Can we be constructive now?
One of the overlooked elements of John Key’s overcooked speech to the National Press Club yesterday is his proposal on electoral finance reform, rather than his rhetoric as to the problems with the current bill before select committee. His approach on non-party interventions in elections is interesting, if underdeveloped. Key said:
For example, we would support a limit on third-party spending in an election period. Political parties and candidates are capped in their spending so it makes sense that third parties are as well. Organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election.
Now I am absolutely in agreement with Key on this point. Which raises the awkward question of: How do you do it? How do you do it? Which is exactly the question that the select committee and all the rest of us are having to grapple with in the midst of an hysterical campaign by the Nats which is making it hard to hear oneself think. Â
In order to acheive Key’s goal, what kind of spending should be capped? What is it about an advertisement by a non-party actor that makes it an election advertisement? What kind of definition captures the intervention of the Exclusive Brethren that was clearly aimed at getting National elected, but will exclude the statement by an NGO that is less directly (or perhaps not directly at all) aimed at influencing which party gets more or less votes. This is precisely the nub of the issue that Key and English have been avoiding in their grandstanding on the bill.
Now Coalition for Open government have suggested as a solution:
The Coalition suggests that the law on third parties should control advertisements that “can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election”. This is the phrasing used in the UK’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Now this seems a reasonable place to begin the discussion. Of course like any rule in this area it still leaves grey areas, and arguably simply leaves it up to the courts to figure out on a case by case basis, but it does at least provide a starting point.
So why, according to National, aren’t we allowed to have this discussion in the select committee after receiving submissions from the public? Especially now the Nats have agreed that capping non-party interventions is a worthy goal….?
Believe it or not but bills, even government bills, routinely get significantly changed in select committees. The Gambling Bill, for example picking on one that I worked on as a researcher, got significantly changed in select committee. It’s normal and it’s one of the things about our MMP system that actually works a lot of the time. That’s why the Greens pushed for all parties to be on the select committee. But the campaign being run by the Nats is making this process extremely difficult. C’mon John get constructive and help make a better bill.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:35 am
[Idea for New Topic: Noise having huge impact on health
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/23/noise1 23.xml
Support Clayton Cosgrove
http://tinyurl.com/23nzsc
You can’t block out a bass, thumping out a limbic message (fear me I’m strong)> we can block out random noise. Bass travels thru reinforced concrete.
Sorry to interupt
jh]
August 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am
and you could also go to the bfm website and listen to nicky hager (this morning) echo pretty much everthing i have said in this forum..
about this poxy bill..
oh!..hang-on..!..he used stronger words than me..that’s right…!
he said ‘this is the sort of legislation you would expect to see introduced by the nazi party..’..(!)
sheesh..!..
doyareckon hager must have got his ‘hate-filled spectacles’ from the same optician as i did..?
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
oh..!..hager also pointed out how absolutely stupid the drafters of this bill were/are..
to have handed national a big club with which to belt labour/greens..
at a time when national should be running/scurrying away from the proven facts of their craven election-finance behaviour..
as detailed in the hollow-men..
(and you b*stards got to me a bit last night..!..)
it seemed..from the resounding silences from all other greens..(save for bj’s ‘just wait and see what they do’ murmerings..)
..that i was the only one/green who could see all this/how bad this was….
and your united vilifications..(see optical reference above..)
only seemed to confirm this..
but i must say..your slight ‘unbalancing’ of my resolve on this..
has well and truly passed..
eh..?
and you all just stand indicted..eh..?..
by your silence..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2007 at 8:57 am
i can only hope that this sorry-episode is a nadir for the green party..
and that you all pull up short..and go
“hang on..!..somethings not quite correct here..!
how have we ’slid’ into this sorry state..?
where we vote for/help draft/try to ’sell’..in the words of nicky hager..
‘nazi legislation’..?
(whoar..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I think that the bill as it stands with some changes in definitions covers third parties reasonably well. I think that the question of government spending is an issue that needs to be discussed much more. Russel has floated ideas around having some independent authority decide if government spending is partisan but without clear guidelines as to what constitutes justifiable spending and what doesn’t the position will be open to some very wide interpretation.
What is perhaps more important than any of this is civics education in schools. Educated voters should be much harder to buy?
August 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Very useful article in the Press by Andrew Geddis - http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4167577a12935.html
August 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
ANd yet you still supported its introduction to the house…..
August 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Yes grasshopper, a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.
Accepting NO legislation as a starting point would hardly serve. Expecting better legislation as a starting point seems overly optimistic, though I still occasionally hope that the collective intelligence of the parliament might occasionally exceed zip-point-squat.
BJ
August 24th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Or they could just draft better legislation and stop wasting everyone’s time and money.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I guess a good as place to start is to define whom or what is a third party.
It will need to be a very tight legal definition otherwise loopholes will simply be exploited.
Such as where a third party has reached their limit on electioneering spending, simply disbands (as they are legally entitled to do) and starting a new third party with spending capacity back on the maximum limit.
Registration will be easily overcome by registering a dozen or more different third parties. Reach the limit with the first one, simply activate the next.
Third party definitions will be the major stumbling block.
My answer is still open slather, coupled with better voter education.
The public will see through third party electioneering quickly enough as they did with Union and EB stuff at the last election.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
My answer is still zero for a sharply delineated short period of time. Open slather for the rest.
…because there are too many ways to rort any other system.
respectfully
BJ
August 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
PEL said “Or they could just draft better legislation and stop wasting everyone’s time and money.”
Jeez PEL, have you thought through the consequences for the average hard working lawyer? Do you really want to be accosted by unemployed lawyers begging for handouts on every street corner?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Seems your Green youth MP’s are being constructive: http://tinyurl.com/233a4x
“The Labour party, the so-called workers’ party, has really become a power hungry club for sold-out Fabian socialists - instead of leading on the basis of democracy and freedom. The status quo surrounding election spending clearly has problems. But to go from this to a law of minimal public involvement and red tape seems a bit of a leap. If Labour really wanted the most democratic elections possible, firstly it would throw out the EFB and secondly it might deal with the exact problems it seeks to ’solve.’
The EFB needs to be destroyed, not just because it is dangerously anti-democratic but because doing so sends Labour a clear message - back to the drawing board on policy, ethos and political aim.”
August 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
russel..is your linking to the geddis article your ‘mea culpa’..?
and any chance of your answering insiders’ question..?
as in..if you recommend the words of geddis..
why on earth did you iwork on the drafting/ntroduce/promote/try to ’sell’ to us..
this bill that has absolutely everything wrong with it..?
i don’t think i’m the only on who would like an answer to that question..eh..?
(just think of me as their ’stalking-horse’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 27th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Let’s see here, Russel. Your party negotiated in secret with the Labour Party to come up with the most important piece of constitutional change in a generation. Now that it has been revealed that those changes are monumentally flawed, you want the National Party to help you out by being constructive.
Here’s a constructive suggestion. Kill the bill, and start again. Be honest here, Russel. You’re not even interested in being constructive, or involving the National Party. The Greens have vowed to support the Bill, no matter how flawed it is. That is simply not a constructive position.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
and russel..
do you really think it is a wise move for the green party to continue this course of action..?
for you/the greens to be demonstrating/showing to all..
just how much you/they appear to be in the thrall of clark/labour..?
(you know how ‘perceptions is all’..eh..?
and this is the perception you are fostering/perpetuating..
(as demonstrated by your own descriptions (in this forum) of the drafting process.
which were really a sad tale of impotence/inability on your part to ’stand-up’ to the demands/refusals of labour..
and to engage in absolutely no use of your media vehicles/forum of parliament..to argue for ‘real/progressive’ legislation..(?)
(not some variation on a kafkaesque nightmare.).
(your (published) excuses for this being that you are muzzled/silenced by ‘confidentiality-agreements’ with labour..(!)
and then ..to compound that..to come out and ’sell it’ to the rest of us greens..?..whoar..!..eh..?)
but..then again..if we go..once again in this forum..to your ‘wish-list’ for this legislation..
we see most of the repressive/anti-democratic strictures everyone is now screaming about..
(w.t.f. is that all about..?..)
(and i mean..c’mon..!..for nicky hager to call this ‘nazi legislation’..?
dosen’t that make you think/question..?…)
and dosen’t your (published)’repression-wishlist’ just show us what is behind your mask…
and the type of new zealand you are (obviously) fighting for..(!)
only raises the question..
for many (and numbers growing)..
(as eyes are opened..)
of your suitability to be the co-leader of the green party.. ?
(i think many of us would prefer a green party that is not ‘muzzled/silenced’ by confidentiality agreements..
(i mean..!..isn’t eight years of the failures of that path bringing that home to you..?..yet..?.)
and especially..many of us do not want a green party co-leader who is so firmly entwined with/beholden to labour..
to the extent that..at their behest..
he trys to draft/promote/sell/pass some of the most repressive/anti-democratic legislation ever to be brought to parliament..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Not knowing what is happening from day to day is annoying but not too surprising.
Without going to the lengths that Phil does Russel, I would like to hear a more robust Green position being presented and supported. What we have right now is the going-in position and nothing very satisfying about what we want to see come out.
I personally have to object to the idea of having the election period extended to the start of the year. I seriously expect the anonymous money to be restricted and the 3rd party adverts to be severely restricted, but I don’t see ANYTHING. I don’t hear anything particularly good coming from our official sources.
Someone needs to gird their loins and go in to do battle. Seriously.
respectfully
BJ
August 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
So why, according to National, aren’t we allowed to have this discussion in the select committee after receiving submissions from the public? Especially now the Nats have agreed that capping non-party interventions is a worthy goal?
Russell,
That entirely reasonable starting point COG provides is not the starting point you (the Greens) are asking National to endorse, is it?
The actual starting point is that 3rd parties shall be defined as any group that comments on any policy held by any political party. This is a totally unreasonable starting point that would ban the free speech of many NZers, any political party (such as the Greens) that endorses it is tarred by an awfulness that censors political opinion. National refuse to endorse this bill, because it is shite.
If you truly want constructive debate (and at the moment this looks doubtful) you should stop hiding behind the skirts of the COG and come out as the Greens to condemn the wording of this Bill as unfit. If you truly want it to go to Select Committee make a promise to NZ that the Greens will never let the existing wording survive Select Committee. Saying that it is possible that Select Committee may iron out kinks is not sufficient, we need you to publically condemn the current wording. Otherwise your endorsement means you appear to support censorship of political opinion.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:30 am
this is your quote..mr norman..
“..”I’d describe it as we’ve started the process of fixing it, and I’d just like to see the process of fixing it go further,”
could you please tell us why you have not heeded the concerns of most..?
and are now not working for the setting up of an independant commisssion to draw up this legislation..?
by your desiring for/shilling for this deeply flawed model you presented/attempted to sell to us..
haven’t you disqualified/compromised yourself..?
in that any credibility you might have on this issue is in tatters..?
and can i also note..mr norman..
that this ‘fixing’/re-jigging you are attemping looks like nothing more than a ploy dreamed up by you and labour..
to achieve your (original) aims..
and to ‘ram through’ this anti-democratic legislation before christmas..
so that you can ‘close-down’ political dialogue from january next year..right up to the election..(!)
and could i also note mr norman..
that should these indeed be the your aims..and the outcome..
that you will be hopelessly compromising the credibility of the green party/movement..
and..thus..could well drive away many of the ‘idealists’ who are greens..
and..thus..could well consign (this model) of a green party to the electoral dustbin..
and from those ashes..something else/better will arise..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 1st, 2007 at 7:15 am
(and this caught my eye..)
labour talking about the possibility of booting mike moore out of the party..
for his latest burst-of-nonsense..
“..However, Mr Williams noted the party had not thrown out a member since about 1939..”
how long has it been since the greens did just that..?
2006..?..wasn’t it..?
(does anyone else see a (disturbing) pattern here..?..)
what’s happened to my green party..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
jeanette is on agenda this morning..
why does frog not inform us in advance of such appearances..?
surely that would be deemed to be one of the purposes of this forum..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Phul
I have just watched agenda and have been left with the feeling that the Greens hidden agenda is a live and well.
Despite being asked at least three times if her party could ever consider an agreement with the Nat’s she avoided the question.
Why do the Greens find it so hard to be open and honest with the electorate?, what is wrong with her coming out and telling us that they would never consider an agreement with National.
I also thought that her climate change statement “we have ten years to fix the problem” to be something that the interviewer should have challenged, does she really believe that we (a nation that contributes 0.002 of the world total CO2 emissions) can really make a differnce?..this is what I mean by the hidden agenda and she (and the Greens in general) need to be taken to task about this.
I was also disappointed to see the now sadly familiar anti American and anti Australian bias coming through, no criticism of China from Jeanette just the usual hate filled attitude toward the USA and the Ockers.
I was left with the impression that the Greens are going to continue treating the voters of NZ like mushrooms, all that interview confirmed for me was the evils of MMP, no party with %5 of the popular vote should ever have that much say or potential influence on a democratically elected govt.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:22 am
Censored again Frog?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Care to post my comment about this mornings Agenda appearance by Jeanette Frog?
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am
FROG … I would love to see a transcript if one can be found. Thanks
BB
I don’t mind substantive posts but your constant whinging that you are being censored when something doesn’t immediately appear is really quite annoying.
I’ve just noticed however, that your complaints here appear AFTER the post. I am just wondering if you have a cache someplace in your signal chain and you are getting an unrefreshed view of the blog. This is important. It is almost as bad as hitting the “back” button and expecting to see the new content you’ve provided, but it is heaps more subtle and annoying.
++++++++++
Even without seeing this I can easily answer your misconception about Jeanette’s words. When she says “We” in that context she is talking about the people living on this planet. The human species. I know you take it as your solemn duty to misinterpret every single phrase in the worst possible way, but have you considered ever using a parsing rule that says that if one meaning makes sense and another does not, you choose the one that makes sense?
I can’t speak to your “anti-American” impressions much, as I didn’t see the piece and you don’t provide any quotations of anti-American bias…. but I can provide this general advice. Greens do not hate America. Greens regard the current administration as a bunch of stupid murdering greedy miscreants. I personally regard them as traitors to the US Constitution. Doesn’t mean I hate America or Americans.
+++++
The beauty of MMP is that parties with 5% of the popular vote actually DO have a voice. This is not an evil BB, it is a massive improvement over the alternatives.
respectfully
BJ
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
this was my review of jeanette on agenda..
“..as featured guest this morning..jeanette fitzsimons faced a raft of questions on wether the greens would go with national..next time out..
she sidestepped them quite neatly by saying the party was being polled on that issue..
(but she was very careful in choosing her words..and my call is that the party members are not being directly polled on wether the party should be going with national or labour..
but that any party discussions are on the protocols/procedures post-election..which is a different kettle of fish..eh..?
and more an inherently beaurocratic/faux-empowering exercise..than anything else..
fitzsimons showed more resolve when quizzed on climate-change matters..
and managed to push aside the (mainly silly/irrelevant) questions fired at her..
and to stay firmly ‘on-message’..
in that “we only have a ten-year window of opportunity to do something about this!�
and that aspirational targets 40 years down the road..are essentially meaningless..
and for hammering that potent message home..
fitzsimons gets an 8/10..for this outing..
(recommended-watch..)
(phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
8/10 for saying nothing Phil?
She was asked a range of patsy questions by a sycophantic left wing journo, I would have liked Espiner to ask her what is so significant about the next ten years.
Mike Moore is right, our media let the Greens get away with making statements like this without asking them to back up those statements.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
bb said..
“..I would have liked Espiner to ask her what is so significant about the next ten years…”
sigh..!..can i suggest bb..that you do some basic/catch-up reading..?
by saying something so obviously ’stupid’..
you are just trotting out your ignorances..
for all to see..
and you do yourself no service..eh..?
for feck sake bb..!
it’s really boring having to correct this ongoing bullshit from you..
(here’s a thought..how about changing your moniker to b.s..?..)
and..even long-time denialists like jimbo anderton are now sunding positively ‘forest-green’ on climate-change..
give it a rest..!..eh b.s..?
and find yourself a new barrow to push..!..eh..?
cos’ ‘yr old one is broken’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
anyway..people csn make their ownminds up..the jeanette interview is available online..
and..why dosen’t frog post it here..?
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
aarrgghh..!..i suggest bb change his name to bullsh*t..
and my answer has vanished into moderation-land..
and frog dosen’t start ‘work’ again ’till mon morn..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 am
Never mind Phil, anyway it sounds like you and I agree about the interview.
Did you not say that she sidestepped a few questions?
BTW, what more can you tell us about Nandor being asked to step aside?, have the Greens realised that a leader who is not in the house is no leader at all?
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
my understanding is that russel and his cohorts are ‘moving against nandor’..
and want him ‘gone’/to resign..
so that russel can take his seat in parliament..
that is all i know..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Workers’ Party talk: Why the left should oppose the Electoral Finance Bill.
Otago Univesity political science lecturer Byrce Edwards will outline the case against the Electoral Finance Bill
Monday September 3rd, 7:30, Level One Meeting Room, Wellington Library.
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
i just hope that nandor stands strong/stays staunch..
and realises/is sustained by the knowledge of how much respect/mana he has out here..
..outside of those alliance-refugee-riddled ‘greens’/people/operatives/aparatchiks he is surrounded by in wellington..
and that most of us know that he is the ‘natural’ male co-leader of the green party..
and want him to stay..to take up that role..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am
BB
There are a lot of people who know the science who are damned nervous about the possibility/likelihood of the climate responding non-linearly. If there is (as theorized, and there is evidence for this happening in the past) a tipping point or several in the climate change process, the odds of us going over it in the next ten years are middling good and in the ten years after that (nothing being done) actually quite excellent. Note that the tipping point has nothing to do with us. It is just a positive feedback that kicks in as the climate warms for whatever reason it warms.
Once we go over the tipping point a billion people die. Maybe more.
I am not enthusiastic about leaning any farther over the side of the canoe.
We have about 10 years to stop ourselves while we can still breath and paddle. After that it will take skill, luck and exceptional coordination to get things back where we can breath. I haven’t noticed a great deal of any of those things at the international cooperation level.
So there’s no actual science to be seen here. It is basically the impression of the researchers that there is more to this than simple linear responses,.. but it is unproven. People are working on it, but the transient signatures of such events are hard to detect. I want to make sure you understand this up front cause it has to do with the difference between our opinion and scientists opinions, and the conservative nature of science.
respectfully
BJ
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Actually we might be able to work with National on several issues relating to environment, and might come to an arrangement much like we have with Labour in terms of Confidence and Supply in return for having some voice in how things are run. I can imagine it. I am not sure there’d be a lot of people happy with it, but there are not a lot of people real ecstatic about the way things worked out with Labour either.
Making sure that the price of destruction of the commons is properly included in the price of everything isn’t greatly contrary to National party policy in theory. It may be anathema to business but the ideological structure does support this as a means to an end. Pigovian taxes could also be acceptable.
I can imagine it…. but then I have always been regarded as having a twisted imagination
respectfully
BJ
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Thanks BJ
So lets just say that I accept that (i don’t as a matter of fact but for the sake of the argument lets assume that I do) can you tell me what difference we can make to global climate change in little ol NZ
When I have asked that question in the past the usual answer goes something like “well it has to start somewhere”
Jeanette is not a silly lady but we both know that our efforts in NZ will not make once ounce of difference, this is why so many of us see the Greens as a party with a hidden agenda.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
BJ
Come on, the chance of the Greens ever working with the Nat’s is about the same as me voting for Klark
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
bb said “our efforts in NZ will not make once ounce of difference”
The same could be said about Iceland’s efforts, physically it makes no difference, psychologically it makes a significant difference. Iceland has been smart enough to sell itself to the multinationals as the perfect place to run pilot projects for many AGW mitigation techniques and technologies, thus Icelanders get the benefits without spending their own money.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Kevyn,
Iceland is also keen to set itself up as a transportation hub when the Arctic sea becomes more navigable (due to a reduction/disappearance of the Arctic ice sheet). One of the major items shipped through this route might be oil from Northern Russia (I’m not kidding … have a look at this recent conference title: http://arcticportal.org/breaking-the-ice)
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 am
good news about kedgeleys’ traffic-light labelling system for food getting the nod from’her on high’..eh?..
that means it’ll happen..and soon..you’d think..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/clark-gives-the-green-light-to-the-greens-traf fic-light-idea/
and can i submit that this is (successful) ‘green’ politics..as i see it..
‘green politics’ that will resonate with voters..
and working for the good of us all..
(not working for the forces of repression..!..)
in fact..i see an upward blip in the polls coming your/the greens way..
if jeanette keeps on repeating that powerful/potent ‘we only have ten years!’ imperative..(c.f…agenda..sat…)
and if sue k. continues the good work she has been doing of late..
so russel..any rise in support will be in spite of your (misguided) efforts..
not because of..
and some of us still want answers from you..over your ‘wish-list’ of repression..
and about the whispering/white-anting campaign going on to get nandoer to resign..
so that you can take his place/seat in parliament..
(another ‘misguided’ campaign on your part..!..eh..?..)
and..b.t.w….how is metirias’ ‘medical cannbis bill’ coming along..?
and..when can we expect to see that introduced into parliament..?
and that debate to begin..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
does using the word ‘russ*l’ now send you straight to moderation..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
frogmaster: no, neither russ*l or russel are on the list
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
and just on this medical cannabis issue for a mo’..
is this another case where you doubt the power/potency of your ideas/arguments..?
do you not have the nous/abilities to show the new zealand public the basiic common sense and humanity..
of providing proven reliefs for other new zealanders’ sufferings/pain..
using proven case studies and law changes in canada..?
where they have developed sativex..a synthetic cannabis delivered through an asthma-inhaler sorta thing..
do you fear the prohibitionists..?
i mean..for feck sake..!..we aren’t talking dope-cafes here..
we are talking about proven relief..relief that cannot be provided by other (even narcotic) drugs..
perhapas the most telling example of this ..is that in the final stages of diabetes/aids..and (i think)..altzheimers..
sufferers experience excruciating pins and needles in their feet and hands..
and cannabis is the only drug that stops/relieves that pain..
i mean..once again..!..for feck sakke..!..
if you lot can’t ’sell’ that to the new zealand public..
you couldn’t sell an after-match beer to a rugby scrum..
on a hot day..
if you lot just do nothing with this opportunity to do real ‘good’..
and to relieve/stop that suffering happening here..now..!
well..!..what can i say..?
and more importantly..what possible excuses could you come up with..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Phil
Just when I thought you were starting to make a little sense you jump on the Cannabis bandwagon.
You have offered the party some good advice of late but even you must accept that pushing this barrow is a proven vote loser.
The public of NZ will never be “sold” the legalisation (or decriminalization) of cannabis.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
do you read the words..?..b.s..?
i am talking about medical marijuana..
i am talking about proven relief for people suffering as you read this..
nothing more..nothng less..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Phil
Taken in capsule form or smoked?
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
once again..did you not read the words..?
an asthma-style inhaler..
sativex..legally prescribed in canada..
for the raft of ailments for which it is effective..
y’know..it still blows my mind..the ignorance displayed by so many towards this benificial/totally ‘natural/’god-given’ plant/herb..
in a society that revels in the dregs/costs of alcohol..
and one that has huge segments of the poulation addicted to foul tranks/anti-depressants/sleepers..
muck enthusiastically ‘pushed’ by the (hopelessly comprimised) medical profession..at the behest of drug companies..
(and many/most of those ‘needing’ this muck..
..could be ’set right’ with an after-work/before-bed joint/spliff.
‘relax maan..!..don’t you be so uptight..!”)
and a society that feeds vile muck like ritalin..to little children..(!)
ritalin is ’speed’ folks..!
you are creating a generation of wired little apprentice junkies..
are you all feckin’ mad..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Phil
A serious question gets a reply like that???..no wonder the people of NZ will never support “medical” cannabis.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
what was wrong with that reply..?
i pointed out (for the second time) that you were asking me something i had just answered..
and then i digressed..into a general ‘railing’/howling at the gale..
what’s yr ‘issue’..?..oh ’sensitive’ one..!
don’t get off yr bike…!
i’ll pick up yr pump..!
(for once you aren’t trolling’/abusing..
and you turn into ’sensitive-sally’..?
gizzafeckinbreakhere..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
well, I can’t resist a med pot debate, BB, why do you put “medical” in quotes? I take you are expressing disbelief that cannabis is a medicine. It is. Have a read.
http://www.gwpharm.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
and phil, right on, agree completely with your rant, the only thing wrong with it is your writing style
September 4th, 2007 at 9:44 am
that’s just the virgoean/taurean character trait ascendants in your personality rearing their ugly heads..stuey..
do try to keep that under control..!..eh..?
too much of that sort of stuff can lead to a stultifying degree of anal retentiveness..eh..?
(let the wild and free and irresponsible sagittarian in you break free.!…stuey..!)
and “relax maan..!..don’t you be so writing-style uptight!”..
and your cavalier (mis)use of the word ‘wrong’..
just leads us into a philosophical thicket/dead-end..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am
even more reasons why the electoral finance bill not only sucks..it blows..!
“..The EFB imposes constraints on political advocacy that are arguably unparalleled in modern NZ history
Raises the issues that as one can not register as a third party once an election writ has been served, any person or organisation attacked by a party during a campaign will be banned from fighting back.
The EFB curtails opportunities for citizens to express their ideas on matters of public importance in an election year, when it matters most
A key part - “No evidence of the harm said to be caused by third-party advocacy has been provided to justify these heavy-handed proposals�
“It’s conceptual premise is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle that citizens do not require prior authorisation to to express their views about the Government on political issues of the day
“The Bill effectively creates a licensing regime for political speech�
“The Bill rations the amount of political speech by third parties in election year� and “the rations are meagre�
“The fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it�
“Far from being a corrupt practice, persuasion through speech is the lifeblood of the democratic society and the hallmark of civilised society
“The suggestion that free speech can “unduly influence� voters is misconceived. The foundation of the democratic system is that voters should be free to judge for themselves which ideas have merit
“If a group of private citizens consider the registered parties have failed to give due attention to an issue, and they wish to introduce their own ideas into the political discourse, this should not be constrained is the purpose of the Bill is to promote public participation in the electoral process..�
(the above is extracts from an article by two lawyers..as highlighted at kiwiblog..)
ok russel..do you think you owe us the respect (yet?)..
to explain justify why you want..and expect the greens to support..
everything that is identified as a problem with this legislation..?
(b.t.w..did you know how much you have in common with bush jnr..?
it’s all to do with the hubris gene..you both share..
your own words (published here)came echoing back at me when i saw an excerpt from a recent interview..
where bush jnr stated that he just ignored the words/ideas of critics..
and..(here’s the ‘rub’..!.)
he just ‘does what he feels is right”
(does that statement from him ring any memory-bells for you..?
shall i hunt down your quote..?
in case you’ve forgotten…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 4th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
russell..could you please answer/address the issues raised in this thread..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 4th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I have answered questions on the EFB on many occasions on this blog and in the media and specifically in the post that began this thread. If you have other specific questions that are not answered in that post then post them succinctly and I will try to answer them.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
well..thank you for that..
the above point-by-point concerns raised by the article from new zealand lawyer would be a good place to begin..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 4th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Specifically Russel,
1. Define whom or what is a third party that can be quantified in a court of law.
2. What is to stop interested parties logging (registering) multiple identities as third parties.
3. Who will police the electoral infringements and what powers will they have to prosecute. (and are the resources available to carry out compliance checks, instigate prosecutions and enforce penalties)
4. When a ruling is placed before the courts will an election be able to be called or will we have to wait for a court ruling on potential electoral fraud?
5. Who will govern while electoral matters are before the court. The incumbent or a coalition.
6. Does the Governor General have sufficient contitutional powers to dissolve a parliament and call for a fresh general election if the courts cant decide on the status of an election.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:40 am
russel said..
“..If you have other specific questions that are not answered in that post then post them succinctly and I will try to answer them…”
um..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Let me try and answer my own questions.
1. It will be virtually impossible to legally quantify whom or what is a third party. Potentially we have 1 million third parties. ie. each elector can and their partner can become a third party of two. Secondly every branch of any organisation can become a third party in their own right (such as each workingman club, every sports club, every chamber of commerce). Database management of these third parties will be interesting as will setting up the infastructure to handle all registrations.
2. Nothing. The EB’s cn register every chapter or group as an individual third party as can unions, cossie or sport club, chamber of commerce region ec. Proving collusion will be an issue for the courts.
3. Technically the Police, but will they be given the extra resources to investigate and prosecute electoral fraud.
4. An election cannot be ratified until all court decisions have been finalised. These potentially can drag on for months - years right up to the supreme court.
5. Parliament is dissolved prior to a general election meaning the country is without elected representatives until all court cases have been settled and an election ratified.
6. I dont think the GG has the power to run the country without an elected parliament.
Some further questions.
7. Who will decide what is constructive and vital government advertising of new innitiatives during the election year. Police?
8. Will the electoral commision who decides what is government advertising and not government electioneering be an elected body?
9. If the incumbent government publishes what they consider advertising but oppostion parties consider electioneering, will the resulting court case postpone the election (the incumbent having gained an unfair advantage)and the election year cycle start from scratch?. If so see point point 5 regarding who occupies the treasury benches while the court cases are in progress.
Summation. While the arguments are what happens in a lead up to an election, very little is said what happens after. Something to address surely?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Russel,
Follow up question from number 9.
10. If a court case as played out in question 9 where an “incumbent government publishes what they consider advertising but oppostion parties consider electioneering” went against the government, could they pass retrospective legislation that overturns the courts decision?
Or will future electoral reform act amendments require a 3/4 majority of parliament to prevent incumbent governments changing the law to suit their agenda?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
russel..we are still waiting for the answers you promised..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2007 at 8:09 am
john armstrong..in the herald..tells us the greens have been ‘bought-off’..
is that true russel..?
and..is there anyone within the green party ‘fighting’ this bill..?..internally..?
is there any ‘debate’..?
or are you all complicit..?..in your silence..?
and bj..your sshh!!..’let the select committee sort it out!”..admonition..
seems to be panning out as i predicted..
eh..?
a ‘done-deal’..
and russel..it is abundantly clear why you have not answered questions/concerns..as you said you would..
and that is because you have moved not a jot..
and are beavering away to get this legislation passed..
containing..as it does..your own (published in this forum) repression-wish-list..
and i ask all greens to please consider the implications of this legislation..
(no/a nobbled anti-ge movement..!..to begin with..!..)
i mean..does that resonate with anyone..?..’alarm’ anyone..?)
and could you please start ringing/writing/emailing/agitating/whatever..!
within the green party..
time is fast running out.!.
and we are facing waking up to orwellian controls on our freedom of speech/political action/dialogue..for one year out of three..!
every election year..is when we will all be muzzled..(!)
and should this legislation pass with the wholehearted support of the green party..?
‘for shame’ on those greens..who just stood by..and did nothing..
eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2007 at 9:34 am
nandor is on the select committee..
concerned greens can email him at nandor.tanczos@parliament.govt.nz
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Hi Gerrit
Have had a chance to have a long look at Geddis’ submission which was good as I learnt a lot. Can’t answer all your questions but..
The third parties aspect is hard to enforce because as you say people can set up multiple third parties. The way the bill should help is transparency, so we know who is behind the different groups and who is funding them. There are also provisions which make it illegal to split up existing groups. But you’re right, it’s hard to enforce.
The police are also the ones who will prosecute. This is a problem given their reluctance to prosecute after the last election but with new law and all the attention that was on them after the last election I think they should perform better. The inquiry that has been foreshadowed will hopefully look at the issue of combining the three electoral agencies and giving them the power to prosecute. Seems like a sensible idea.
I think the courts are more than capable of dealing with the cases that come their way with alacrity. I suspect that they will relish the opportunity to hold the legislative wing accountable to election laws.
Remember, very similar laws are in operation in UK and Canada and democracy has not crashed as a result!
cheers
Russel
September 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Russ
You are already sounding like a parliamentarian!
The very least you could do with discussing this disgusting bill (I still cannot work out why the Greens of all parties are behind it unless there has been some back room deal done)
Canada in particular does not have a $60,000 limit, their limit is considerably more than that figure, what really annoys me is that you are well aware of that.
Please tell the truth.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
russel..you are not telling the truth when you say ‘very similar laws are in operation in uk and canada..”
what you and labour have done is pick the worst out of each system..make them worse..then add your own..
the regime with the tightest constraints you cite as supporting evidence..is only in force for the 60 days before an election..
whereas you are fighting for worse constraints..
and these lasting for one year out of three..(!)
given this..how can you possibly say your toxic stew is ‘very similar’..?
do you think we are total fools..?
who cannot see the dissembling you are engaging in..?
(and why will you not respond to/answer these questions/concerns..?)
“..The EFB imposes constraints on political advocacy that are arguably unparalleled in modern NZ history
Raises the issues that as one can not register as a third party once an election writ has been served, any person or organisation attacked by a party during a campaign will be banned from fighting back.
The EFB curtails opportunities for citizens to express their ideas on matters of public importance in an election year, when it matters most
A key part - “No evidence of the harm said to be caused by third-party advocacy has been provided to justify these heavy-handed proposals�
“It’s conceptual premise is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle that citizens do not require prior authorisation to to express their views about the Government on political issues of the day
“The Bill effectively creates a licensing regime for political speech�
“The Bill rations the amount of political speech by third parties in election year� and “the rations are meagre�
“The fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it�
“Far from being a corrupt practice, persuasion through speech is the lifeblood of the democratic society and the hallmark of civilised society
“The suggestion that free speech can “unduly influence� voters is misconceived. The foundation of the democratic system is that voters should be free to judge for themselves which ideas have merit
“If a group of private citizens consider the registered parties have failed to give due attention to an issue, and they wish to introduce their own ideas into the political discourse, this should not be constrained is the purpose of the Bill is to promote public participation in the electoral process..�
(you know what sickens me to my stomach about this russel..?
is that the anti-ge movement you hijacked/rode..could/would not have happened under your (desired) regime..
your cynical use of that bandwagon is shown..by your actions now..
to have been the sham it was..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 10th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Russel,
Thank you for answering one question. It raises further questions (plus does not answer the other nine).
11. You mention that the combined three electoral agencies who will have the “power to prosecute” third party electioneering advertising Surely that is a Police only function? Or are you proposing that we have a seperate body for electoral law enforcement?
Looking forward to how the select committee is going to propose dealing with Government electioneering in the form of policy promotion in election year. If you think third party contraint are hard wait till you attempt this side of the equation.
So question 12. is The combined three electoral agencies who will have the “power to prosecute” third party electioneering advertising, will they have the power to investigate government electioneering. Which raises another question.
13. Will the body be appointed by the government or by parliament (bipartisan)? This body will have enormous influence on the election so needs to be as totally transparent as the donors to political parties are to be.
14. What independence will the Police have to prosecute their political masters? Can the government minister pull a “Doone” and have the Police top brass in fear of their jobs if they dont act in the governments interest?