About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 6, 2007 10:45am by David Farrar

Relative Spends

A reader, Clive, sent this graphic in which he produced. I think it is an excellent representation of the relative spends and limits.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment158

Uncategorised
Electoral Act

Comments (158)

Login to comment or vote

Grant McKenna

Great balls of liar! This really sums up the disparity in expenditure.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Exclusive Brethren.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 10:53am
side show bob

Clive has his colours wrong, the big one should be red.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 10:54am
Pascal

That certainly puts it into perspective. Of course, our friends will assure us that this is all in the interest of having a fair election. *cough* *cough*
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 10:58am
Inventory2

Sheeeee-it! When you see it expressed in those terms, it kind of puts anonymous donations, Owen Glenn and the EB in perspective. And to think, the government has voted themselves an open cheque books in 2008.

And Grant McKenna – neither am I!!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:06am
John Ansell

Clive, that’s brilliant. Well done.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:16am
Wycroft

Hmm, praise from the master Clive, I’d be blushing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:18am
Kent Parker

But, DFP, the incumbent govt has always had this ‘unfair’ advantage in expenditure during election year, so, there is nothing new here. Governments are voted out on performance, not lack of persuasive power. There is no conclusive evidence that letterbox mailouts really have that much effect on election outcomes.

I do agree, however, that the third party allocation is paltry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:20am
Redbaiter

“There is no conclusive evidence that letterbox mailouts really have that much effect on election outcomes. ”

So why the hatred for the Brethren??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:27am
Bevan

But, DFP, the incumbent govt has always had this ‘unfair’ advantage in expenditure during election year, so, there is nothing new here. Governments are voted out on performance, not lack of persuasive power. There is no conclusive evidence that letterbox mailouts really have that much effect on election outcomes.

Well if thats the case, then why does Labour feel the need to restrict third party spending?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:31am
Tane

Except that government advertising is not electioneering. God you’re dishonest David.

[DPF: The translation to that is “waa waa waa”. I never said it was electioneering. But you know if the Govt says it needs to spend $69 million just to communicate with the public on various issues, what does that signify about a limit of $120,000?]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:33am
Pascal

Tane: Except that government advertising is not electioneering. God you’re dishonest David.

This must be why their advertising increases by such a large degree in election years, eh Tane? Because it’s not “electioneering”.

Whether you see it that way or not, the fact of the matter is that advertising the policy changes of an incumbent government is a sign of what they have done for the country. That is, inherently, electioneering just as it is inherently part of governmental communication with the people it’s policies apply to.

When you couple that with the massive increases in spending by the government departments in election years however it paints a picture of electioneering.

Are you being intellectually dishonest or just plain disingenious, Tane?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:35am
Bevan

Except that government advertising is not electioneering. God you’re dishonest David.

Then why did the Environment Ministray need Clare Curren, a media strategist, to help push the party line?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:37am
burt

Kent Parker

Labout said after they were caught out stealing $800K for election advertising that the additional spending made no difference to the outcome. What you have said above supports the position that advertising spend has no impact on voter choice.

Are you saying there is no need to limit campaign funding because there has never really been a limit, and it makes no difference anyway?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:37am
Wycroft

Yeah Tane, that’s exactly the conclusion I came to as I drove past bus stop after bus stop in August 2005, emblazend with Labour red, the Parliamentary crest, photos of smiling children rolling about with their father on a freshly mown front lawn, and ‘Working for Families’ and associated taglines. I thought, that’s just advertising, not electioneering. NOT!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:37am
burt

Tane

Right back at you:

Except that government advertising is not electioneering. God you’re dishonest David.

tin.foil.hat
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:39am
Rocket Boy

And where is the National Pary election spending on your pretty little picture? Official and unofficial. And for good measure why not show the $200K DVD spend.

Balance in a discussion, do any of you know the meaning of the word??

God you people are blinded by your own narrow view of the world.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:42am
Inventory2

Tane said “Except that government advertising is not electioneering. God you’re dishonest David.”

DPF dishonest – sheesh Tane – three words come to mind – Pots, Kettles, Black.

BTW – are you still spreading the line that National supports the EFB? Thought not!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:44am
burt

Rocket Boy

You make a good point about not showing National’s election spend. As for the DVD, the single black pixel for that is quite possibly shown on the graph, perhaps just the text is missing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:44am
TC

Its just as bad for campaigning in a constituency seat.
Individual no job for say 6 months while campaigning and $20,000 to spend.
Sitting MP $60,000 plus salary for six months, $20,000 to spend and electorate allowance up to $64,000 but probably $40,000 to spend informing the electorate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:45am
burt

Clive/DPF

It’s a stunning representation. Excellent work, it should be front page of every major daily paper when the EFB is passed to show the public the hollowness of the justifications for the bill.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:46am
Wycroft

Rocket Boy, the only amount I’ve seen for the DVD is $50,000; where did 200k come from?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:50am
Kent Parker

redbait,

I have no idea why Labour has a bee in their bonnet about the EB’s

bevan,

What I am saying is that DPF’s illustration above is pretty similar to the way it has always been and there is nothing new and it has never stopped govts from being voted out (They have never to my knowledge ever been voted in!). So, it’s yawn.

burt,

What I am saying is that quote: “There is no conclusive evidence that letterbox mailouts really have that much effect on election outcomes”, which I don’t think supports either position.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:55am
Bevan

Out of his arse Wycroft
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:55am
burt

Wycroft

I think the current Labour talking point is to keep pushing the amount the DVD cost up just like amount the EB spent grew every time it was talked about.

If Key’s DVD cost more than Winston overspent it’s all OK and Winston isn’t looking so bad, just as if the amount the EB spent is talked up above what Labour stole then Labour won’t look so bad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:56am
burt

Kent Parker

So there is no evidence the EB mailouts had any effect – so WTF are we wasting so much of parliaments time with the EFB for. Are there not bigger things to worry about – things that make a difference.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 11:58am
Bevan

Kent maybe I shouldnt have quoted the entire paragraph, nut your comment Governments are voted out on performance, not lack of persuasive power. begs the question as to why Labour constantly refers to big money trying to buy elections and not only feels the need to restrict third party spending, but also attempt to limit the amount of money National can raise (and before you go on about evil anonymous donations, I firmly believe if every donator to the National party was unveiled, all that would happen is Trevor would start using Parliarmentary privelidge to ruin them).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:01pm
Rocket Boy

Wycroft: The Dominion Post had the amount at $200K, this included the ‘Heartland Tour’ costs, check the link at:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4311334a23917.html

Anyone see Key getting mauled by Paul Henry on ‘Breakfast’ this morning??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:01pm
Kent Parker

burt,

Totally agree. EFB equals ‘Effing Fruitless Banter”. If it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:02pm
Bevan

Wycroft: The Dominion Post had the amount at $200K, this included the ‘Heartland Tour’ costs, check the link at:

So you were lying when you said: And for good measure why not show the $200K DVD spend.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:05pm
burt

Kent Parker

Political life in NZ would have been much cleaner and clearer if Labour had accepted the AG’s ruling and did what they said they were going to do and ‘moved on’ rather than making new rules so they could go in circles rather than “move on”.

The rules as interpreted by the AG would have been fine for the 2008 election – perhaps not sufficiently slanted to advantage Labour, this is where it all went wrong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:05pm
Camryn

Wycroft – It’s the initial guesstimate they made on The Standard. Reasons their estimate may be too high include that they assumed all footage to be new (increasing materials and labour costs by a huge amount).

Rocket – I don’t think that the graphic leaves off National to be biased. It simply has Labour as representative of the party level because they get the most funding. National’s allowance would be slightly smaller and would actually make the comparison versus the government advertising spend even worse. The actual dishonest thing to do would’ve been to show National instead of Labour or to add Labour to the government advertising budget, which brings me to…

Tane (the other leftie who has invoked God on this thread) – Clearly government advertising spend has a purpose other than electioneering, but it obviously has electioneering value. If it is not meddled with in any way (i.e. not increased in election year, no party hacks are inserted into the process) then it still promotes the incumbent as government actions and the policies of the government party. That’s why government advertising immediately before elections is not good. When government advertising ‘suspiciously’ peaks in election years and incidents like the Leigh/Curran debacle start to surface then it’s obvious that the governing party is ‘taking the piss’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:12pm
Camryn

There’s an “and” in my final paragraph that should be an “are”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:13pm
Bogusnews

I think Tane and co are either totally naive or just plain brainwashed. You would have to be a simpleton to think that the state service propaganda will not be carefully construed to make it electioneering.

Labour was caught out for example getting the medical profession to boast about the achievements of the Labour government when people called in. they shut that down pretty quick once they were found out, but as we only learned about this through a fluke, what other schemes are being enacted that we don’t know about.

This government CANNOT be trusted with advertising money
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:16pm
Kent Parker

This link puts the cost of the DVD itself at $20,000
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4311912a23917.html
which seems reasonable, given that it was only 12 minutes and just featured Key and his car with a few backdrops. The rest of the $200,000 is the cost of petrol to get round the Heartland.

Yes, I agree, Burt, but political life is never clean and clear and the right has gained some leverage from pointing out the faults iin the last election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:17pm
Wycroft

I think this shows two things. First, National is being extremely transparent about the cost of its party activities – I recall no such disclosures outside of an election year when Helen is conducting Labour Party business (but perhaps the hacks have just never asked the same questions of Labour; I suspect so). And second, the National Party machine must be fizzing; i.e. fed-up New Zealanders are joining the party and donating in their masses. If party funds are so healthy that they can be spent in this manner outside of election year then the public is hitching its wagon to National in big numbers. I suspect Labour knows this – Mike Williams is probably having the door slammed in his face every day – hence Labour’s clumsy shifting of the goal posts in their favour with the EFB.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:21pm
Simeon

If you put another dot in there with how much the Exclusive Brethren Business men spent, then you really see who stole the last election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:23pm
PaulL

Wycroft: you are missing that National is wealthy because of the anonymous donations from the insurance industry and the other puppet masters, not because of ordinary NZers. (Just getting in before Tane or Nome turn up).

Nice diagram, I would suggest that the anonymous donation limit should be represented as well – a total of 240K per annum is it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:33pm
david

You make a good point Wycroft. So perhaps Tane can answer the question as to why have National got a “bulging war chest” and “overflowing coffers” as has been so enviously claimed (as if it is something that the Blues should be ashamed of) by coalition and Green MPs both in the House and outside?

Better still perhaps Tane, the dishonourable Gnome, Kent, Policy Parrot and all the other pitiful Labour apologists might reflect on in terms of popular support. But no I suspect that they wouldn’t get a micrometre past “a few wealthy backers who are buying policy” or “American Bagmen” or even The BRT if they are really, really desperate not to face the truth..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:34pm
david

Ooops, too late, PaulL kneejerked faster than I can type.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:35pm
Rocket Boy

Kent Parker: The $20,000 is the cost of repressing the DVD after taking out the Coldplay song. The math goes like this: 10,000 DVD’s at $2 a shot = $20,000.

The $200K is the Dominion Post estimate for making the DVD, pressing 10,000 copies and then traveling around the ‘Heartland’ to distribute it.

If the $200K was on the picture above it would be a dot nearly twice the size of the ‘third part cap’ and that is just for one National Party campaign!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:45pm
Pascal

Rocket Boy, is the EFB in effect already?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:52pm
PaulL

David: you are right. I wasn’t clear enough that I was being sarcastic. Will make that clearer next time.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:53pm
Kent Parker

Oops! yer right, Rboy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 12:56pm
Rocket Boy

Pascal: No the EFB is not in effect yet. What is your point?

The picture above is called ‘relative spends’ I am merely suggesting something else (the $200k DVD/Heartland tour) as an another thing to compare the relative spends to.

I am certainly not suggesting that it is wrong for National to spend their money on the dvd/tour but let’s try and get some honestly in this discussion and some of the numbers and graphs being thrown around by DPF and co.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:00pm
Inventory2

Interesting…..Tane came in and made an allegation against DPF at 11.33am – roundly slagged off by a number of commenters, and he hasn’t been seen since. Is the left losing its appetite for the fight, or has Tane been summonsed for the charm offensive this afternoon should Mallard do the right thing and resign?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:12pm
Ben Wilson

It’s interesting all right. I’ve always disliked the idea of being propagandized by the government.

That said, the solution is clearly to disallow it, or put clearer rules around to what extent the ‘communication of options now available to the public’ is being sacrificed to ‘endorsement of policy’. Put it in the bill?

Naturally the absence of a big blue dot shows the bias of the author of the graphic.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:13pm
Pascal

Rocket Boy: The picture above is called ‘relative spends’ I am merely suggesting something else (the $200k DVD/Heartland tour) as an another thing to compare the relative spends to.

Correct.

However, it has little bearing on the whole issue. John Key’s DVD expense would fall under his party expenses. (Similar to the big red dot) It is not illegal. It is part of the party spend. Think big red dot. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about DPF’s graphs or numbers. Look at them carefully again.

It shows the anonymous donation cap. Check.
It shows the 3rd party spending cap. Check.
It shows how the largest political party spending cap. Check.
It shows governmental advertising spending. Check.

Why do you want to see a specific, National Party party expense added? Why would that make the graph more “honest”? After all, the big red dot is not broken into the various campaigns that Labour would run, nor is any mention made of Unions or the big red dot that represents the $800,000.00 overspend by Labour added.

(Which would certainly be a few orders of magnitude over the $120,000)

So, respectfully, again. What is the point in wanting to highlight a particular part of the National Party’s expenditure when we’re looking at totals and how would that make it more “honest”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:14pm
Kimble

Labour has the largest allocation of all parties. Why wouldnt you show that?

If the guy was a greens supporter would you expect him to put up a Green dot?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:15pm
Wycroft

Problem is Rocket Boy, the path you’re going down is almost like one of those meaningless conversations like ‘list your favourite 10 rock songs’ or ‘who’s the greatest heavyweight of all time?’ Not exactly, I know, because what you’re pushing for would have an end point – you could conclusively create a diagram with a circle representing the size and origin of every piece of spending in the electoral cycle. But that would be messy, and the power of what Clive has done lies in its simplicity; he was getting a point across. Anyway, what do you think, we live in a democracy all of a sudden? Your point has been taken, but if you don’t see an amended diagram appear anytime soon I think you can safely assume that’s all it’s been.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:17pm
Kimble

Would a Labour supporter even make a chart like that?

So in the interests of fairness the chart should be removed until there is total consensus as to its legitimacy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:18pm
Pascal

Inventory2, people have lives outside of blogs. It’s entirely possible that Tane is having lunch, visiting a friend or have become embroiled in work.

However, I see what you’re shooting at and it has reached a point in the political debate where the only defense the Left has for some of the antics of the Labour party are dishonest. They cannot stay around and discuss the point without looking fools. Look at Roger Nome ast night trying to fling faeces like the good little monkey he is.

(Roger, before you come back with more spurious allegations here – the comment is a humourous reference to the mindlessness of a monkey throwing shit – it is not racism)

And whilst I’m certainly not one to declare victory even in an online debate, facts certainly seems to be on the side of the opponents of the bill, rather than on the side of the proponents.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:18pm
Rocket Boy

Umm Pascal: The big red dot is call ‘Eligible Labour Party 2008 election spend’ and I don’t see a ‘National Party 2008 Eligible spend’, that is why the graph is not honest. {Really did I have to explain that??}

Wycroft: No the point is that this is just another example of the one sided hysteria that passes for ‘facts’ on this blog.

Oh and Pascal before you claim victory in this online debate have a look at this….

http://dogtoe.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:32pm
Wycroft

Not really Rocket Boy, it’s probably the best online conversation going on in this country. And, there’s plenty of feisty, not to mention thoughtful, opinion from the Left on here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:35pm
Pascal

Rocket Boy, you need to learn to read.

Quote: “whilst I’m certainly not one to declare victory even in an online debate, facts certainly seems to be on the side of the opponents of the bill”

There is no claiming of victory, just an assertion that facts seem to be on side. Calm down before joining Roger 🙂

And none of the minor parties are included either. The Greens, NZ First, ACT, Destiny – none of them. The largest party is used as a baseline example. There is nothing dishonest in that. Are you really that biased that people can’t even use Labour, as the largest party, as an example without incurring some claims of “dishonesty”?

Come on mate. Reality check maybe?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:36pm
Pascal

P.S. Note the graph uses the caps, i.e. maximums. Thus it makes sense to use the party with the largest possible expenditure for 2008 as we are dealing in maximums. No?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:39pm
Ben Wilson

Pascal, it’s not ‘dishonest’, it’s ‘biased’. The visual message is that Labour spends huge sums on advertising, whilst seeking to restrict all other spending to a tiny dot. It’s the same kind of bias that is present in the big green dot of propaganda, which doesn’t actually say “this is all because of Labour”, but I totally agree that is implied, and have always felt uncomfortable about that kind of advertising.

The graph wouldn’t have looked much different at all if the red dot was a blue one, but you need to be blinded by ideology not to see that it conveys a totally different impression.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:42pm
Kent Parker

The graph wouldn’t have looked much different at all if the red dot was a blue one

In three years time that is likely to be the case, and then what is Pascal going to say?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:46pm
Inventory2

Fair comment Pascal – the EPMU may indeed have required Tane to work today! Porr bloke, he’ll do it tough!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:48pm
Ben Wilson

In three years time that is likely to be the case, and then what is Pascal going to say?

That we deserved it, I imagine. The green dot will also be pwned by National then too, so I don’t expect to see this kind of graph again on this site for several years thereafter.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:51pm
krazykiwi

There’s a dot missing.

It’s about 1000th the size of the smallest one.

It represents the value Labour places on personal integrity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:54pm
dad4justice

No wonder I got the blues . Will the little red dot spawn another fraudulent pledgecard for my dart board ?

I think the blinded kamikaze Labour propaganda machine in stuck in kaleidoscope corruption mode .
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:55pm
pacman

I did the graphic and there are some obvious issues (I did not increase the 69 million into $2008 to account for inflation one). But the reason it is Labours (and red) is their absurd claim that 3rd party spending over $120,000 will distort democracy and drown out their message.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:57pm
Tane

[DPF: The translation to that is “waa waa waa”. I never said it was electioneering. But you know if the Govt says it needs to spend $69 million just to communicate with the public on various issues, what does that signify about a limit of $120,000?]

So David, you are now on record saying government advertising is not electioneering. Righto then, I’ll bear that in mind for the future.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 1:57pm
Kimble

Ah the good old definition of ‘biased’. Saying anything that can be interpretted as bad about the Labour Party and not balancing it by saying that National isnt much better.

Look you guys are reading WAY too much into the chart. Sure it wasnt likley to have been made by a Labour supporter. As I said, a Labour supporter would never make a chart like that, even with National as a big blue dot.

But to imagine that this represents some sort of bias and to whine on about blind ideology is to miss the point of the chart completely.

We could remove the term Labour Party and insert the term Largest Allocation, and it would make a bit of difference to the chart as 99% of people see it. FFS, you would probably complain about the font!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:01pm
Kimble

“I never said it was electioneering.” – DPF

“you are now on record saying government advertising is not electioneering.” – Tane

Wow, you moron.

Of course David reminding you he never said that it was electioneering now means that he thinks that NO GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING IS EVER ELECTIONEERING!!!!!!!!!

That makes perfect fucking sense doesnt it!? Thats the Tane standard of thinking.

Government advertising is not necessarily electioneering, but it can be. Yeah, that makes more sense.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:09pm
Pascal

RocketBoy: Pascal, it’s not ‘dishonest’, it’s ‘biased’. The visual message is that Labour spends huge sums on advertising, whilst seeking to restrict all other spending to a tiny dot.

Not at all. Look at the graph closely.

1. Maximum allowed anonymously.
2. Maximum allowed to registered 3rd parties.
3. Maximum allowed to political parties (Happens to be Labour and is coloured appropriately for easy identification)
4. Maximum allowed to the government.

I’m sure if National had been in government, enacting this legislation and had the largest budget for the upcoming election the dot would have been blue. It’s pure and simple fact.

To assign bias to that might just be a guilty conscience talking?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:11pm
Tane

IV2, don’t you know I work on the 9th floor? Get with the times boy!

Actually, I just have quite a lot of work on today and I don’t have the time to get embroiled in a Kiwiblog debate. There’ll be other times though bro, don’t you worry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:11pm
Pascal

Pacman: But the reason it is Labours (and red) is their absurd claim that 3rd party spending over $120,000 will distort democracy and drown out their message

Of course, Pacman as the creator, tells us his intent was otherwise. So Rocketboy, it seems it’s a bit of both, because a reasonable interpretation stands as it is above.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:12pm
Pascal

Kent Parker: In three years time that is likely to be the case, and then what is Pascal going to say?

The same. I’m not biased by voting for a specific party Kent, I interpret everything for myself and come to an independant conclusion. (I don’t vote National as a habit, for one 😉 )

When I looked at the graph the dot showed the party with the largest budget. It seems fairly innocent. If National had the bigger budget, it should have been their colour. Ditto for any other party.

Why would the colour of that make a difference when it highlights the differences between anonymous, 3rd party, party and lastly government?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:25pm
dad4justice

“There’ll be other times though bro, don’t you worry.”

Tane – do all Lairbour fools throw the toys out of the cot when challenged ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:31pm
Ben Wilson

To assign bias to that might just be a guilty conscience talking?

Not at all. Read what I (not RocketBoy) said carefully. I think the green dot is a fuxor and always have. It sickens me. The absence of any other coloured dots sends a pretty clear political message about Labour. Why is it not an aggregate dot of all party spending and and aggregate dot of all third party spending, if the aim of it is to talk about the relative differences in expenditure between parties and third parties? No, it’s a big red dot with the word Labour right beside it.

I don’t have a problem with it being biased. I expect it, even. But I’m not going to fail to notice it, or fail to comment on it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:38pm
hemi

dad4justice Says: Don’t worry David my last post on this site as I had it !! Good bye all

Ah well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:45pm
peteremcc

Putting it at circles actually makes the difference look smaller, because of the nature of a circle (larger at the outside!).

Would be good to see a simple bar graph too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:53pm
Pascal

Ben Wilson: Why is it not an aggregate dot of all party spending and and aggregate dot of all third party spending, if the aim of it is to talk about the relative differences in expenditure between parties and third parties?

Because the graph was showing maximums? If it was a graph showing averages then certainly, it would be incorrect. But if it isn’t then … erm …
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:54pm
Ben Wilson

Pascal: Then why is it titled ‘Relative Spends’ rather than ‘Relative Maximum Spends’?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 2:58pm
Inventory2

Tane said “IV2, don’t you know I work on the 9th floor? Get with the times boy!”

Mistaken identity bro – I can’t recall having suggested you were that close to Dear Leader. I’ve always been under the impression that I was supporting your lifestyle through my EPMU dues – no longer though – I’ve broken free!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:00pm
dad4justice

I hinu has changed into a hemi.

Ah well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:02pm
Kent Parker

Pascal,

The trouble with the $69 mil figure is that it includes promotions that would be carried out in any year, regardless of elections. What the big dot should quantify is the difference between what is spent by govt on promotion in election year vs other years on the average, with the assumption that the extra spending is for electioneering purposes.

The other problem with the $69 mil govt spending is that not all govt spending equals labour party spending, since many of the policies being promoted are those supported by National and other parties. Since Labour only makes up 40% of the govt. then only 40% of the $69 mil at the maximum can be counted.

So, the large dot should be 40% of the difference between election year spending and other year spending, which probably brings it down to a few mil.

These are other reasons why this graph is a stitch up, but well worth the discussion, no doubt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:04pm
Kent Parker

Oh and there should be a blue dot representing 39% of the difference between election year spending and other year spending to reflect the National parties share of parliament.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:06pm
Pascal

Ben: I could as well throw back then why is it titled ‘Relative Spends’ rather than ‘Relative Average Spends’?

They are relative to eachother.

Each of them is an actual maximum.

Maximum for anonymous donations.

Relative to.

Maximum for registered third parties.

Relative to.

Maximum for a political party.

Relative to.

Maximum for governmental advertising.

(Government is debatable, but they don’t have a limit next year, do they so last election years’ figures seem appropriate? Although, if I recall correctly from Sunday / Agenda / something on TV the numbers for this financial year is already approaching a record high 🙂 )

See the basic meme though? Maximums relative to other entities maximums. Honestly, it doesn’t seem that difficult to me.

Yes, it’s a simple graph. But it illustrates it fairly clearly, doesn’t it? You can’t argue or escape from that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:08pm
slightlyrighty

Kent,

why should the dot be 40% of the difference between election year spending and other spending.

Given the fact that an incumbant party campaigns on its records and achievements, and the government spends 15 to 20 million more on telling the public about what it has done in election year, surely 100% of the difference should be taken into account.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:11pm
Pascal

Kent: The other problem with the $69 mil govt spending is that not all govt spending equals labour party spending, since many of the policies being promoted are those supported by National and other parties. Since Labour only makes up 40% of the govt. then only 40% of the $69 mil at the maximum can be counted.

Who said the $69 million was Labour Party spending? It’s GOVERNMENT spending.

Yes, I personally believe that a large part of that is advertising and electioneering by the government to get itself re-elected, but I’m 100% convinced that if you check back through history you will see that no matter who was in government election years the government advertising spend would be larger than in the in-between years.

However, the graph as it stands is accurate enough. It looks at four distinct entities and shows us how much they can spend relative to one-another in an election year.

What’s the problem with that?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:11pm
Lance

RocketBoys mocking the retarded is NOT funny.

What a Creep!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:11pm
Tane

Wat over at blogblog has an interesting counterargument:

http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/two-can-play-at-that-game/

[DPF: he’s a bit thick. Can’t he read English? I said that Clive sent me the graph, yet he raves on about me using circles. I guess he did NCEA English]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:12pm
Pascal

slightlyrighty: Given the fact that an incumbant party campaigns on its records and achievements, and the government spends 15 to 20 million more on telling the public about what it has done in election year, surely 100% of the difference should be taken into account.

We’re coming from the same direction in terms of government electioneering, but for the purpose of this graph the government is a separate entity. They should not be confused with the political parties that form the government.

Their spending is a separate entity when one illustrates the relative maximums that people can spend in an election year in New Zealand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:13pm
dad4justice

Kent , all this talk about red , green and blue dots makes my head hurt . At the risk of sounding rather naive, would it be not appropriate to ask how big the black dot of child abuse is New Zealand ? Just to put things back into perspective for the selfish/power at ALL costs control freak pollies.

Hemi, I do hope you are not blowing black smoke ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:14pm
dad4justice

“Wat over at blogblog has an interesting counterargument:”

I don’t read used shithouse paper Tane !!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:16pm
Pascal

Tane: Wat over at blogblog has an interesting counterargument

Ah, and Wat, when using the Exclusive Brethren, fail to mention the $800,000.00 that Labour stole to buy the last election.

Sorry Tane, but if you are carping on about a third party who failed your alleged attempt to buy an election you should really be honest enough to look at the political party that knowingly succeeded in buying an election.

Otherwise you’re just dishonest.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:16pm
Kent Parker

Pascal,

I think the assumption was that the $69 mil somehow becomes part of Labour party election spend, since they are the majority party in parliament. Given that it is shared by all parties according to their representative mandate then I cannot understand why it has been put into an argument surrounding election year spending since it does not represent one distinct entity with respect to that argument. It is obvious that the more rabid have picked it up as evidence of “gross unfairness” in the conduct of our elections.

Also, the $69 mil covers a 12 month period while the $120,000 covers a 9 month period.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:21pm
Tane

Pascal, as I understand it Labour spent less on the election than National. I don’t know how that’s buying an election.

[DPF: Wrong. The Electoral Commission states that the total expenditure by Labour was $4.633 million and by National was $3.797 million. They are the official figures. Now National also had $112,000 of extra broadcasting money and $17 K of parl spending as electioneering. Labour had around $850,000 of parl spending less the $430,000 already included. So Labour was around $5.05 milllion and National $3.95 million. This of course excludes third party campaigns but no one knows what they cost and Tane was talking anyway about Labour vs National]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:21pm
Rocket Boy

Actually Lance I’m mocking people arguing on the internet. Really what we say here really just adds up to a big pile of nothing at the end of the day.

Joe or (Joanne) average have barely heard of the EFB much less the right-wing ‘revolt’ against it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:30pm
Kent Parker

Oh, RBoy, don’t say that! I was just getting all filled with purpose and self-importance. Now you’ve gone and burst my bubble.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:34pm
Kimble

“Pascal, as I understand it Labour spent less on the election than National. I don’t know how that’s buying an election.”

The election was close. If we assume what Roger Nome says is true, then the level of money spent can decide close elections. If Labour didnt illegally spend tax payer money, and therefore not underspend National by as much, they wouldnt have won. According to your crews own logic, Tane, Labour stole the election.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:41pm
Buggerlugs

I don’t know how that’s buying an election

How about this then: ‘This healthy fiscal position presents the Government with scope to cut taxes, increase expenditure, and build up financial assets’ – Cullen 2003

followed with
‘the electorate can get stuffed.’ Cullen 2006
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:44pm
Ben Wilson

But it illustrates it fairly clearly, doesn’t it? You can’t argue or escape from that.

It illustrates 3 things very clearly.

Firstly that government expenditure on advertising is much bigger than any other factor. Naturally it is also not equivalent to electioneering, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Secondly it illustrates that LABOUR’s spending cap is much bigger than third party spending caps. It says nothing at all about the other 60% of political power holders in NZ. Nor does it put into any kind of perspective how many of these third parties there are. It just lumps them all together as one tiny dot.

Thirdly, it illustrates that it is important to you to make the first two points.

Again, there is nothing unfactual about what you’ve put here. It is just similar to putting on the front page of a paper a careful pose shot of John Key with his kids, and one of Clark caught with a nasty snarl or similar, whilst discussing the relative merits of the parties policy on, say, Families. Nothing unfactual about any of it, but clearly biased.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:45pm
Tane

No David, you have to include the EB campaign which National knew about and was the recipient of. That’s another $1.2m on top.

[DPF: So predictable. They talked about a campaign of that much but no one knows how much they did spend. And regardless the law is quite clear that that campaign did not count as National’s.]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:47pm
Simeon

Rocket Boy said “Joe or (Joanne) average have barely heard of the EFB”

That’s right and it doesn’t seem like the Government will inform us on what it is about.

Why did the Government bring it to the house so late in the term?? It is very obvious.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:51pm
Buggerlugs

Oh yeah, the old EB campaign.

How much did Owen Glenn slosh in through other people, Tutae?

Let’s tot up the union spend on advertising, thus diverting their members’ dues from more worthwhile pursuits like better working conditions etc.

And don’t forget that $800,000 you had to run the sausage sizzle to pay back…

Fuckwit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:54pm
Kent Parker

Tane, the EB campaign is no more part of the Nat campaign than is any expenditure by govt or by any other third party. Under the new EFB rules 10 interest groups could all campaign for National, spend $120,000 each, totalling $1.2 mil and this would not be counted as National spending. In the same respect, money spent by unions is not counted as Labour spending.

I agree, Ben, the graph, while not infactual, does not convey anything complete or unambiguous.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 3:55pm
Bevan

This of course excludes third party campaigns but no one knows what they cost and Tane was talking anyway about Labour vs National

Whats the bet he only brings up the EB campaign as third party spending, but neglects any assistance to Labour from third parties.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 6, 2007 4:04pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« NZ First in trouble

$40 million and … »

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 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP
Do the KCs believe in democracy
A cunning plan?
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Secret lawyers
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
About time
Great progress
Imagine a different scenario

Recent Posts

Secret lawyers 22 November 2024
Do the KCs believe in democracy 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP 22 November 2024
About time 22 November 2024
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data 21 November 2024
Great progress 21 November 2024
Judge gets it right 21 November 2024
Imagine a different scenario 21 November 2024
The progressive NZ media 21 November 2024

Recent Comments

Do the KCs believe in democracy
Fentex
Secret lawyers
Fentex
The newest Green MP
Ghost
The newest Green MP
Rumblestrip
The newest Green MP
septic skeptic
General Debate 22 November 2024
Burtland
Secret lawyers
Ghost
Secret lawyers
Rich Prick
Secret lawyers
peterwn
Secret lawyers
Rich Prick
General Debate 22 November 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Eastlander
General Debate 22 November 2024
G the giant from Dunedin
General Debate 22 November 2024
slijmbal
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
Mike

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
The Presidential Bicameral Adjournment Clause Is Almost An American Equivalent to Prorogation
Utopia
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
This Weeks Email To Prime Minister Luxon.
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
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
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