About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 12, 2006 11:36pm by David Farrar

New billboard

Heh – got this tonight in the e-mail. Didn’t take long!

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment85

Uncategorised
Humour

Comments (85)

Login to comment or vote

pdq

Excellent, but everyone has forgotten about the interest the thieves owe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 12, 2006 11:43pm
ScrubOne

Give me 10 minutes, I have a slight correction to make to this one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:03am
ScrubOne

Ok, I’ve posted my “correct”. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:12am
Sinner

It’s not about interest. It’s far, far to late for that:

Farrar:

This overspending of taxpayers’ money is nothing short of cheating.

Darnton:
As the Speaker notes in her report, paying the money back doesn’t make its spending any less illegal. … the government must resign

Brash:
Labour has been caught red handed with its fingers in the till.
“What needs to happen now is that Helen Clark needs to take responsibility and she must resign

The only democratic course is for all those involved: the cabinet and labour party executive to resign immediately and permanently from public life

There is no need for fresh elections. The Auditor General, Solicitor General, Chief Electoral Office and evey the Speaker have declared Don Brash the actually elected Prime Minister of New Zealand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 6:53am
Fletch

I have been thinking about it overnight (sleeping on it, so to speak) and for all of Helen’s accusing Don of money-for-policy and buying an election and trying to aboilish anonymous donations, isn’t that what she’s doing now?

When you think about it – it’s the labourites who are going to donate to help Labour pay the money back, thus the Labourites who ultimately paid for the pledge card and helped Labour ‘buy’ the last election.

Ultimately it is anonymous donated money that paid for the card and maybe won Helen the last election.

So much for no ‘money-for-policy’.

But I’m sure someone has probably already mentioned it…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 7:06am
nissan

They should be paying the ‘compounding interest’ all Government department they demand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 7:26am
toms

I am glad this is behind us – and I look forward to the making illegal of the National party’s money laundering schemes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 7:50am
kiwi_donkey

Toms: It’s not behind you. It won’t be behind you until Labour realises it did something wrong, apologises, stops the smears and lies and starts behaving like responisble democrats. That seems a long way away at present.

Just as Helen Clark had to apologise for Rogernomics before Labour became electable again, her successor may have to apologise for Clarkism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 7:58am
the deity formerly known as nigel6888

a long way from behind you Tom.

The illegal spending is part 1. That is now proven and admitted.

That the money was used to breach the spending cap and steal the election is part 2.

Do you think that is going to wash away easily?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:02am
David

Re Helen Clark refusing to say she did anything wrong. I think I lot of commentators are missing the point. Helen seems is still very happy to take taxpayers money to spend on the Labour Party election and would do it again. If it was lawful or not, is not the point. She can’t see the difference between tawpayers money and the Labour Party’s

PS Why did the supposed independant Speaker ask for an outside legal opinion. Why not ask the Solicitor General?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:03am
Andrew

Toms, I agree that this issue might be behind those who are ideologically opposed to democracy… but that’s not many NZ’ers.

I’m hearing folks from both ends of the ideological spectrum say this isn’t good enough, and that we (and our kids) deserve to live in a country when elections can’t be brought. True integrity is evidenced when one defends the truth even if it challenges ones own position on a matter. I’m struggling to see any integrity in the way Labour came to office and still less now they’re clinging to it.

Should the makers of our law be permitted to break it (even in ignorance) and not called to account? I say that’s the beginning of totalitarianism. What say you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:07am
Spam

Rather predicatable from Helen & TomS re looking to ban anonymous donations. They refuse to accept responsibility, and they show how vindictive they are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:11am
Linda

“I’m struggling to see any integrity in the way Labour came to office and still less now they’re clinging to it.”

You’ll keep struggling because there is no integrity in the labour party.

Because they got away with it before, they think they should get away with it again. They knew damn well the pledge card and other spending was electioneering, but the took the money, spent it, and massively breached the spending cap.

They simply must go.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:13am
Andrew

David said: Why did the supposed independant Speaker ask for an outside legal opinion. Why not ask the Solicitor General?

Could it be because the working brief could be kept away from public scrutiny? How much were Chapman Tripp paid for their advice? What other payments have Labour party officials or executive made recently to Chapman Tripp partners or executives? So many questions the answers to which will help ordinary NZ’ers decide what kind of democracy we have
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:15am
ScrubOne

Toms: See my blog for a graph which shows all this.

Then shut up 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:17am
Kent Parker

It would be hard to prove that the extra money spent on pledge cards was what won Labour the election. Things like BrethrenGate and the National definition of ‘mainstream’ would have been more influential.

If you are going to measure money as a direct relative to influence, then you need to include the half million that the Brethren spent on behalf of National, in which case, both parties were evenly balanced.

The worst kind of ‘bought election’ is the one we don’t know about because it has happened anonymously and secretively.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:21am
Linda

No Kent – the worst kind of bought election is one where the governing party raids taxpayer funds to get themselves re-elected and then, totally without shame, trys to tell us they didn’t mean to break the rules.

Do you have any idea how much money $800,000 is? It is a massive over spend and breaks the rules to a huge extent. This government is illegitimate!

Fresh ecections need to be called before Christmas.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:26am
ScrubOne

Ken, I disagree.

Had Labour tried to comply with the rules when told they might be in breach, they would have had to shut down all advertising in the last days of the campaign.

In a close election like this one, no advertising and the fact that a party had rorted the fules would have been deadly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:26am
mjl

In a close election like this one, no advertising and the fact that a party had rorted the fules would have been deadly.

Its worth noting that National overspent its television advertising (by about $100k if i recall correctly) by forgetting to include GST in its total.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:33am
Murray

I’m looking forward to a legitmate election myself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:34am
hisself

Interesting billboard, but incorrect. National repaid money identified as overspent, but that does not absolve the original overspending. I suggest you correct the picture, to maintain any reputaion for accuracy you have.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:34am
Andrew

Kent Parker said: The worst kind of ‘bought election’ is the one we don’t know about because it has happened anonymously and secretively

The right for any one or any group to voice their disapproval of an elected Government is a cornerstone of democracy. At our last elections there were hundreds of examples of this. Unions, EB’s, blogs, heated debate over a few beers etc.

However the use of executive privilege and public money to secure re-election is evidence that this Government is bereft of integrity and lacking even the most basic commitment to the principles of democracy. It’s time they were held to account.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:35am
noj

Heard Mike Williams on the radio this morning saying that they would be fundraising over ‘the next year’ to pay the money.

So I guess it will be a while before it is paid back.

Try doing that with the IRD!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:36am
spam

hisself,

You miss the point. The money the Nats overspent is not money that was stolen – it was their own money.

Unlike labour – they had two forms: Overspending using their own money, plus spending of (stolen) taxpayer’s money for electioneering purposes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:37am
mygumboot

Either Helen and co. have done deliberately stolen tax payers money, or they have spent the funds, genuniely making a mistake.

If they have stolen the money deliberately they should be held accountable, and a new election should be held.

If they have spent the funds, genuniely making a mistake they are 69 times stupider than National, how can Winston and Peter continue to support them.

Incompetence or dishonesty are the only excuses Labour have, either way they should not be able to continue governing this country
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:41am
Cadmus

Not a fair post DPF!
I believe you have let yourself down on this one.

PM Clark like Dr Brash both “overspent” I don’t blame the PM waiting for the correct figures ot come out.

Labour are paying the money back just like National…Whats the problem????
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:42am
Peter S

hisself,

the picture is correct, it refers to illegal spending by the leader as leader, National’s illegal $11k was spent by MPs other than Brash, likewise Labour as a whole spent nearly $800k, whilst Clark was personally responsible for the $400k – $500k from the Leaders fund.

“Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left.”

I can hear the fat lady doing her warm ups.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:45am
Kent Parker

Andrew,

However the use of executive privilege and public money to secure re-election is evidence that this Government is bereft of integrity and lacking even the most basic commitment to the principles of democracy. It’s time they were held to account.

Couldn’t agree more, and the time for being held to account would be in 2008. National is not squeaky clean or strong enough to unseat Labour over this yet. With UF, NZF and the Greens in the same cart as Labour they are all going to rally together rather than rock the boat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:48am
Linda

Cadmus – National paid the money back immediately they became aware of a problem.

Labour have wriggled and twisted and now they say sure, we’ll pay it back, but we’ll need a year to fund raise. They have not paid it back, and the longer they take the worse it gets.

Also it was the Labour Party MPs who stole the money – why should Labour party supporters be expected to contribute? It just stinks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:49am
Inventory2

With regard to the Statute of Limitations on the election overspending – does the clock start when the expense is incurred, or when the cash is paid?? If the latter is the case, can parties book advertising to be paid on account much later – I think not! I hope that Labour’s “confidence and supply” partners remember their commitment NOT to support retrospective legislation!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 8:59am
david

The question now becomes, how much influence did the pledge cards have in getting votes for labour? If the answer is “a lot” then we have to have a new election as this last one was illegally won.
Labour will probably need more than ayear to pay it back. They dont have a lot of members, and their constituency aint that rich either. Except for the unions and they are funded by the govt anyway!Look for the unions to start making “gifts for democracy” ie cash for control.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:01am
Peter S

Sorry Kent, but 2008 is not an acceptable date for dealing with this situation. Just as waiting until after the Tangi was not acceptable in the Kahui case.

Serious doubt has been cast on the integrity of the last election. The only way of restoring this faith is a new election, and that means now. The only other way you could justify the parliament remaining for the full term would be for each party to remove any MP implicated in the misspending, and replace them with list MPs from lower down the list. Electorate MPs would be removed, and a local election called with another candidate standing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:02am
david

I also think a fair amount of kudos needs to go to our host , the inimitable Mr Farrar. There is no doubt your campaign and explanation of these issues has had a great effect on this event.You held the line, straightened out journalists and newspaper editors as to the facts with your accurate analysis. It is rare that one man(and his site) can have such an influence and I think its a significant acheivement. Clark , no doubt, is really pissed about it.
Well done.Email your address I have a bottle of Veuve Cliquot for you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:08am
candida

I think we need to keep a very beady eye on Clark to see where she gets this money from. Labour don’t have the money. The lap-dog Unions don’t have the money. The hordes of Labour-induced beneficiaries don’t have the money. Where, oh where will Helen find the cash? Maybe we need a PI to follow her for the next few months?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:14am
Fletch

I read now that MPs themselves will contribute some to paying the money back? My first post in the this thread was basically regarding the 0900 donations. I can’t remember, but was there a limit to the amount of donations (anonymous or otherwise) a party can receive for the Election?

If there is a limit to the amount of donations a party can receive for election spending then aren’t the 0900 donations and other donations from the public toward paying money back for the pledge card (which has now been defined as spending on party promotion for the election) again putting Labour over the limit for the amount they should have been allowed?

In other words they are still using donations partly to pay for election advertising material, and this is putting them over the allowed amount?

I don’t know, maybe someone can correct me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:19am
DavidW

david
The question is not about how much influence the pledge card had.
The question is how influential was the $440K of Labour Party election funds that were freed up by using taxpayer money used to give HC a platform to electioneer on?
The pledge card itself possibly garnered not one extra vote but the airtime spent talking about it may have suckered thousands into trusting what has turned out to be a bunch of rorting crooks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:28am
DavidW

Questions for the day

1. Are 0900 donations anonymous?

2. Will Mike Williams refuse anonymous donations towards the “repay the stolen money fund”?

3. Will the Labour party check all donors against their list of Exclusive Bretheren and tear up any cheques that have a name match?

4. Will Labour Party refuse donations from any Trust towards the “repay the stolen money fund”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:33am
Christine

On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:55am
Christine

On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:56am
Christine

On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:57am
Christine

On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 9:58am
Christine

On TV this morning Michael Cullen said they would not have to pay GST on the money because it was “inter-parliamentary”. Now this sounds decidedly dodgy to me. Why would it be GST exempt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:00am
DavidW

Christine
Try using the refresh button on your browser to check if your post has gone through
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:02am
Andrew

Kent Parker said: Couldn’t agree more, and the time for being held to account would be in 2008. National is not squeaky clean or strong enough to unseat Labour over this yet

Sorry Kent, but justice takes priority over convenience of schedule. If I were to be convicted of a crime should I be permitted to organise my family business, see my children through school, pay my mortgage the only then be punished for my crime? That, of course, would be nonsense as is the suggestion that we wait until 2008 before Labour is held to account. And with respect, the preparedness of the other parties to present themselves as a worthy alternative is not at all relevant. Justice and integrity first. Then let the people decide.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:03am
DavidW

what Andrew said .. aye
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:05am
Linda

what Andrew said – with bells on.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:07am
Rocket Boy

All you Labour haters seem to miss a very important point about Labours election spending. The decision on what was included and what was not was not black and white and there is still considerable legal opinion that the auditor general has got it wrong. But unlike the auditor general the government is ultimately accountable to the voters of this country and they have decided to say ‘enough is enough’ and pay the money back. I think it is the right thing for Labour to do.

However to say there actions were corrupt and the election was illegitimate is just plain nonsense.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:08am
Andrew

One doesn’t need to hate anything to want something else. I want some integrity from our leaders and it’s now abundantly clear that we’re not getting that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:12am
sonic

Mr Farrar, your fox has been shot, time to get a new issue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:14am
ross

Sonic, your beloved leader has been exposed as a fraud, time to worship a new leader.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:19am
bwakile

dear rocketboy
I really dont care about the money but I do care that in the big picture our country appears to be morally bankrupt. The socialists had all of last century to prove themselves and I didnt exactly see it as a resounding success. The “stay in power at all costs” is a pretty pathetic way to live your life. I am just pleased that we now have blogs where common sense can at least be debated without being edited. Will we get another election?
Common decency would say so but I wont be holding my breath
cheers
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:24am
Peter S

Sonic,

You don’t get it do you?

Everyone is moving on. Moving on from “pay it back” to “New Election.”

The public are taking up the cry “Move on”, but it is being said to Labour, and means “Move OUT.”

If the right moves are not made, then the crys may change to “Move On Parliament”, which is usually accompanied by “Vive La Revolution” calls as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:27am
bwakile

Forgot to mention
Do they still ask this question in schools

“Does the end justify the means or does the means justify the end?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:30am
sonic

New election?

To do that you need to win a no confidence vote in parliament, I would rate the chances of that to be somewhere around zero.

You could of course go in for some extra-parliamentary direct action, I can see it now, lots of men in suits chucking up a barricade.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:35am
phillipjohn

“If the right moves are not made, then the crys may change to “Move On Parliament”, which is usually accompanied by “Vive La Revolution” calls as well.”

Yes I can see the centre of Wellington covered in throngs of SUVs all on their way to the beehive. Thousands of middle class balding overweight men brandishing golf clubs and cappuccinos, clearing their way for Don to hobble gloriously to the throne. Vive La Revolution indeed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:36am
Linda

So, the cry from the left now is “middle aged men won’t march on parliament so we’ll get away with being corrupt thieves.”

Whatever happen HONOUR?

You know, the Westminster tradition of RESIGNING.

Hell people have resigned for a hell of a lot less that this lot have got away with.

One option could be all the National Party MPs resgning one by one forcing by-elections.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:42am
sonic

I think that we should just let National become the government for ever, why risk letting a bunch of uniformed, so called “voters” make such vital decisions.

Democracy is fine in it’s place, but the idea that a bunch of poor brown people get as many votes as decent, god fearing conservatives is just political correctness gone mad!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:42am
bwakile

Our generation didnt expect to have “to take to the streets to “fight” for what we believe in” as our Grandfathers and fathers did that last century – went to war to fight for freedom and democracy and a better world for us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:43am
NickB

Labour was right to pay the money back but there’ll be no political benefit to them, merely detriment partly avoided, at huge cost. I wouldn’t underestimate what a terrible result this is for them.

Will Labour supporters feel willing to cough up to solve a problem that Labour created for itself? I doubt this will be an easy whip-around. It will strain the organisation and irritate the caucus; Clark begins to look less godlike, even to those who owe their position to her.

If the party manages to raise these election-year-level funds in an off-year , it then has to turn around and do it all again, immediately, for 2008. At the same time, Labour’s partner parties are all left in financial crisis. Which is why an early election is a pipe dream and a fourth term even harder to win.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:54am
Seamonkey Madness

I know this has been said by myself on other threads, and by others as well, but:

WILL THEY PAY THE FRICKING INTEREST ON IT?!

This is one thing the media has not dug deep enough to find out – they should. Ask Clark and Cullen the right questions. If the rules apply to ordinary kiwis – and by admission of “refunding” the stolen money, Labour now (grudgingly) agree – then why should they not be applied to this debt?

$800,000 at 8% over two years (until next election), they would need to pay back $16,671.80 a fortnight. This means an equivalent interest value of approx. $67,000.
Now that would buy a lot of hip replacement operations.

The new slogan should be “Pay it back…with interest!“
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:56am
Kent Parker

Peter S, Andrew et al,

An election could only be held ‘by lunchtime’ if there was a majority vote of no confidence in the government within parliament. The public, least of all bloggers, cannot call an election.

As I pointed out, since UF, NZF and the Greens have all been affected by the same interpretation of the election rules then they are not likely to support a vote of no confidence.

Instead we are likely to see an attack from all four fronts on the manner in which National carried out their election campaign, and since, to err is human, that will be shown to be less than squeaky clean as well. At the end of the day we are all losers because of where our political processes have plummetted to.

Maybe the rules should be changed to handicap an incumbent government from getting back in, either by diminishing the amount they are allowed to spend, or by increasing the majority requirement to have the first say in forming the government.

Power, indeed, corrupts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:56am
Andrew

No Sonic, political correctness gone mad is when intrinsically illegal actions by elected government serve to keep them in power.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:58am
DavidW

sonic
almost right that National is the natural party of Government but you are really buying a fight to suggest that the poor and the brown would be somehow precluded from voting the correct party into power.

Funny that you should try to play a “race card” out of the blue (no pun intended)- anyone would think that you stood for seperatism and race based preferences.

surely not !!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 10:59am
Murray

Sonic you are as in touch with mainstream New Zealand as your deity.

Neither of you can tell us what issues concern us.

How much have you given to bail out your theiving mistress by the way?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:03am
kiwi_donkey

Sonic. Heard of Doug Graham? I thought not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:03am
Andrew

You guys are correct, a vote of no confidence is one way to force an election. Not likely though given that the matter in question relates to the integrity of securing office in the first place.

Another option would be a few by-elections. There are three Labour held seats (Otaki, Rotorua & Hamilton West) with majorities of less than 1000. Perhaps those MPs will see the writing on the wall at about the same time Helen pressgangs them for money to help fund her addiction to power. A local businessperson might like to offer them alternative employment to help ease the transition.

PhillipJohn said: Thousands of middle class balding overweight men brandishing golf clubs and cappuccinos

Yes – that would be a grand sight wouldn’t it
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:11am
Inventory2

We can doubtless expect the smokescreens to get worse, as Helen and her cronies, poodles and other lackies try to divert attention away from their “sins” – expect a full-on assault on National re the EB’s, anonymous donations, GST, backflips on tax policy etc etc – expertly directed by H1 and H2 from the 9th Floor War Office. Anyone know a good PI with a bit of dirt to dish?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:13am
MM

Good moaning, nice to see the level of debate
has improved. Now…MANY of you have suggested we have new elections and even by-elections. While this would work in theory, it won’t work in fact unless all parties in this theft are prosecuted in a court before the public eye and and if found guilty, convicted as any citizen guilty of ‘THEFT AS A SERVANT’ would be.

Any MP,PUPLIC SERVANT, PARTY OFFICAL OR THEIR
AGENTS found guilty should be banned for life
from any political or public office.

On a lighter note. Ways to raise funds.
Hellen could whip up some paintings.
Gerry could hold a dietthon.
Winston a wingefest.
Peter D. a prayer meeting.
Jennette could sell tinnies.
Rodney could give dancing lessons.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:30am
Linda

MM – what about they all resign. Honour and tradition and all that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:49am
bwakile

MM
Please dont insult christians by implying that Snake oil Dunne is one
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 11:58am
Andrew

MM said: Any MP,PUPLIC SERVANT, PARTY OFFICAL OR THEIR
AGENTS found guilty should be banned for life from any political or public office

If ever there was anecdotal evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely try this: Taito Philip-Field has the largest electoral majority – a whopping 16,020 on his 19,633 votes. Next of the list of safe majorities is Helen Clark. And then George Hawkins.

I’m sure all these folks are squeaky clean so I won’t bother assembling an abuse of majority index. Anecdotal, yes that’s all it is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:05pm
Younger Brother

There seems to be a widespread assumption here that this issue ‘cost’ National the election.

That is a rather large and impossible to substantiate assumption, given that there were so many other valid reasons not to vote National at the last election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:11pm
Ben Wilson

Younger Brother, that is true. Claims of a stolen election would only make any sense if Labour had actually spent more on the election. Did they? Certainly they spent more public funds, and they have now agreed to pay that back. But even at the time, was more money spent on electioneering by Labour?

A premature election isn’t going to happen, guys. Dream on. Just wait until next time, like everyone else does in a democracy. It may suck, but that’s our system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:52pm
ScrubOne

A confidence motion is most certainly not the only way to get a new election.

I agree with the “resign one each week” – reporting increased majorities each week would send a powerful message.

But what people are forgetting is who is really in charge under the law – the Queen. It is possible that Brash may make an appeal to the GG on the grounds the a) the last election was manipulated, and b) the public have no confidence in the current parliament.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:53pm
sonic

So now the GG is going to call an election for you?

Have you guys been visiting here?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077008/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 12:57pm
DavidW

HHmmmm just a thought,
Wonder what the PM’s response would be to a public petition calling on the Government to resign and go to the country ‘cos they have lost the confidence of the people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 1:06pm
sonic

Get out that table and start getting signatures then David.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 1:12pm
Ben Wilson

DavidW, I’m thinking their response would be the same as every political party in NZ has ever been to such a request:

“We will be calling on the public to make their choice, as to which party or set of parties they have confidence in, very soon – at the next general election”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 1:17pm
Jeff

I can’t wait for the fall out if it comes out that Don spent his leaders budget hiring staff who directly worked on the election campaign in the 3 months prior to the election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 3:51pm
A thought

I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG asking her to dissolve parliament as they believe the government is only there through corrupt practises…

Saying that while the PM may have the confidence of parliament she doesn’t have the confidence of the public!

Anyone know????
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 3:54pm
sonic

http://www.bit.tekotago.ac.nz/~sam/research/webpage/is/sspics/image71.jpg
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 4:20pm
jono

“I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG asking her to dissolve parliament as they believe the government is only there through corrupt practises…”

Yes, its called a pen and paper (or computer if you are really up to date). Also, its a he, not a she. And, the polls still show that the current govt would still be in if an election were called anytime over the last few weeks – furthermore, the Nats have probably reduced their chances by alienating NZF, UFNZ, and, to some extent, Act. As Ben Wilson has already said, there is not going to be an early election. Mainly as there is no real reason for one. Whip it up all you like, it doesn’t mean it is a) right or b) will happen.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 4:26pm
simon

where do these guys get there time!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 13, 2006 6:43pm
hyteresaw

One old american man win in lotto 250 000 000$.
I want win money too!!!!!!!!!!a-a-a-a
Give me money!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 23, 2007 4:26pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« PAY IT BACK!!!

Ensuring the small parties pay back »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 15 November 2024
What Labour voters think of Willie
Marsden Fund goes even more woke
Another win for the FSU
Make principals accountable
Waste, waste, waste
Ad: ACT New Zealand is hiring!
Matt Gaetz for Attorney-General must be a troll?
General Debate 14 November 2024
How would NZ Labour do using this vision

Recent Posts

Waste, waste, waste 15 November 2024
Ad: ACT New Zealand is hiring! 15 November 2024
Another win for the FSU 15 November 2024
General Debate 15 November 2024 15 November 2024
Marsden Fund goes even more woke 15 November 2024
What Labour voters think of Willie 14 November 2024
How would NZ Labour do using this vision 14 November 2024
Matt Gaetz for Attorney-General must be a troll? 14 November 2024
New media vs legacy media 14 November 2024
General Debate 14 November 2024 14 November 2024
The German Labour-ACT-Greens coalition has ended 14 November 2024
The Deeply Flawed Charter School Situation 13 November 2024

Recent Comments

Marsden Fund goes even more woke
Loddenthinks
What Labour voters think of Willie
Rumblestrip
Waste, waste, waste
Suze Wainwright
General Debate 15 November 2024
Jack5
Waste, waste, waste
Damocles11
Another win for the FSU
Jack5
General Debate 15 November 2024
Maggy Wassilieff
Marsden Fund goes even more woke
Pope Punctilious II
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
judith8409121
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 15 November 2024
cmm

Links

Ross Meurant: ‘History can be a Bitch’ – once said Titewhai Harawira
Breaking Views
More lawlessness from National
No Right Turn
Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train
Not PC
Trumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
Utopia
Seymour’s bill split the House – but (as is shown by the 68-54 vote after an ill-tempered debate) not “down the middle”
Point of Order
Thankfully we said nope to dope
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Daily review 15/11/2024
The Standard
MEDIAWATCH: Willie Jackson’s fiery speech that had Gallery cheering
The Daily Blog
Government only partially adheres to Waitangi Tribunal order, as tensions heat up
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
A NEW DEGREE COURSE FOR MASSEY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d