International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Electoral Finance Bill’

Leftwing Lunacy

I only read one left wing blog as a rule, because they’re all so insane. NRT is about the best one, but even then he has a hard time dealing with the reality that normal people see in front of their nose.

Exhibit 1:

Under left-wing governments, the many get more. Under the right, we get less. The difference is due to employment law – and national’s employment policies (90 days of “fire at will” and a restriction on union access and bargaining rights) are very much aimed at you getting less. Think about that when you vote this November.

Yes, there were bad times under National, and many measure got worse. Buy hey, look at that right in the middle – isn’t that an improvement in the very measure that the right are supposed to be deliberately driving down? Hm, and aren’t those blue lines roughly corresponding to recessions?

Exhibit 2:

Not that I expect DPF or the National party to see it that way; they simply see critics to be shut down by force of law, and an opportunity to posture about how evil it is that everyone gets to speak their mind on a level playing field (a complete abomination to the would-be-aristocrats on the right).

It’d be comical if this sort of bizarre abuse didn’t follow DPF asking the Electoral Commission to follow the law put in place by the Labour party.

If Labour didn’t want unions to be shut out of third party status, they should have written the law that way. Period.

What is comical is to talk about National opposing “a level playing field” when Labour explicitly stated on multiple occasions that they intended this law to tip the playing field their way – and that the last electoral law change was undertaken under National and had multi-party support.

So in other words, Labour approved the last two major changes to electoral law, but National only approved one. So who’s shutting down consensus and level playing fields? It’s Labour using power to play aristocrats with their approach to electoral law.

And thanks to the EFA, National has a large pot of money they cannot legally spend trying to buy the election, which means they might as well spend it on legal fees.

National has a large pot of money because people want them in power. Labour do not have the support from the people, and cant’ match National’s finances even with near-compulsory contributions from Unions.

So, I fully expect them to challenge this decision again in court. Fortunately, given the clear parliamentary intent to only restrict candidates, financial agents, and party officials, and the requirement to interpret the EFA through the lens of the BORA, I expect them to lose.

One wonders if Idiot/Savant is mentally retarded when I read something like this. Really.

The courts have already found what the law says, and they found in favor of National. There has also been legal opinion after opinion that have said that the EFA is not clear, and is in fact a complete mess – just as you would expect from a major law that was re-written in the hours before it was due to come into place.

Exhibit 3:

During the Clinton years, the right-wing smear machine put about a “Clinton Body Count”, accusing him of involvement in various murders to cover up imagined crimes. Naturally, they now have one for Barrack Obama. My favourite – for its sheer insanity – is this one:

DARSANO RAHARDJO – Childhood classmate of Barack Obama when he attended a madrassa in Indonesia. Was found with his head cut off in a Jakarta alley way in 1970. Many children at the school attributed Rahardjo’s murder to the young Barack Obama. It was likely done as an initiation ritual, since Islam demands that a boy spill another’s blood before the age of ten to prove their loyalty to Allah.

Only one thing to say about this one. I don’t ever recall the right claiming that the left have a monopoly on idiots – just 99% of them.

Exhibit 4:

As for me, I’m not sure, and in any case I think the more interesting question is “how National can lose”. They’re basically betting everything on a majority government, but as we saw in 2002, the electorate is rather averse to that idea (its one of the things we brought in MMP to stop). And while they’re polling high, given their lack of credible friends, they don’t need to lose too much in order to be forced to go begging to parties they don’t like for confidence and supply. And if that happens, given their lack of coalition skills, they can pretty much kiss their policy agenda goodbye…

What?

1. Labour cannot win this election, even if they claw back 10% or so – which is unlikely. Every minor party knows full well that the public does not want another 3 years of Labour and they know full well that the backlash would be lethal.

2. National almost won last time, they had a deal (one of those things they apparently can’t put together) all but done but for Winston (“Mexican Standoff” was his exact term). Phew, bullet dodged!

3. The most popular party always has friends, credible and otherwise. That is currently Labour.

4. Why is it that people forget that Dune and Winston both had arrangements with National before Labour?

5. Labour don’t have coalition skills either – they only have a coalition with one party: Jim Anderton. They’re not exactly holding Winston’s feet to the fire either – most people would consider that Winston should have been suspended long ago for the government to maintain integrity.

Ok, I think I better stop and get some sleep due to the desk swaying from side to side!

Libertarianz Show the Way

I bet when Helen approved the idea of posting home addresses, she was rubbing her hands in glee at the thought of Exclusive Brethren being exposed.

One can be quite certain that she never though it might backfire like this!

Citizen’s Juries

No Right Turn has a go at National over citizen’s juries.

Last year, when they passed the Electoral Finance Act, the government promised a citizens’ jury to investigate wider issues around electoral administration and political party funding. Now National is opposing that process, [As if they didn’t before! – S1] calling it “part of a grubby deal done between Labour and the Greens over the Electoral Finance Act”. Why am I not surprised?

Now, read that carefully. What does “wider issues around electoral administration and political party funding” mean? Here’s a hint from DPF.

The outcome has been predetermined. Instead of being set up in bipartisan fashion on matters such as the type of electoral system, it has been set up to deliver just one result – increased taxpayer funding of political parties. Labour and the Greens both want that as the outcome, tried to do it through the EFA, and having somewhat failed are now trying to do it again.

DPF continues…

Labour are quite simply corrupt when it comes to electoral law issues, and any process which involves them as Government choosing the expert panel which advises the Citizen’s Jury should be treated as naked self interest. Hell Mike Williams will probably end up as the Chair.

The Greens are little better than Labour in this area. They have absolutely no comitment to a fair process unless it achieves the outcome they want. Look at the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering? That had it all – independent commissioners, scientific evidence, hearings etc. And the moment it didn’t recommend what the Greens wanted – they attacked it.

Why is I/S not surprised that National oppose a commission setup with the result already pre-determined? I’m not. Labour and the Greens have no right to tinker with electoral law, they’ve already made a compete hash of what they did last time.

Never mind that any properly chosen jury would have a majority of National supporters!

Fisk over the break.

(more…)

EFA – The Story So Far

Labour passes law restricting free speech. Trolls claim it does not.

Labour’s friends try to register under law so they can have their free speech.

DPF challenges under Labour’s law.

Crown law says law doesn’t apply where it clearly does. Electoral Commission follows this advice.

National challenges in court and wins. Labours friends have their free speech restricted.

Trolls spit dummy, claiming that DPF is restrcting free speech.

So implementing a law doesn’t restrict free speech, applying it does. That makes perfect sense.

A law passed by National to round up all Green Party supporters won’t breach anyone’s rights, but a Labour party activist asking a policeman to arrest a green activist will.

I say we try it, and see if they get the joke. 😛

Churches as 3rd Parties

This is interesting.

Six mainstream churches have rejected advice from the Electoral Commission that they should register as third parties to run a $100,000 campaign on social justice before this year’s election.

The churches are distributing 50,000 copies of the first of five leaflets, on child poverty, coinciding with the Budget this week.

Methodist Church president Brian Turner said the Electoral Commission recommended that they should “err on the side of caution” and register as third parties under the new Electoral Finance Act. But they decided not to.

“We don’t see it as electioneering or promoting any particular party against others, so we didn’t see the need to register,” he said.

Interesting how most people (leaving aside church haters) would not consider these churches to be rich pricks “buying” elections.

Yet they appear to be being caught by the law. All that time, we were told that the only rich people buying elections would want to spend that much.

Funny how their left-wing approach to poverty extends to a left-wing approach towards the law too.

Labour Breaks Own Law… Again

I see in today’s Herald that Labour’s Trevor Mallard, recently convicted in relation to an assult, has been found in breach of the new electoral law they snuck in last year.

Funny how I haven’t heard anything of this from the Radio (National program), in spite of listening off and on for over an hour. (It’s possible I missed it, but they repeat the significant stories constantly. My guess it isn’t regarded as a big story over there that the government side step-ed several constitutional provisions/conventions to change electoral law expressly stating that their aim was to hobble the opposition, then breaks that law.)

Trevor Mallard’s van with a Labour Party logo and his contact details on it is an advertisement and is in breach of the Electoral Finance Act, he has been told.

But Annette King’s fridge magnet with a Labour Party logo and her contact details on it is not.

They are the views of chief electoral officer Robert Peden, who told Mr Mallard yesterday he considered the red van to be an advertisement.

It has no slogans on it but contains a phone number and email address.

Mr Peden has given the Hutt South MP two weeks to put an authorisation statement on the vehicle.

The decision is at odds with another Mr Peden made recently, when he found that a fridge magnet calendar Ms King, the Justice Minister, distributed to households in her Rongotai electorate was not an election advertisement.

It also included her contact details and a Labour Party logo – and a parliamentary crest because the Parliamentary Service paid for it.

Mr Mallard paid for his van himself so does not have a parliamentary crest. He disagrees with Mr Peden’s ruling but says he will comply.

He said the van was not bought for the purpose of electioneering and was not used for electioneering but to transport himself and his bikes, and for constituency clinics.

Hypocrisy from the Left, not the Right

No Right Turn thinks a consistent position is a hypocritical one.

When the government passed the Electoral Finance Act, the right screamed that it was an assault on free speech. Now they’re trying to use it to shut down the stage version of The Hollow Men. Ostensibly, this is being done to “clarify the law”. In reality, it is being done in an effort to silence speech they do not like. Despite all their screaming and all their posturing, when it comes to freedom of speech, the right are simply hypocrites.

We on the right said loudly and often that this law would restrict freedom of speech. DPF today outlined the reasoning that said that this play would in fact be restricted under the EFA. I believe that that reasoning is sound.

This post from NRT actually confirms everything that we have been saying. I quote again:

In reality, it is being done in an effort to silence speech they do not like.

How can a law that does not suppress free speech be used to suppress free speech? You cannot have it both ways – either the law suppresses, or it does not. Yet NRT is now on record as taking both positions.

Then we have the “in reality” clause – a misnomer if ever there was. This is where he applies his fantasys of “Big Evil” Natioanl, though in this instance he omits links to his own posts where he ends up just taking Labour’s latest questionable assertions as gospel truth.

Reality is that Stephen is now on record as saying the opposite, and opponents of the act have been consistent from the start – we are supporting the right of dissenters.

Mr Franks said he had not seen The Hollow Men, but was in favour of it being staged without restriction.

“It would be appalling for that to be banned, whether it is a true or false view of history.”

We’re just asking for the law to be enforced, to show just how draconian it is. That’s no more hypocritical than taking a puppy and rubbing it’s nose in the business it deposited on the carpet – yes, we want a clean carpet, and this is the way forward to achieve that.

For Pete’s Sake

The Electoral Finance Act, rort of rorts, just got that little bit more stupid.

No doubt there’s more to come too.

I’d quote, but everyone’s already seen it all.

What a joke.

Previous Versions of the EFA

Prof. Hodge made a comment at the last Electoral Finance Act protest.

He mentioned this act: the “Political Disabilities Removal Act”. No guesses who’s “Political Disabilities” it removed.

 2. Power of certain associations to apply funds in furtherance of

 political objects---(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the

 funds of any society may be applied in the furtherance of political

 objects if the members of the society so decide by a resolution for the

 time being in force, passed on a ballot of the members of the society

 taken in accordance with its rules.   (2) For the purposes of this section, a resolution shall be deemed to

 have been passed on a ballot of the members of the society if a majority

 of the total valid votes recorded at the ballot is in favour thereof.

(3) Any such resolution may be at any time revoked by a subsequent

 resolution passed in the same manner as the firstmentioned resolution

 was passed.

(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any society

 notwithstanding that there is no provision in its rules authorising the

 use of its funds for the furtherance of political objects.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term ``society'' means---

   (a) Any society of public servants consisting of not less than 15

         persons, and primarily associated for the purpose of protecting

         or furthering their interests in connection with their

         employment; or

   (b) Any industrial union registered under the [Industrial Relations

         Act 1973]; or

   (c) Any trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1908.

     Cf. 1936, No. 23, s. 4; 1948, No. 77, s. 40

In subs. (5) (b) the Industrial Relations Act 1973, being the

     corresponding enactment in force at the date of this reprint, has

     been substituted for the repealed Industrial Conciliation and

     Arbitration Act 1954.

Translation: Unions can give money to political parties.

The first version of this act was put in place in 1936 – the year after the first Labour goverment was put in place. It still stands today.

So Labour has been tilting the law it’s own way for years – it’s just this time it’s gone further than usual.

It had to happen… dontvotelabour is now a blog (and legal)

The blasingly odvious has now happened… Andy Moore’s site is now a blog.

Just goes to show how stupid the law is.

Tag Cloud