested in your suggestions as to how to deal with that issue.

    Some ‘hysterical right-wingers for you

    I said no such thing in the post above Lee, please keep it calm. As for those who have raised concerns about the EFB, they fall along a continuum. Some are impartially raising genuine concerns, and so they should. Healthy democracy and so on. Most of the substantive concerns were dealt with by the select committee, though I agree that some procedural concerns remain. It wasn’t an ideal process. At the other end of the spectrum we have clandestine money fighting for its divine right to purchase government, cynically clothed in the mantle of “free speech”. About them my opinion is less than benign.

    “Not counting ‘chinless scarf-wearers’ of course.”

    The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it. The same rules apply to all.
36. Lampie 36

    29 November 2007 at 9:59 am

    ok Thomas, think it was you and that mainland titbit. Mr Key mentions we are 22 out of 30 in the OECD

    Ok have a bit of an answer from the site myself, Mr Key needs to define this a bit more as which stat this is. There is not a combined overall stat. So Mr Key, which stat are you referring to?
37. Michael Thomas 37

    29 November 2007 at 1:33 pm

    People the only thing funny here is that Linda Clark goes on nationwide TV to pontificate about a DVD that she then admits she has never watched!!! Haha what a lightweight – TV3 should fire her as their pundit cos she is not really putting the effort in.

    Cheers
38. Lee C 38

    29 November 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Rob so: Re Govt spending:
    “I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour).”
    But you will let the EFB slide anyway.
    Re The Select Committee:
    “It wasn’t an ideal process.”
    But you will go with it anyway.
    Re the EB:
    “The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it.”
    They did consult with the Electoral Commission, then ignored the rules, so the processes to stop them were already in place, but badly applied.
    So the EFB changes nothing there, but you will let that slide.

    ‘Hysterical RIght-wingers’ ok, you didn’t say it, but the Standard is full of references to anyone who has the temerity to oppose the EFB.

    The use of the Select Committee in this case was an abuse of the system.

    It seems to me that the left is already positioning itself for the long struggle it will have to face to get this apalling sham of a law changed after it passes, despite the fact they twisted every argument they could to get it passed. Now it is close to passing, they are already starting to wriggle out of the unsavoury fact that it is flawed and undemocratic, despite the Party Line saying otherwise.
39. Lee C 39

    29 November 2007 at 2:08 pm

    However, I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour). So I’d be interested in your suggestions as to how to deal with that issue.

    Sorry as an afterthought – I’d suggest a more cross-party consultation process on the kind of public information package the electorate needs to see, and a projected budget. It would be a way to exploit the MMP system and train MPs how to use the communications media, as well as put some kind of checks on abuses.
40. r0b 40

    29 November 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Lee C – Rob so: Re Govt spending: “I actually agree with you that this creates a grey area and an advantage for the incumbent (whether National or Labour).” But you will let the EFB slide anyway.

    It’s a grey area Lee, the boundary between electioneering and informing the public is very grey indeed. If you think the EFB is complicated and unwieldily now, just imagine what it would have been like if it had tried to take on this too. And I’m sure you don’t want to argue that a government cannot inform the public.

    Sorry as an afterthought – I’d suggest a more cross-party consultation process on the kind of public information package the electorate needs to see, and a projected budget. It would be a way to exploit the MMP system and train MPs how to use the communications media, as well as put some kind of checks on abuses.

    There you go, see, a constructive suggestion, bravo. Mind you, it is dependent on the opposition party being constructively engaged. Which National, sadly, is not. Their only mode is blind negativity. Why else would they vote against tax cuts? Never mind, maybe when Labour is next in opposition they will be a constructive opposition (and of course, maybe they won’t).

    Re The Select Committee: “It wasn’t an ideal process.” But you will go with it anyway.

    Sure will! Because it addressed a problem that needed addressing. Better a bad process than none at all.

    Re the EB: “The EB can still do exactly what they did last time. The only restriction on them is that this time they have to be honest about who is doing it.”
    They did consult with the Electoral Commission, then ignored the rules, so the processes to stop them were already in place, but badly applied. So the EFB changes nothing there, but you will let that slide.

    Be consistent Lee. The EFB either restricts the EB (as you argued above) or changes nothing (as you argue here) but not both.
41. Lee C 41

    29 November 2007 at 3:47 pm

    I think we are going in circles.
    I haven’t argued that the EFB restricts the EB, You said it would have no difference on them. I questioned why we should have it then? How is that inconsistent?

    As for the statement that National are too negative to get involved with the discussion, this is a betrayal of the electorate as much by Labour as by National. But to pick up the football and refuse to play, as Labour have done, is like suggesting that because some people refuse to vote, we should do away with democracy, because people are being ‘negative’.

    The Government is elected to show proper leadership and set a proper example – not to massage the rules, for partisan expediency.
    As you handing out praise for positive ideas, how about this for a law such as the eFB?

    Cross party consultation,
    Public consultation
    White Paper
    Draft Bill
    Select Committee
    Vote
    Law.

    I strongly recommend you examine your principles around your attitude to the way the Select Committee process has been used here. “Because it addressed a problem that needed addressing. Better a bad process than none at all.”

    You mean, in your opinion.
    This is the whole crux of my argument and has been so far. We cannot just invent policy and rig procedures to enable it based on ‘the end justifies the means’ as a rationale.

    I say this not because I am looking at it from a politically partisan viewpoint, but because I am concerned that it establishes a dangerous precedent. Especially when money is involved.
    Those who got involved with the construction of the EFB did so for the wrong reasons.
    The Greens to get back at the EB
    Labour to get the pledge Card fiasco sorted,
    WInston to get his overspend back.
    Anderton and Dunne well – go figure.
    When you circumvent the process, and the checks and balances are ignored, it is an admission of defeat – it is saying that your belief in the democratic process is lost, even if you say you are doing it to ‘protect democracy’ – usually the firs thing any despot in waiting uses to declare ’emergency powers’ too!
    In the post 9-11 world, suppression of dissent is the new orthodoxy and you are blindly subscribing to it.
42. r0b 42

    29 November 2007 at 4:01 pm

    I gotta go be in the real world for a bit Lee, I’ll be back tonight. Before I go though you said: “I haven’t argued that the EFB restricts the EB”. Please check your post of 9:39 am and tell me how you haven’t contradicted yourself?

    Later…
43. Pascal's bookie 43

    29 November 2007 at 4:22 pm

    “Cross party consultation,
    Public consultation
    White Paper
    Draft Bill
    Select Committee
    Vote
    Law.”

    Sounds grand. How long would that take realistically? Bearing in mind that the process wouldn’t have gotten underway untill at least 6 months after the election, and that the new law would need to be in place well before the next election I’m thinking the window isn’t big enough.

    I understand your points about the percieved perfidy of the parties involved in drafting this law, but do you accept that the National Party aint exactly lilly white in their obstruction?

    One thing I find interesting is that while everyone seems to agree that reform is needed before the next election I havn’t seen anything but whinges from the Nats.

    Yes they were excluded, and yes this is, on it’s face, wrong. But given that the Nats haven’t come up with any alternative legislation, or even serious amendments, I am left with the impression that their presence in the discussion would not have added anything. You can tell me that ‘anything they came up with would only have been ignored’ if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that they havn’t come up with anything when there has been nothing stopping them from doing so.

    At the moment the Nats position is simple repeal of the new act. What does that mean in practice? A return to the stautus quo ante? But doesn’t everyone agree that we need reform? But the Nats, as with so much else, have got nothing that they feel comfortable talking about. They are the party of ‘No’. So for my money they can sit out in the cold.
44. Lee C 44

    29 November 2007 at 4:45 pm

    One of the problems is the shortness of the electoral cyle.Three yeras is too short. But, if Labour had been serious about this issue, they would have got their skates on straight away, rather than leaving it so late then conveniently blaming ‘time-pressures’ for the almighty cock-up. No National haven’t been lilly-white over this, but they did not write this dreadful piece of legislation.
    Would Labour now accept taht the Bill is flwed, and should go to a proper round of consultation and drafting.

    No.

    So then therefore it is a bit rich to say the fault for this whole mess is Nationals.

    They din’t write it, it was Labour’s throwing their toys out of the pram after teh idea of public funding was rejected that caused this fiasco. And why did they need public funding? Because they were broke after th Pledge Card fiasco.

    Whichever way you cut it, this is all down to Labour. To try and move the goal-posts and suggest this is National’s fault is a desperate act of a Party caught with their hand in the cookie-jar.

    This is not about who should have the higher maoral plateau, it is about trusting our governments to do the right thing by us. Helen Clark has been in government for eight years. Surely she should know how to organise something like this?

    No, the only logical conclusion is that they tried to sneak it through, under the radar, or ‘inside the beltway’. You only then are invited to ask why? TO stop Big Business rorting elections.

    This is me smiling. :0)
45. Pascal's bookie 45

    29 November 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Lovely, glad to have have you smiling.

    Now why haven’t National come up with anything at all?

    And where did I say that it was entirely National’s fault, which seems to be the strawman you are arguing against?

    Admittedly it’s a strawman that was roundly slain and I trust that your smile is one of pride. You big clever hunka straw killing man you.
46. r0b 46

    29 November 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Lee C – “I think we are going in circles.”

    I quite agree, but this is my last time round the circle, as it is my last reply to you in this thread.

    I haven’t argued that the EFB restricts the EB

    You surely have, at 9:39am in this thread.

    As to your other points, I agree we are going round in circles, and you can find my position stated above.

    I strongly recommend you examine your principles around your attitude to the way the Select Committee process has been used here. […]

    I say this not because I am looking at it from a politically partisan viewpoint, but because I am concerned that it establishes a dangerous precedent.

    I found your attempt to claim the non partisan moral high ground rather interesting Lee C. Because I’m wondering if perhaps you really are a partisan after all. What makes me just a little bit suspicious, Lee C, is your opinions as expressed on Kiwiblog. I hope you can forgive me for wondering if you are one of those who just cynically exploit the concepts of democracy and free speech to attack a government that they hate and mock?

    A small selection of Lee C on Kiwiblog:

    
    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am

    My criticism of National thus far has been its refusal to get ‘down and dirty’. They really need to stop cowering in the corner and stand up to the bullies. Actually ‘fight’ an election. Life’s too short to spend it reminiscing about how close you came to winning.

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 6th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    […]

    Labbbour’s greatest asset is Helen Clark. She has assiduously cultivated a mystique of power about herself, so that it is almost a heresy to be seen to criticise her. Some might label her as pompous, patronising, aloof, cynical, creative with the truth, or even corrupt, but she has a teflon personality.

    Funny about Teflon, once you put one decent scratch in it, it renders the implement largely useless. However, I have yet to see an incident of a teflon pan scratching itself.

    That is the job of the opposition.

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Bwakile – I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that bewteen us we could probably cobble to gether a more effective campaign of opposition than the present lot in National are evidently capable of. I would be happy to vote National simply because I have developed a hatred of the present Government, but on the face of National’s handling of this EFB issue, frankly they will not get my vote.
    I mean if they can’t even cobble together a strategy around a generation-defining piece of legislation like this, what good are they?

    They make Neville Chamberlain look macho

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 am

    Speaking of narrowly averted suicides. Like I heard that one time when she was at low ebb, Helen attempted suicide. Sobbing quietly, she placed the revolver against her breast., pulled the trigger. and shot herself in the knee-cap.
    drum roll, cymbal clash.
    aythenkyu..

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    I’d like to see Helen Clark Burn for democracy.

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    September 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    […]

    Ironically, MMP might go down as a failed experiment which caused voters to think in a first past the post way, because the way the Labour Government has turned the other parties into its bitches makes a mockery of the idea of widened participation in government for the voters, and has created a virtual single=party state here in NZ

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    September 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    I think it is time to start suggesting the myriad ways that one will be able to break the Law (if this bill passes) during an election year and then expose it for the piece of work it is.

    ===

    Lee C Says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 7:42 am

    Watch the Labour Party backlash on the Herald. But, bullies only prosper when they pick on those smaller than themeselves. I look forwared to these money-grabbing, egregious venal power-turned goons in the Labour Government and their allies, getting the bloody noses they so richly deserve.

    I said before that the media wins or loses elections – it looks like the war is on.
47. Lee C 47

    29 November 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Shit, looks like my cover is blown. Or something.

    Should I be scared? is this a scary situation?
    Is this how Catholics used to feel under Henry the Eighth? Do I need to find a safe-house because I have uttered heretical sentiments? FFS, Rob Grow up!
    Gosh, did I really say National are doing a crap job as opposition? you might be able to dig out the times I said they’d lost my vote as a result of that.
    Did I really accuse Labour of bullying? Ask Setchell, ask that woman Mallard victimised the other day from parliament.
    Did I suggest MMP is open to abuse? Did that only yesterday, here, as well. I used the words ‘Labour and Shameful’ in the same sentence. Should I get my family out of the country?
    Didi I raise a point about how media win/lose elections? did that here too, and on kiwiblog referring to how Blair won in the UK by courting the media.
    Yes I have a hatred of Labour, I think it started with the retrospective legislation to legalise their Pledge-Card rort, but the way they picked on the Exclusive Brethren community (not the idiot businessmen) assisted.
    Better get that out of my system before January 2nd, hadn’t I?
    So to summarise:
    Criticisms of Nationals crap opposition to the EFB 3
    Criticism of Helen Clark 1 and a bit (do two jokes about Helen count? i thought we enjoyed political satire here)
    Criticism of Labour over the EFB 1
    Criticism of labour and how they used MMP to abuse the parliamentary system 1

    Criticism of Labour’s bully-boy tactics 1

    So you have me bang to rights, I guess. I am so partisan that I hate Labour, and won’t even vote National because they have failed to mount a realistic oppositon to the EFB.

    Really – what is your point? are you calling me a liar? Just say those four little words. ‘You are a Liar.’

    I won’t be angry.
    PS I also wrote a crap submission to the Select Committee about the EFB. I believe that has been quoted in The Standard too.
    I have a blog too; http://troubleingodzone.blogspot.com/
    please feel freee to visit.

    I am, however flattered taht you took so much time to trawl through the kiwiblog and pull out my pearls of wisdom. I like it when people quote me – it adds polish to their conversations.

    Looks like the EPMU need to recruit someone who isn’t afraid of a hard day’s work,

    this is me p***g myself: ;*0
48. Lee C 48

    29 November 2007 at 8:03 pm

    ps if you think I am rude about Helen you should see some of the unspeakable filth I have written in ‘Monkey Fluids’.

    http://www.monkeyfluids.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

    Do take a look:

    (Not you, Gruela, I respect you tooo much)
49. Lee C 49

    30 November 2007 at 7:48 am

    ps have you read this http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/

Links to post

1. As Hollow as an imitation Coldplay Song « Thesproutandthebean: posted on 28 November 2007 at 11:04 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS