More from The Hollow Men
So we have Key and English leading National. We shall see how they go but they have got a major problem hanging over them as a result of the unethical and, if the evidence is right, unlawful behaviour of the National Party in the lead up to the last election as revealed in Hager’s book.
Aside from the Exclusive Brethren, for me the worst of it is the anonymous donors that it seems weren’t really anonymous at all. Here we have people giving lots of money to the Nats and National pretending they don’t know who the donors are, according to the evidence in the book. Nicky seems to have gotten his hands on the minutes from a National Party Board meeting where they actually discussed the identity of these donors. This is a really dangerous development for democracy and reinforces the case for transparency in donations to political parties over some kind of limit such as $1000 or less.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Often people bash the U.S. for not being democratic, but there is at least one good thing in their campaign finance laws. All donations above USD200 have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC provides this data in bulk to groups such as http://www.opensecrets.org, who then post it on the web.
Now, there is a nice loophole if you are rich and want to get a message out independently of a candidate: the 527. You can donate massive amounts of money to these anonymously and they can then run ads, etc. (don’t think they can expressly advocate for or against a specific candidate, though) George Soros used one of these on the left, and there are plenty of right-wing ones as well.
It’s hard to compare the U.S. system with the NZ one, since the U.S. is thoroughly FPP while we have MMP (thank goodness!). Nonetheless, I think a $300 cut off for having to declare from whom donations come (and their employers) is not unreasonable. I would like to know which industries are giving to whom and when.
Following the money is a useful exercise.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Andrew
I wouldn’t say the US system is any better. The money still is necessary and it still changes hands clandestinely and the corruption is relatively easy.
’tis true one does have to follow the money to understand the results.
I would vastly rather have NO privately funded leaflets or advertisements of any sort for the campaign period, instead relying on publicly funded campaign newsletters/pamphlets and debates on TV.
I don’t need other people’s opinions of the parties stuffed down my throat, I make up my own mind anyway…. but I am not normal. I am sure this is true because all my enemies tell me so
What I want however is a vastly less expensive system which, among other things, leaves people to think their own thoughts and come to their own conclusions based on the statements of the parties and politicians themselves.
Da, it does somewhat reduce the freedom of speech for corporations, but it leaves people free to write their letters to the editor and discuss things with each other. Each modality would require consideration, but overall I would expect that democracy would survive better for having a month or two of introspection prior to the vote.
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 8:04 am
BJ
What is democratic about full tax payer funding of political parties? and why should my tax $$ be spent on a political party that I do not support and would never vote for?
Private funding is at the very heart of democracy, it enables any citizen to protest and push issues they feel strongly about, all tax payer funding will do is make pollies less accountable to the very people who pay their wages and more inclined to ignore what the public want.
Good examples of this are the 100 MP and Homosexual law reform bills where 80% of the population wanted the pollies to do the exact opposite of what actually happened, public funding will only see examples like this increase.
The simple reason minor parties struggle for funding is that they lack widespread support, if they want to be better represented in the house then they should look at adopting policy that the public actually want.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Where do you get the bizarre idea that 80% of the population didn’t want homosexual law reform, Big Bruv?
DenMT
November 28th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Big Bruv
I’ve seen how it works. The guy with the biggest bucks has the best campaign and the sheeple buy it all. In the end it winds up STILL being funded but the funds are siphoned through corporations, directed willy-nilly to the winners in the corporate popularity stakes and the end result is anything but democratic.
Your tax $$ are to be spent on publishing political positions . So are mine. So my money and labour’s money publicizes National’s position etc, etc. Overall the cost goes down and there is less overhead at corporations and at unions, related to the campaign. Since the cost is held down the overall economy will benefit, and the biggest spenders will benefit most. The key to the difference between you and me is that while I actually want ANY citizen to have a voice, your preferred method would hand a megaphone to the wealthiest.
You can’t have government by referendum on every issue… at least not yet. You have to trust your pollies or unelect them. I paid little attention to “homosexual law reform bills” as the issue seemed to be taken care of properly. This is an advantage to having a bill of rights, for the civil rights of the minority MUST NOT be subject to the simple whims of the majority.
Minor parties struggle for funding is not a problem. We understand that. We also understand that the cost of a major Television Ad campaign is hard even on the major parties.
Your final paragraph however, contains the worst (IMAO) analysis.
The fact that the majority holds a view does NOT make that view correct, it only makes it the majority. For a minority party to embrace the majority viewpoint would simply make the existence of that minority party totally redundant. Taken to its logical conclusion you’d go back to FPP because nobody needs to hear what the minor parties have to say.
This is SO wrong.
There was a majority in the southern states of the USA that held blacks to be sub-human… once. There was a majority in the USA that supported the war in Vietnam… once. There was a majority in the USA that supported the war in Iraq… once. Minority opinions become majority opinions “suddenly” because FPP is a binary switch. We want fuzzy not bang-bang logic in our controls. The description of the country lurching from one side to the other is descriptive of a country that uses FPP and bang-bang logic.
The minority view is ignored TOTALLY until it tips over from 49% to 51% and suddenly it is valid? No. Democracy is best served by EVERYONE having a voice, and the debate being made on equal terms.
For the uninitiated - in motion control a “bang bang” motor controller has only two conditions, full on and full off. Cheap, crude and impossible to get a precise result out of it. Fuzzy is what makes it impossible to tell when an elevator stops or starts (when it is used).
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Big Bruv - if you want to live in a democracy, which comes with plenty economic and social advantages, be prepared to cough up some cash to support it.
If you are so worried about saving *your* precious tax $$s then really, advocate for dictatorship, they spend very little money supporting political parties, other than their owb.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Ouch… I was wrong. Jeeves has the right of it. The logical ideal of Big Bruv’s approach is a dictatorship of the majority. Not desireable.
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Denmt
I might be wrong on that one, it may have only been 75%, now before you jump up and down I must say that I supported the Homosexual law reform but for pollies to decide that they know better than the people they are meant to serve is the height of arrogance.
BJ
Again I might be wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the only reason the minor parties do not have greater support is because the public are not smart enough to understand the message, I would suggest that this is not the case at all.
And again the examples you use are not helping the debate, I see little point in sensationalizing a topic (the USA example).
I am interested in your views of the civil rights of the minority, in general I agree with you but i draw the line when the civil rights of the minority affect the lives and civil rights of the MAJORITY.
Jeeves.
You seem to miss the point, I am not interested in paying into a inflated social welfare fund, I do believe that we should have a safety net for the few genuine cases but I object to paying welfare to the thousands who have no interest in working.
And one more thing….they are “my” precious tax dollars, I earned the bloody things and I want to keep as much of them as I possibly can, I like to think that I can spend my own money far better than any left wing socialist government can.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Jeeves.
One more thing….I am totally against dictatorship, that is why I am so set on getting rid of Klarke and Kullen.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:39 am
well (ahem) vote against them.
That’s why they are not dictators. They haven’t made voting illegal.
Even Muldoon (bless his cirrhosis-ridden ghost) wasn’t strictly speaking a dictator.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Really?…..Dictators retrospectively change the law to suit themselves.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Anyway (back on topic!) this “blind trust” scam is just so obviously a … scam…Sure, nobody is ever going to know who made that anonymous million-dollar donation… sure!
State financing of political parties is unpalatable, and counter-intuitive… but it’s the price of democracy, in the end.
The alternative : more or less regulated private funding : is by its very nature an invitation to corruption (why is any company going to give a large donation to a political party? A company is supposed to use its money to further the interests of its shareholders… Oh!). It is also an invitation to a sloping playing field : parties that favour the interests of major economic players will naturally be well-funded. Parties that favour the interests of the unemployed, homeless, widows and orphans etc… let them run cakestalls.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Bruv : you’re confusing different issues.
You’re right, the Labour government has had things too easy, and they are on the slippery slope to violations of due process, the rule of law, etc… but they are still light-years away from the Muldoon era of micro-managed everything.
It’ll be nice to have an effective opposition. Makes democracy much healthier.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Alister
There are always problems with private funding, the biggest area for concern as far as I am concerned is the funding that Labour receives from the union movement, these people have a vested interest yet our left wing media see nothing wrong with that.
It interests me that you see such an opportunity for corruption (common inside the current government and its MMP allies) with private funding yet you seem to be suggesting that this will not be a problem if there is tax payer funding.
And please, your last paragraph is insulting and unnecessarily dramatic, those people are well catered for inside the Labour government who are very well funded.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I believe there should be transparency in political donations. But I would be loathe to see exclusive taxpayer funded campaigning. I would also be wary about clamping off the right of independent organisations from having their say. What would worry me, is precisely what Hager has alleged - and that’s where “soft money” has been used - i.e. a third party has advertised in order to support a political party without declaring that link. If Hager’s claims are true, then the culprits should be prosecuted. But, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The environmental movement would be well advised to not support any attempts to clamp off independent political advertising - as long as it is truly independent - given environmental lobbying has often played a crucial role in getting environmental issues on the political radar during elections.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Big Bruv @ 8.04am: Private funding is at the very heart of democracy, it enables any citizen to protest and push issues they feel strongly about…
Big Bruv @ 12.02pm: There are always problems with private funding, the biggest area for concern as far as I am concerned is the funding that Labour receives from the union movement, these people have a vested interest…
So, it’s at the “heart of democracy” if it comes from big business lobbying for right-wing policies, but “the biggest area for concern” if it comes from unions lobbying for left-wing policies?
Best argument I’ve heard yet for state funding.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Toad
I was merely pointing out the double standard in those arguing for the abolition of private sector funding, these people see nothing wrong with unions pouring money into the Labour party yet they are dead against business doing the same for the Nats.
It is of course driven by the politics of envy, I note that TV3 (who make no attempt to be neutral) made a big noise about John Key living in an flash house as if this is some sort of crime, the man should be lauded for achieving what he has in life, he is living proof that this current governments social agenda is flawed, despite what Labour keep telling those on low incomes it IS POSSIBLE to better yourself.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Let’s clear up this ‘unions donating money to Labour’ thing. Acoording to the Elections website the NDU donated $24,000, the DWU $20,000, EPMU $40,000 the metal workers $25,000, the RMTU $11,000, and the SFWU donated $20,000.
Yes, a lot of money. $140,000 in total. (And the Greens got $16,000 from the NDU too).
But still only a fraction of the $1.5 million that the Ruahine Trust and the Waitamata Trust, with their shared post office box, collectively donated to National, courtesy of anonymous donors.
Yes, there will probably also be some in kind donations of labour and expertise from those unions too – although I know, as member of the SFWU, that when I attended their AGM earlier this year they declared those things in their annual report too.
Personally, I’d rather my union wasn’t giving money to political parties. I’d also rather though that companies that I work for or am a customer off, didn’t give money to political parties. At least my union is reasonably open and democratic about it. Ideally I’d like to elections to be less about glossy pamphlets, TV ads and nationwide plane tours, and more about talking to people face to face, public debates and investigative journalism; all things that are a lot cheaper. So, yes, lets have campaign finance reform; not so much to stop people spending their money but to raise the level of political debate to one based on ideas and exchanges rather than sound bites.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Stephen
I am not against campaign funding reform, I am against the idea that I am going to pay for it.
I happen to agree with you re the face to face debates although it cannot be allowed to degenerate to the farce we has last time where Comrade Klarke was allowed to get away with shouting people down and interrupting those speakers she did not agree with.
I am not sure that investigative journalism is a good idea though given the pathetically poor standard of Jurno’s we have in NZ, I doubt you would want the Nicky Haugers and Ian Wisharts of this world being deciding the election outcome.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
big bruv Says: I am interested in your views of the civil rights of the minority, in general I agree with you but i draw the line when the civil rights of the minority affect the lives and civil rights of the MAJORITY.
Ay caramba! Sometimes I wonder what colour is the sky in your world BB.
Civil (and Human) rights are not a thing that given to one group of society take them away from another group of society for crying out loud!
How does allowing gay couples the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples negatively effect anyone else’s civil rights? How does assisting lower income groups to have better access to education effect anyone else’s civil rights? Can’t you follow the reasoning that aiding minority groups to become equal, happier and successful lifts the quality of society as a whole - that we ALL WIN?
If issues such as (Civil and) Human Rights were left to majority opinion of the public this would leave our society would be at the mercy of bigotry, intolerance and ignorance. Judging from your opinions about many topics on this blog I suspect that you prefer us to be a country which favours only rich white men.
Oh, and lest you forget, New Zealand has sworn to uphold the United Nations declarations on Human Rights which we are not exactly doing a stellar job of in some areas due to political pressure of your hypothetically ignorant MAJORITY.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm
Stephen Says: Ideally I’d like to elections to be less about glossy pamphlets, TV ads and nationwide plane tours, and more about talking to people face to face, public debates and investigative journalism; all things that are a lot cheaper. So, yes, lets have campaign finance reform; not so much to stop people spending their money but to raise the level of political debate to one based on ideas and exchanges rather than sound bites.
Amen to that!
November 28th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
big bruv Says: I am not against campaign funding reform, I am against the idea that I am going to pay for it.
Well I AM NOT, because I AM seriously invested in seeing us with a truly representative and informed democracy and I am willing to pay whatever personal or monetary price to see that happen.
Anybody who says they believe in democracy should be willing to put their money where their mouth is.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Ultimately, I have to agree that massive anonymous political action ($) by a group like the Exclusive Brethren introduces a potential for corruption and influence that NZ does not need.
Greens should support legislation exposing all the donations of $300 or more to a party. The legislation should allow independent campaign expenditures, but should require registration like a “political action committee” (or PAC), and donations above $300 should have to be reported to the appropriate government agency.
Parties should be allowed to collect as much as they want in donations, but there should be overall caps on what they are allowed to spend on the campaign. Any excess could be used post-election for such things as legal expenses, etc.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Zan
I have read your post and I can honestly say that I have never read anything so arrogant.
What gives you the right to decide what is best for the public?, what the hell makes you better qualified than the public to decide what they want?.
Your arrogance is breathtaking and quite frankly the worst example of left wing socialist politics I have read on this informative site.
You go on to say a lot about the civil rights of gays etc…did you not notice that I said I was not against the civil union bill? why did you chose to ignore that?
Frankly you sound like a racist person who has a hatred of white males (alas I cannot claim to be rich) of course in todays PC NZ you are allowed to persecute white males and the EB, every other group is off limits it seems.
I hope you are not like this with everybody who dares disagree with your “vision” of NZ.
And finally, I laughed out loud when I read your little piece about democracy, this from the same person who told us in an earlier post that the public cannot be trusted to do “the right thing”, you would not recognize democracy if it come up and bit you on the backside.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
From reading your comments I suspect I have been around a lot longer than most of you. Like, Peter Fraser was PM when I was born.
I strongly prefer transperancy as regards donations to political parties. I do not have a problem with state funded advertising at election time.
I do have a big concern about ‘hidden’ donations and any advertising that promotes certain opinions yet remains anonymous.
So clarity and honesty for all. Joy.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Well said Joy!
November 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Joy
How do you see this “state funding” (lets be honest here, the state funds nothing, they are tax $$) working.
Assuming you would use the previous election results as a guideline to funding the next election campaign would a party polling 43% receive less than a party polling 48%, and what about a party polling 5%.. surely they would not receive the same amount.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
You can never stop third party endorsements in a free and democratic society. This could be a person in public promoting a political party to a group of bystanders or a exclusive brethren - organised labour union type organisation doing mailouts.
Who decides what costs will be attributetted to which political party?
What happens if a mailout or the street corner orator attacks say the Greens how would you attribute this cost to one or more opposition parties? Especially if the person/s doing the promoting has no political affiliations and does not push another parties policies?
Back in the sixties Tim Shadbolt would speak against the Vietnam war in Albert Park. He was neither againt National nor for the Lbour party. would this be called electioneering and costed against the Labour party?
November 28th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Big Bruv
When I say an end to private funding of election campaigns it means unions too. It means EVERYONE. This makes things much MUCH simpler… and cheaper… for everyone.
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
If the street corner orator is paid by someone, they should be required to reveal who employs them if asked.
If someone hands out leaflets, the leaflets should indicate clearly on them by whom they were authorized to be printed, and who paid for them. If no party or candidate was involved, this should be made clear.
Transparency measures are very easy to implement.
I am just waiting for the next entrepreneurial Greenie to come along and create an http://www.opensecrets.org.nz with all of the data available from the government. Like http://www.opensecrets.org, it would be a treasure trove.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Big Bruv
They’d get the same amount of column inches, pamphlets and whatever else was used as an advertising medium. The only place where size begins to matter is when you enter into the concept of “televised debate” where there are time and organizational constraints. It occurs to me that there is a possibility of running minor party debates and letting some of the “winners” in some measure get into the majors… but that’s all.
In brief, everyone gets to say what they want to say, and if their newsletter/voter-advice-pamphlet/whatever is wholly negative and attacking someone elses party, the picture will be clearer indeed.
Given the number of parties in the hunt, this would involve a fair swag of trees being consumed. We might allow people to opt out and look at some of it online.
But National gets no more nor less then ACT and Greens no more nor less than Labour. The competition is restricted to ideas Big Bruv, that’s the whole idea behind this. It isn’t a beauty contest. It isn’t an auction.
Which is why it can’t be put to the test of who can raise the most $.
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
BJchip,
You still havent addressed the issue of third party unendorsements (endoresements are easily covered).
For example an organised union of workers puts out a pamplet (can they claim this cost from the governments electioneering fund? - will there be a limit to this fund and who gets to allocate its resources?) attacking the Greens policies (an example OK). But it promotes no other party.
Against which party will this cost be attributed? Labour, National, NZFirst, United, etc. can say not against our allocation thank you, we didnt endorse this pamplet.
A totaly unworkable situation for allocating our taxes.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Actually endorsements are not that easily covered. For example, the Greens are campaingning on a local issue (such as no replacement for the Kopu bridge) while the local National, Labour and NZ First candidates are for a bridge replacement policy. Me as a private individual and with no party affiliation does a local maildrop (at my own expense) promoting retaining the old bridge. Will the $5000 (say) cost for my private maildrop be allocated against the Greens?
Who having planned to the last cent where to spend their tax payer funded allocation will not be pleased by my private endeavours.
And other question to ponder. Will the independent’s standing in the general election be allocated tax payer funding? If not why not and if yes how much? Or will the freedom and democracy excercised by standing as an independent for parliament be erased?
Now if the funding for independents was generous we could all stand in our local seats. I could go with that!!
Just think 30,000 independents per seat. Imagine the ballot papers!
November 28th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
BJ
And there (for me anyway) is the problem, believe it or not in a state funded system I would have no problem with some of my tax $$ paying for the green party message (its not as if I would have a choice anyway)
I would however be bloody angry as hell to contribute one red cent (no pun intended) to the Labour party cause.
The main issue for me here is the level of funding, this is not an attack on the greens but how can they realistically expect the tax payer to fund their election campaign to the same level as the two main parties when they only just passed the 5% threshold.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Gerrit -
During the run up to the election the Union isn’t a [arty and can’t put out a pamphlet. I am trying to make this enforceable and the only way I can think of is to tell everyone BUT the organised parties or individual speakers to shut the hell up. You got a better way, I’d like to hear it.
The individual would have access (I am winging it here) to the blogosphere, the letters to the editor and all other means of private expression…. but not to pamphlets, radio adverts, TV adverts, etc.
The only public mass communications permitted would be the party statements themselves.
So you see I DID address it, but probably not the way you expected for a guy who loves free speech as much as I do.
You don’t need to take the strawman down. I just burned it.
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
The point to my proposal is that it isn’t any longer a “campaign” in the sense we’ve come to know and hate.
There’s a LOT less money spent on it, because the pamphlets and whatever else are damned simple. Each party gets X column inches and Y web pages and bandwidth. Say what they like, promise what they will, no restriction except on the quantity being the same for each.
I don’t know what to say about an independent standing for a seat here, it seems sort of redundant with MMP and the wide range of available parties… and also relatively futile. If someone can’t get together enough organization to form a party then they shouldn’t be running. Thinking about it I would accept that someone who can get enough backing to get on the ballot locally would get to have his position published locally. I hadn’t thought too hard aboud local vs national aspects either, but it seems workable to have the local candidates all represented in a local election “directory” and the parties nationally handled nationally.
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Big Bruv
Again, I am not interested in who has how many people backing them. I am ONLY interested in the contest of ideas… and the ability to limit things to a contest of ideas seems to be limited by the presence of unlimited advertising.
I have no doubt at all that the overall campaign would be less expensive by millions of dollars, which though they don’t come out of your taxes in the current system, sure as heck are extracted from your wallet by the corporations and the unions that are donating all that money now.
How it happens may vary, but that it happens is unquestionable.
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Best way is the Status Quo. What you are suggesting is undemocratic (only organised parties can contest the election?).
Descibe an organised party. Every individual simply becomes an organised party and gets tax payer funding. Still have 30,000 on the ballot in every seat.
Or will an autocratic government tell us who may or may not organise a political party?
What about a political discussion between consenting adults on the street corner. Will that be banned? After all they may not be publishing any election material and they may not be m an “organised” party. But they are still electioneering. Will they be banned? God,going to the pub will be so dreary.
But the police will be busy making sure we are not electioneering unless it is for an approved “organised” party.
No. What you are proposing is so full of holes a bus could drive through them sideways.
Let the Stats Quo remain.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Interesting discussion. I’m not as radical as BJ!
Public funding - in Oz it is handed out post election on a per vote basis. Probably not a bad model. But I think parties should have a mix of public and private so they don’t only have public funding.
Controls on non-political party interventions - I think these interventions are an important part of the democratic process but they shouldn’t overwhelm the main actors, ie the political parties, and they need to be transparent. One option is that if you want to intervene in the election by placing ads/leaflets etc then you need to register, declare your identity, your source of donations, and have a cap on how much you can spend.
And anonymous donations above a threshold ($300? $1000? not sure) have gotta go.
The other interesting thing would be to make the parties declare their donations on a rolling basis (eg week by week) in the lead up to the election - at the moment you don’t find out the donors until the parties make their return in April the following year.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
big bruv asked Joy “How do you see this “state fundingâ€? working?”
er, how about exactly as it does now? They seem to have some good rules in place, although they failed in National’s case. GST a mistake - Yeah Right!
I agree - status quo is best, except bring in transparency for donations - no more anonymous trusts.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Gerrit
Look, in the space of the last couple of hours I have formed this conjecture. It seems to me to be viable.
What about a political discussion between consenting adults on the street corner. Will that be banned?
I will try to be polite for one more post. READ what I say! Quit making stuff up. I said not more than a few minutes ago…
everyone BUT the organised parties or individual speakers
individual speakers? Yes, but if you paid someone to carry your message, that’s where the free speech stopped. If you use a method of mass communication (also spelled “advertising”) even if you use all party volunteers, you’re done. The forums of individual speech are still open, but you can’t stuff things in my mailbox, post them on billboards, flog them on radio or TV, or buy infomercial inserts in Newspapers or use skywriting.
Get enough volunteers, you can send them door to door to talk with individual voters as individuals. I don’t see much advantage in this, as the number of people in any party who can actually parrot the party line accurately and still manage to make nice, is really pretty small. I’d expect it to lose as many votes as it gained… if not more.
Letters to the editor are fine… but the editors have a short way with long letters.
If the message has to fit on a bumper sticker it isn’t adequate for the actual decision that the voter has to make.
Status quo? Anyone with a big wallet can bad mouth anyone or anything they like? Any lie they care to tell, and they don’t answer to anyone for it? THIS is fair? It sucks! In the USA where it has been far longer in development it is catastrophic!
We can describe an “organized party” any way we like… I would tentatively determine that any organization that puts candidates forward and has some minimum number of supporters could be regarded as a national party. I don’t care if they’re satanists. They have a large enough constituency to get X number of signatures and they get to have a say. It would not be easy for an individual to go it alone at the national party level.
Your bus crashed, your strawman burned. Unreason is so unedifying.
Russel - handing out money on the basis of votes won only works because they have STV there, which makes it feasible to make such a determination, here with the 5% cut? I still don’t think it’s that great. It still limits the ability of a minor party to get ANY message out. The marketplace of ideas is not open. The folks with the most up-front funding still get to yell the loudest.
I do not think that non-political party interventions have any place in the election campaign. They can have their say in the run-up to the polling of course, but I am NOT interested in what the union thinks or what the business-council thinks. I am interested in what the parties themselves say. Allowing non-party interventions is simply allowing money to talk. People have to think without being told WHAT to think, and if they get used to it they might even make it a habit.
What I am proposing has not AFAIK ever been done, but it couldn’t hurt. The current system is so perverted by outside influences and the current election costs are so outlandish that we would do better to simply sign the country over to Westpac and ANZ and be done with it.
respectfully
BJ
November 28th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
I have to say, I am having a lot of fun with this idea. It may not ever go anywhere but I didn’t think it would actually be defensible at all until I tried it on.
BJ
November 29th, 2006 at 5:01 am
I like your propositions, BJ. Good thinking.
But it’s been done before… I think you’ll find that they are pretty similar to what works in many European countries.
In France (I am familiar with the rules because I have been a candidate), the official election campaign is restricted to a few weeks before the election. Candidates have a strict spending limit. They are allowed to accept donations from political parties, and from individuals (max 150 euros par person!) but not from companies, unions, associations, etc.
A candidate gets their expenses reimbursed by the state… if they get over 5%.
In addition, political parties get state funding according to the number of votes their candidates attract.
I’m not clear on advertising by other players, but I believe it’s banned during the official campaign.
The 5% threshold is a major problem for the Greens, as you can imagine. We got squeezed in 2002, and we are still paying off election expenses that, globally, we expected to get reimbursed for (I thought I had a pretty fair shot at 5%, I got 2.3%. That’s pretty typical for that campaign.)
November 29th, 2006 at 6:31 am
“Your bus crashed, your strawman burned. Unreason is so unedifying”
BJ, When you can come up with a workable (and enforceable) proposition call again. I keep shooting holes in what you come up with.
Alistair, The candidates can receive donations from political parties in France. How are political parties funded? Can they receive donations from companies, unions, etc and is there tranparency and limits to this funding?
Who in France differentiates what is party policy promotion and electioneering 4 weeks out from an election? I would guess that if you didn’t have the words “Vote For Me” on any party policy promting literature it would be legal to publish this 4 weeks out from an election?
November 29th, 2006 at 6:45 am
French political parties are largely funded by the taxpayers, according to the number of votes they get in the various elections. Like candidates, they are restricted to receiving donations from individuals. No company or union funding.
This came about after a period when the major parties were mostly funded by illicit commissions they extorted from contractors tendering for work for municipalities etc. that they controlled… The Greens blew the whistle on this in the late 80s-early 90s. Parliament passed a law of amnesty for everyone’s previous illegal funding, and instituted the current funding setup. Which seems to work in a fair, honest and transparent manner.
Naturally, I am offended by the idea that my tax euros are given to, among others, the Front National. But that’s an acceptable price to pay, in my view, for democracy.
Any stuff put out by political parties during the official campaign has to be imputed to the budget of a candidate. Otherwise it’s flat-out illegal.
A candidate who is found to have overspent, after an election, is invalidated, and a by-election is held.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Gerrit : Descibe an organised party. Every individual simply becomes an organised party and gets tax payer funding. Still have 30,000 on the ballot in every seat. Or will an autocratic government tell us who may or may not organise a political party?
In France, in order to be eligible for state funding, a political party has to run a certain minimum number of candidates for the legislative elections : 75 out of 500 or so districts.
To translate that into NZ MMP terms, maybe you would need to run 10 electorate candidates? Sounds reasonable to me.
An independent could still run in an electorate, and would get their expenses back if they got over 5%, but wouldn’t be eligible for on-going funding.
In France, there is a marginal negative effect : there is at least one “party” that is simply a money-making scam. They call themselves “The New Ecologists”, have a cute logo, and don’t do anything else than put their name on the ballot paper. They pick up about 1% of votes in the electorates where they run candidates, and receive state funding for the first five years. It’s pretty hard to devise a scheme to eliminate this sort of rort, without running counter to the basic mechanism…
There is a second drawback : it encourages fragmentation by parties that have no hope of getting parliamentary representation…(three Trotskyist parties ran candidates!) but MMP would fix that.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Gerrit
“ I keep shooting holes in what you come up with.
No… you keep shooting holes in stuff I never said. When you quit making up stuff you are welcome to post responses. You are getting the responses you deserve for making up stuff.
Alastair… you’ve identified that France does something sort-of like what I am proposing. I am sure there are differences but I am equally sure that there is nothing at particularly unworkable about their method or by that measure, my own loosely stated proposal.
By my proposal, there would be NO money going TO the parties at all… the party may hire professionals to write their political statements and illustrate them, but the printing and distribution is strictly done by the state.
That’d take care of the rorts I think, but I wasn’t thinking of the rorts when I suggested this.
respectfully
BJ
November 29th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Alistair,
That french system sounds pretty fair. Is there a limit to how much an individual can contribute to a political party?
Are there cases where organisations put their contributions through an individual? That way, while transparent on who the donor was, it may still hide the organisations.
I guess the parties would still have the same amount of money availalbe to them for electioneering purposes as before.
Do the political parties suffer any fall out if one of their candidates overspends their limit? I would imagine in a by election the political party has a more then even chance to win even with a different candidate.
Is there much conflict between what constitutes electioneering spending vesus political party promotional material? Or is there a rule that in the three weeks before an election, all material is deemed to be electioneering and must be attributed to a candidates expenditure account?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Big Bruv said:
‘lets be honest here, the state funds nothing, they are tax $$’
by the same reasoning, you would have to say that corporations fund nothing, the money comes from the customers of the corporation. Once upon a time, that would have been completely voluntary, because you didn’t have to buy from a particular corporation. Nowadays, in many cases you can’t reasistically do without a particular service, and you automatically fund a political party when you buy that service, because all the companies providing that service are adding a little bit on to their charges to fund the same party.
Now, the state can have rules to distribute the money in a way that is not biased with respect to what the parties stand for, but a company can’t. If it’s a publically-listed company, then the principle of fiduciary duty to shareholders means that it can only legally justify giving money if it is somehow in the financial interests of shareholders. Thus you have effectively a tax on purchases that funds political parties, but funds them in proportion to how good their policies are for share prices, and share prices only. Clearly that is not in the interests of democracy.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Kahikatea
Corporations are free to do what ever they like with their profits, sadly I am not able to do what I like with the money the government steal from me every week.
You can dress it up anyway you like but tax payer funding of political parties is wrong.
The only reason the pollies want state funding is because they cannot be bothered raising the funds themselves (and that is so typical of NZ these days)
At the moment the political parties receive the level of financial support that they deserve, I see no reason to change that.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Big Bruv
You trust corporate power?
Really?
BJ
November 29th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
BJ
About as much as I trust politicians!
“I never received that e-mail”
“I was unaware of the speed the motorcade was traveling at”
“It was just a controlled burn off that got out of hand”
But in all seriousness, it annoys me that so many from the left see ALL corporations as evil when this is clearly not the case, there are some good and some bad.
What I do trust is MY ability to decide things for myself, i understand that many on the left do not believe that the public know whats good for them but then that is why people in this bloody country are finally turning against state control and not before time.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Big Bruv
State funding of political parties is democratic.
Corporate funding is not.
Not all income of the state comes from your precious tax dollars, I’m sure you minimise those in any event. That would be your duty.
You have not answered an earlier question about socialists whom you described earlier in this string.
If you think the current Government is socialist you are delusional.
Cheers
DR
November 29th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Big Bruv - Do you allow that advertising works? Not necessarily on everyone, but enough that a good advertising campaign sells beer or cars even when the beer would have been better left in the horse and the car needs an optional net to catch bits as they fall off?
This is the problem. If advertising, which can be negative and doesn’t need to/cannot be counted against any party budget is permitted there is NOTHING in the way of money alone influencing the election… because if advertising works, then it can sway elections. More money, more ads.
It doesn’t need to be a corporation. It could be a union. It doesn’t need to be the right or the left doing it. If it happens it is wrong. The election should ideally be about ideas. Not distortions, not third party opinions whether they be union or corporate. The ideas of the parties as stated by those parties to the electorate.
Nobody else in the middle of it. No way to spend massive amounts of money on 30 second TV spots that cannot possibly encompass a tenth of what the issues really are, but are amply long enough to be obnoxious. “We’re the Green/National/Labour/Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and these are the issues we think are important and these are the things we’d try to do if you give us your vote”. A party that has been in power may choose to highlight what they’ve done and the party out of power may choose to highlight what ELSE they’ve done. Maybe two or three rounds to allow the issues to be thoroughly and thoughtfully aired.
I do NOT want to have what the Business Council or the Unions or the churches think spewed into my lounge through the Radio or TV. I don’t believe that this is “free” speech any more than North Koreans have “free speech”. I trust none of them. I have immense faith that they will rort ANY system we devise if we give them the slightest opportunity.
Which is why I am more severe than even the French. Biggest downside? The newspapers and TV will miss the multi-million dollar ad campaigns.
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 6:58 am
BJ
Here is a thought. Banish political parties all together. Only independents can stand for parliament.
Each independent can only spend a prescibed amount on their three week electioneering campaingn.
Solve all problems.
As of cource would be the banning of elections.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Gerrit
I might consider that, but it would make MMP virtually impossible. Each electorate would have to be on STV in order to achieve acceptable representation. It also could lead to a great many more people standing for election… or if they are responsible for getting their own funding… possibly a lot less.
I am not sure you could prevent the formation of political parties either. Banning the communist party and the nazi party didn’t work well, and I am pretty sure other examples exist. Where did the concept of the political party first form? I’d guess it is at least medieval, but it may well go back much further.
Banning something that is by its nature public seems to me an easier course than banning the formation of a loose association of people with like aims. It seems more sensible to stop behaviours than thoughts… and more democratic.
Banning elections? Greens stand for representative democracy, not autocracy or dictatorship. That underlies all our principles and is what makes the rule of law ethically feasible. Why ask?
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 7:32 am
BJ
As somebody who is involved in retail every day of my life I can assure you that advertising is over rated.
However I do admit that there are many in NZ who are brain dead and thus highly receptive to some advertising campaigns.
Just to digress for a minute, the current McDonald’s advert drives me nuts (it must be said that I am NOT against corporations) they claim to be telling the truth about the source of their products yet fail to mention that the bastards do not use free range eggs or free range chickens.
Anyway, It looks like you and I agree about the STYLE of election campaigns just not the way they are funded, I fear we will never agree on that.
And by the way, it sounds like you might be purchasing the wrong type of vehicle.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Gerrit
I thought as much!….Marxisim is dead my friend, has nobody told you?
November 30th, 2006 at 7:37 am
No Big Bruv, *I* never owned a Jaguar, an MG or a Lotus
, nor even a Fiat (although those come with a supply of candles and chickens and instructions about pentagrams to make the electrics work) …. and I reckon you’re correct about the agreement on style.
Which is fair enough…. though it is also fair to ask if there is a solution to this that you would go with?
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 7:46 am
BJ
I ONCE made the mistake of owning a Jag (for a very short time) it was soon nicknamed the Exxon Valdez by some pals of mine for obvious reasons.
A possible soloution……. private funding, drastically reduced budgets, strict policing of those budgets, and more TV debates where the speakers MUST be heard in silence.
These debates MUST BE moderated by a true independent, somebody who will take no crap from the likes of Klarke and Peters, for this job i would nominate Jeremy Paxton from the UK.
(Hell I would not even mind my tax dollars being used to pay the man)
November 30th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Just having fun Big Bruv!!
No more elections, but not in a communist type way where a ruling elite tell you what to do. But in a liberterians way were we have the opportunity to do what we want without a ‘ruler’ telling us no we cant.
Why do people need to be governed?
Also to point out that no matter what the rules and governance one places on how electioneering is restricted, I will find loop holes.
Trust me if I can, so can political parties and their supportors. (if they happen to be illegal just retrospectively change the law - labour - or deny you saw the emails - national - )
Because political parties have been around since adam was a cowboy does not mean we need them. If we only had all independents in parliament we would have robust debate, decisions made (grant you the volume of decisions may drop but the quality would be higher) on rational thoughts rather then political party ideololgy.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Gerrit
Now you are talking, I also do not understand why people feel the need to be led.
We do however need people to run the place if only because the likes of you and I are to bloody busy getting on with our lives to worry about crap like that, given that I am a fan of less government I reckon that we only need about 40 of the buggers.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
I think the right would be very happy to have individual donations only. Remember, the donations come from businessmen and businesswomen, not businesses.
And it matters not how you write the laws in NZ - there will always be loopholes so massive you can drive $800,000 of taxpayers money, fifty union pamphlets and two EB pamphlets through.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Oops, looks like I must have seen that email from the Brethren after all. The old memory is not like it used to be. Anyway, seems like I’m going to be having a lot more time for pruning the kiwifruit.
Dr D Brush
Deputy Assistant Spokesman for Consumer Affairs
November 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Right… now, lets all together, answer the quesiton. Which organization is best able to survive, which is strongest, which can accomplish the most… The individual or the organized group of individuals?
Thank you
You are all I think, smart enough to take the next step…. does the larger or smaller organization have the advantage, all other things being equal, when the two organizations come into conflict?
Again, thank you.
Can you now answer, for yourselves, the question that you stated above? Why we need governments?
It should be pretty clear. If it is not I will explain it in simpler terms, but I don’t think that is really needful. You folks are smart enough..
Not to say that everything that government does is good or right. Just that “government” is required for anything larger and more organized than a herd of cats.
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
M. Ellis…
I don’t think that the law is powerless to govern behaviour that is public and obvious to all. It is powerless to govern our inner thoughts, our secret societies and our base desires, but actual behaviours like broadcasting advertisements are well within its reach. In short, I think you’re wrong. If the law is written well, the loopholes will be unlikely to accomodate either the excesses of the current regime or the lies of the Exclusive Brethren.
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
BJ,
Let me guess you are a teacher?
As an individual I have survived better then if I was with a group of people who are like a flock of sheep were the lowest common denominater is the bench mark.
Anyway nice talking to you. Will be looking for loopholes in the legislation just to be an individual. Called creative license that only individuals possess and a organisation never can.
Cheers
How about picking up on the tread about the stadium and discussing where the Ports of Auckland operations shouild be centred if and when to public reclaims the wharf?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I am somewhat frightened of organised groups of individuals - so far in my experience, they have been extremely nasty beasts.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
bjchip Says:
November 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
M. Ellis…
I don’t think that the law is powerless to govern behaviour that is public and obvious to all. It is powerless to govern our inner thoughts, our secret societies and our base desires,
Bloody Hell BJ!!!…..H1, H2 and Margaret Wilson have had a bloody good crack at it anyway
November 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
No
Not a teacher. A Software/Systems/Mechanical Engineer moved to Wellington from NASA’s JPL. With my whole family. A Former US Naval Officer who has seen pretty much all the habitable world and New Jersey. A McGovern voter.
I reckon that when you do the sums you’ll find that the things that even a Libertarian wants from his/her society, will require government.
If I were with a group of people who were like sheep, even I could lead them. I know cause it has happened. The problem comes when you as an individual come into conflict with even a loosely organized group of people who aren’t grossly inferior in ability, or that contains some able people. That group, because it is organized and has some form of self-government, will overwhelm any individual.
After that if becomes a balancing between efficiency and size that determines relative survival abilities. Smaller is generally more efficient, but has less to work with. Larger is usually less efficient, but can afford to be. Large and relatively efficient is what the US had… back in 1955. The rot was already setting in then.
I don’t embrace “big” government as the answer to everything and there are places where government should butt-out… but it is a necessary evil.
Big Bruv… I will now display my total and abject ignorance of NZ history before my arrival on these shores. Who or What are H1, H2 and a Margaret Wilson. Yeah, I could JFGI (just f’ing google it), but I have to put my 2 year old to sleep.
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
So Prim -
I am somewhat frightened of organised groups of individuals …
I guess this explains your hanging out with the Greens?
(How in the world could you expect me to pass up a straight line like this?!)
respectfully
BJ
November 30th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
BJ - here, I cannot be physically attacked …
December 1st, 2006 at 12:52 am
BJ -
a teacher? priceless! LOL, ROFL, etc
Gerritt,
what we have blogging/commenting here is our very own rocket man in hiding. Astronauts are “bus drivers at high altitude”; BJ was one of the guys that put the models together in cyberspace before anyone had to risk anything in real, celestial space. (am I close, hmmm, BJ?)
Prim,
welcome to my world… as Bj so aptly quips, not a green “organisation” so much as the aspiration for such a state, held together by individuals who acheive miracles despite the vagaries of combustion engines that don’t, website connctions that aren’t, and journalists that don’t communicate the media which isn’t released.
And ppl wonder why I’m possessed of a black and acid sense of humour…. :-p
Back to BJ;
I think the fundamental reason why leaders emerge, and people agreee to be led, has nothing to do with political theory or philosophy, but owes more to a basic flaw of human nature; that most people are too lazy/apathetic to do something themselves, so delegate their responsibilities to someone who talks up a storm.
IMHO, of course
cheers, katie