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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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!