The EFB is a symptom of the Left's Crisis

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4293298a6483.html

They say it better than I can.

Interested in the fact that the Standard completely ignored this article today.

I saw acouple of interesting posts today on kiwiblog:

tom hunter Says: November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Since we’re mentioning Schumpter you all might be interested in this review of a recent biography of the man - Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction:
http://www.powells.com/review/2007_07_12
With regards to his views on democracy the following quote is probably appropriate:
He was not a democrat by instinct or by reflection. He had little confidence in the ability of the average citizen to vote intelligently, or even in his own long-run interest. His book asks if democratic socialism is possible. The conclusion is that perhaps it is possible in principle, but almost surely not in practice. Democratic capitalism is what we have, but democratic resentment and demo- cratic ignorance tend to work against capitalist success, either by accepting socialism or by fostering over-regulation.
For these reasons, Schumpeter could not conceive that a permanent mixed economy was a viable proposition. He called it “capitalism in an oxygen tent.” For him, capitalism is the civilization of a few family fortunes and broad inequality. Democracy, he thought, must turn out to be “laboristic,” and therefore inimical to capitalist success. This conclusion was a major error, as McCraw says. It has been soundly contradicted empirically by the sixty years and counting since World War II. Nor was this a mere slip of judgment. Schumpeter’s mistake was rooted in his political and social attitudes and even, to some extent, in his characterization of entrepreneurship and the dynamics of capitalism.

This ties in with some of the ideas I have been workign on about acrisis in 'the left:

Lee C Says: November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think there is a crisis in the left, which is that are refusing to accept that their drift rightwards no longer quaiifes them as ‘left’ in the old fashioned way it was used. This results in many people occupying a kind of moral high-ground that comes with beigng ‘left-wing’ (ie anti right-wing’) but they fail to acept that they are now closer to the right wing in their attitudes and opnions than they would wish to accept.The Third Way has a dodgy provenance as an economic theory, it has equally been used by Mussolini, Peron Balir and Clark, while the tension between trying to balance capitalism and forward thinking ’socialist’ policies has resulted in a harder right wing attitude towards ploicy-making - by this I mean an attitude of ‘authority is best, and if you don;t like it, then tough luck’. This is apparent in the way the EFB has been formulated and promoted as a ‘we know best’ policy, regardless of how people may feel democratically that they have a right to oppose it. Another example of this is the way that Unions are now handf-in-glove with the oligarchy in New Zealand, and less attentive to workers’ rights than they are to the ‘end justifies the means ‘ attitudes of the legislators. It results in less of the old-fashioned ‘left’ attitudes of debate and vote and more of the old rights attitude of ‘do as we say’.

I also raised the question with The Standard:
Lee C
Nov 30th, 2007 at 9:08 am
ps on reflection R0b is it not possible for the philosophy of ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ to be hi-jacked by an unscrupulous minority as a justification for passing laws that are undemocratic? (In the public good, as it were?)In the same way that ‘Third Way Politics’ can als end up with a dichotomous relationship between ‘laissez-faire capitalism’ and ’socialism’ which inevitably leads to more restrictive law-making by a social-democratic government as a means to try and redress the tension?Would the EFB rank as such an example?

The War is Almost Over - Can We Afford the Peace?

Is the emphasis over the EFB changing in an ever-so-subtle way?

I think it started out as a mish-mash which was hastily written and rubber-stamped.

You might blame the three-year electoral cycle for this, but I blame the fact that Labour did not do enough to facilitate this Bill. They tried to get the numbers to introduce State-Funded Political Parties and that failed. It begs the question 'How much cross-party consultation was attempted by both sides?'

In the meantime the 'Emergency' Retrospective Legislation over the Pledge card overspend was left in limbo, and something had to be done about that.

The results are the EFB and Enabling Bill.

Labour sympathisers have recently begun to defend the EFB as the only logical result of the intransigence and negativity of The National Party towards electoral reform because it would interfere with National's ability to 'buy' elections.

One school of thought suggests that elections cannot be 'bought' people will not be told what to think.

This is clearly not the Government's view. To underpin this, they have given themselves a blank cheque to spend on 'public information' to the electorate to tell them stuff like drinking and driving is bad, kiwisaver is great, domestic violence is bad, WFF is great, etc.

The intellectual justification for the EFB - well I came close to getting one today:

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=776#comment-6531
R0b:
In theory of democracy we have the concept of avoiding “the tyranny of the majority”. In other words, the rights of minorities must be protected. It’s not the case that the majority should have unlimited power.
Similarly, in the practice of democracy, we have the concept of “a level playing field”. In other words, the rights of less powerful groups must be protected. It’s not the case that the rich and powerful should have unlimited power.
Consequently, every functioning democracy has limits and restrictions on campaign spending, to try and create a level playing field. (Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? - Yeah Right.)
For these reasons, like most democracies, NZ has always had laws governing campaign spending. The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.
National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “free speech”. Well, (in the slightly mangled words of Mandy Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn’t they.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/detoc/1_ch15.htm

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html

I looked at this site also for a discussion about the 'level playing field':
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/unions-electioneering.html

Slightly Righty Wrote this One

It's late I've been drinking: The EFB is a turd. You can't polish as turd:

I give you this from kiwiblog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/electoral_finance_bill_marches.html#comment-374112

slightlyrighty Says: November 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I know that this has been linked to, but it deserves to be posted in it’s entirety here.
This is Dr Eric Crampton’s speech.
“It takes a lot to drag an academic economist out of his office to a political rally downtown. If this were simply a protest over bad legislation, I’d have stayed in Ilam: bad legislation, unfortunately, isn’t all that uncommon.
And, this is very bad legislation - so bad that, even after amendment,the New Zealand Law Society wants it scrapped. This is amazing. When law is badly drafted, it’s the lawyers that profit by the resulting court battles. Lawyers from Chapman Tripp warn that the courts may well decide the next election - they expect court action. Legislation has to be shockingly bad before we’d expect lawyers to say it should be scrapped entirely, but that’s what they’ve done. Even the Electoral Commission, who has to give advice on compliance with the legislation, is reported to have thrown up its hands: it can’t make heads or tails of the legislation either, and so can’t provide advice.
Even worse, the legislation seems pointless.
The best social science evidence shows that donations to political parties don’t buy the donor a whole lot in terms of changes in policy. And, when sitting politicians spend money on election campaigns, the spending doesn’t have a very big effect on vote share. Spending can matter a lot for challengers, who have to work very hard to get their names known. But, spending doesn’t matter much for incumbent politicians.
Further tightening up of campaign spending rules, and especially changes like the ones now proposed that allow political parties to use Parliamentary budgets for electioneering, protect sitting MPs against challenges by newcomers. It’s an incumbent protection racket plain and simple. New parties and new ideas will be frozen out, and the same old hacks are guaranteed job security.
As bad as all of that is, it’s not the main reason I’m here.
This isn’t just bad law. It’s a bad law that affects how we make laws, and threatens the legitimacy of government itself. Constitutional rules stand apart from other bits of legislation. They affect fundamental rights and freedoms, and they set out how all the other rules will be written. The Electoral Finance Bill directly affects our freedom of speech. Once it’s passed, we’ll only have freedom of speech 2 years in 3. And, it sets out the rules for how an election is conducted - how legislation for the subsequent three years will be formed. These have constitutional implications.
Constitutional rules aren’t like other rules. They really require broad agreement across society. I studied under James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in this area. He likened it to setting out the rules for a poker game: you get everybody to agree to the rules before you deal the cards. If everybody’s agreed to the rules before the cards are dealt, the outcome of the game is fair and legitimate. What Labour and its support parties here have done is dealt the cards, taken a peek at their hands, and then declared deuces wild. This violates constitutional justice and threatens the legitimacy of any government that is elected under the new rules.
Electoral rules - constitutional rules - require broad agreement if the government that’s formed under them is to have legitimacy. We’re here today to say that we don’t give that assent. If Labour rams this bill through Parliament, shuts up anyone who opposes it during the 2008 election, then squeeks through a tight coalition win after a lot of litigation, will that government have any legitimacy?
That’s why this Bill must be stopped and that’s why I’m here. The Bill violates the spirit of our constitutional foundations. It throws freedom of speech out the window. And it rigs the election to protect the politicians who pass it. Helen Clark, Annette King, throw out this Bill!”

Finally this from The Standard: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=776#comments

the sprout
Nov 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“You mean that gigantic march on Parliment”
you mean the one attended by about 100 people - which in the end is about the number of NZers the Anti-EFB Rights for the Wealthy to Manipulate Elections campaign actually serves - yeah, that one.

Key- Does He Have The Support?

I heard a brief radio report which stated that John Key says he has the promise of enough support fromother parties to form a government should he get enough votes next election.

Then silence.

I saw on the Standard that they had spotted a notice on the National Party Website indicating an announcement at 10.30 today.

Kiwiblog had nothing about it.

But with a little research here it is:

http://www.national.org.nz/ambitious.aspx

Who did it, and Why?

This from Jane Clifton (see Bryce Edwards link):

In an electorate of four million, there are very few secrets and, given our somewhat chippy national character, people who throw money around in politics are more likely to be despised than applauded. It bears repeating that the religious sect’s attempt to influence voters by anonymous leafleting was busted wide open within 48 hours, and that National did not, as a result of the campaign, get to form the government. Some analysts believe the Brethren scandal actually harmed National’s vote.



This from Wayne Hope: http://www.pjreview.info/issues/docs/13_1/PJR13_1_7_hagerpp197-204.pdf

As we now know, Brash attained nothing, and was bedevilled out of public office. His advisors scattered out of sight, with tainted reputations. According to Hager, certain National Party figures were always fearful about the Exclusive Brethren connection. This partly explains, I think, the deluge of National Party leaks. They came from experienced tacticians, concerned about the lack of acumen in Brash’s inner circle.

So, did National Party insiders sacrifice power out of a desire to maintain honesty in politics?

Has it been properly established that 'big money' wins elections?

Is the last election proof that the New Zealand electorate do not need protecting from people like the EBs, because they are sensible enough to make their own decisions?

Is the EFB based on a faulty academic basis, an ideologically unproven premise, and a partisan desire to insult the intelligence of the electorate?

Money for Nothing?

I note that kiwiblog has run an article about the possibility of a 'florida' happening in New Zealanad p\politics under the EFB: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/welcome_to_florida.html



Just to remind anyone whho might be listening in this empty football stadium:

I SAID IT FIRST!!!!!!



Check out the following quote from http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/10/political-finan.html by Bryce Edwards:



"The traditional patterns of business donations have been interrupted by the changing ideological nature of the party system, and for the last 20 years the Labour Party has received similar business funding to National. Most infamously, in 1987 the Labour Party’s election campaign cost over $3.5m, which was mostly funded by business donations. Since then, Labour has often been the most well resourced party. In the 2002 general election Labour spent $2,089,187 (including $614,722 of taxpayer television funding), which meant that it was the biggest election spender. Again in 2005, Labour was the biggest spender. According to the Electoral Commission, the party’s total advertising spend amounted to $3,894,384 (including $1,100,000 of Electoral Commission TV advertising). Furthermore, in the eleven-year period (1996-2006) during which it has been mandatory to disclose national donations over $10,000 to the Electoral Commission, the Labour Party has declared donations totalling $4,512,563. By comparison, in the same period, National has declared $4,573,190. In 6 out of those 11 years, Labour declared higher amounts than National."



he remarks on the Listener article by Jane Clifton: http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/11/jane-clifton-mo.html



He makes the point that some are guilty of the simplistic assumption that economic inequality in New Zealand translates directly to political inequality.



But hold on a minute, Bryce and Jane!



Are you suggesting that the Government's position over the EFB is based upon a 'simplistic assumption'?



When Helen Clark stated the purpose of the EFB is 'to stop people like John Key and the Exclusive Brethren rorting the election process.' was this a 'simplistic assumption'?



Let's not kid ourselves. The apologists for the EFB ( ie see Tane on kiwiblog today: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/now_even_chris_trotter_says_kill_the_bill.html#comment-372634) are not really indulging in a 'simplistic assumption, any more than Helen Clark did.



It is a sound-bite political slogan which bears littel relationship to the knowledge of those in the know::



Here is an example of the sound-bite:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/now_even_chris_trotter_says_kill_the_bill.html#comment-372665

you’re not agianst the EFB because of megaphones and TVNZ, you’re agianst it becuase it will curtail the influence of secret right wing moeny on our elections



A more 'theoretical view':



In a pure democracy, such a grossly unequal economic and social arrangement would be overthrown in an instant. It is only “on the basis of property rights”, as Mr Verhoeven reminds us, that the dominant position of the owning class is preserved.
So when these “owners” talk about the right to “free expression” what they’re really referring to is the right to restrict ready access to effective mass-communication technologies to people such as themselves.



It is strange, that when I look at the Government and see them as the 'owning class' it is probably also true that approximately of the union and public service employees might equate to approximately 20% of the population.



So when these “owners” talk about the right to “free expression” what they’re really referring to is the right to restrict ready access to effective mass-communication technologies to people such as themselves.



Doesn't this sound like a perfect description of the Labour Party and the EFB?



So my conclusion is that it is not about the money, it is about the communications industry. This is why the Herald have joined the fray. and this is why the Hearld will be made to pay for their criticisms of the government, should they be re-elected.



After the EFB press regulation must be the next evolutionary step of an increasingly paranoid and restrictive government.



it must be time to start a 'who is against the EFB?' List, it appears to grow daily.


I'm starting to get quite irate at the way the unions are run by moral high-grounders who abuse the very principles they accuse others of exploiting.

Fear of the Unknown....

I was intrigued by some of the contradictory statements that emanated from one 'Ancient Geek' on The Standard today. As is the way in politics, I feel I can 'cherry-pick' the points to support my own argument, so here goes.

On one hand it was asserted that:

"John Key and the Nats do not have that level of credibility - basically no-one really knows what they plan to do or how much they are telling the public what they want to hear."

compared to:

"The Nats will probably die in the ‘national’ campaign from disappointments about the expectations they have already induced."

Now we all do it - get carried away with a line of argument which appears clear when we typed it, but, depsite sounding logical, actually falls down under analyisis, so I hope this critique is not seens as intended nastiness. It isn't.

What it indicates is the nervousness that can be stimulated by remaining an unknown quantity.

Looking also at a post here today by inventory2:

"I honestly believe that Labour don't quite know what to make of him, and the "not knowing" would make Helen feel decidedly uncomfortable (dare I say "not in control"??!!)- so maybe JK needs to keep them guessing for a bit longer!"

This brings me to the point about Key. is he setting himself to ride into Wellington on an ass with the crowds crying 'Hosannah!'?
Or will he end up on his ass with the crowds crying 'loser!' (excuse the stretched attempt at assonance.)

So, to address specifics:

National have floated some ideas and they went down like the proverbial Zeppelin. The fact that they floated them indicates a power-struggle within National. No right thinking potential PM would go with that kind of nonsense. So Key got jacked. pure and simple.
But it stretches credulity to suggest that the Nats seriously thought the public would go for it.
If they did they are evidently in the wrong trade.

So perhaps Key said 'fine, get it out of your system.' Perhaps now, they will listen to him.

Remember English got shot down by the divisive cabals within National. Perhaps Key and English share that common knowledge - the elite will stop at nothing to 'get you'.

What you have been witnessing is a very quiet power struggle from which Key will emerge victorious. The struggle has not been between Key and English, but by Key and English - to put the 'old-guard' of National in their place.

What is emerging is a democratised impulse in the Natinal higher ranks. This democratised leadership has only been compounded by the egregious (:0) EFB. Suddenly, Labour have, in their anxiety to sabotage National's battle-plan, begun to appear like the bad guys English and Key are starting to look like giant-killers.

Despite what Labour try to make of the Key English parnership, the fact is they are both 'local boys made good'. They share a common loathing of 'privilege' and both have historical rationales for why they should want to destroy priviledge and its trappings.

But above all, Key is keeping his hand well hidden. The Labour Party in government are trepidatious about launching policy too soon - it might be bettered by National. National feel they have no need to outline policy now, otherwise they would have done so.

Key is playing a very clever and confident game, by remaining silent.

Perhaos there is an attack strategy from Natiional waiting in the wings.

But Labour, until it knows what it is attacking, is on the back-foot.

However the waiting game will only work for so long. If the mind-games are to reap long-term benefits for National, National, and Key in particular, need to come out on the attack soon.

Before Christmas.

Is John the Key?

So the million dollar question has to be "Is John Key the next Prime Minister of New Zealand?"

And the million dollar answer is 'If enough people want it."

Then that begs the question 'Why would they want it?"

Looking at the situation as it stands, it is possible that Labour have become out of touch. However it does not follow that John Key is the only alternative to Helen Clark.
because there is nothing evidentially to suggest that National are any less out of touch than Labour are.

For example the idea of limited sales of SOEs - technically a viable concept, but evidently frightening to the voter who is scarred by memories of losing 'the family Silver' under Muldoon. (to quote my old man).

Kiwisaver, on the other hand was a positive and widely welcomed initiative.
Even when Labour introduced the EFB - a complete shambles of a Bill - the opposition failed to capitalise on it,

So it is evident that National are on the back foot. Not only because they have a paucity of modern, forward-thinking policies, but also because the electorate is still psychologically averse to National as the Labour alternative.

Then there is the albatross around National's neck - the 'Hollow Men' accusation.

The most sympathetic interpretation of the EB fiasco is that it was a strategic miscalculation. The least sympathetic is that it was an attmept to 'rort' the election.

Even though Labour have their own albatross - the Pledge Card fiasco - they appear hell-bent on pretending it was perfectly alright, and that the changes to the law under the EFB represents the lesser of the evils - ie it will stamp out National's 'rorting'.

Then there is the issue of leadership. Helen Clark is a leader as we all understand the term. This is the strongest suit that Labour has. The fact that she will not be around much longer (IMO) is frankly so frighteneing to the Labour Party and to New Zealanders that they have refused to countenance it. So the election will be fought on the polite fiction that Helen is here to stay.

In contrast, Key is yet to prove his leadership credentials. Sure he seems like a nice enough chap. But his credibility as a potential prime Minister is severely hampered by this 'nice' image.
coupled by a dearth of imaginative policies that can capture the imagination of the voter.

So as far as the voter is concerned, all is ok. Helen Clark is a safe pair of hands, and Key is a nice enough chap, but - well - not to be trusted.

As it stands, this perception is all John Key's fault. The job of the opposition is 'to oppose'. John Key has failed to do so with any traction. Helen Clark, on the other hand has merely to continue 'business as usual' to ensure her own survival. Agian this perception goes to the heart of what constitutes effective leasership.

Yje electorate is not stupid. It knows Hemen Clark has her faults. But it is waiting for a leafer with the balls to face her. Anything less is basically pointless. Nice guys really do come last.

I think at the moment the playing field is pretty level.

If I were to use a domestic analogy, Labour is the love-rat husband who the spouse with low-esteem will cling to for the sake of the kids. Key is the new guy on the block - the promise of a new beginning, but carries the doubt that he has the 'x-factor' to convince the wife to risk it all and leave.

Labour may rely on the 'It's better the devil you know' argument, National may suggest 'You can do better.'

Simpy, it is all about whether the kiwi electorate has the requisite courage and high enough self-esteem to trust its future to an unknown quantity.

Gunpowder Plot or Damp Squib?

On behalf of the organisers:
DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT
Protest March Victoria Square to Cathedral Square
Wednesday 28 November 12.30. March starts 1.00pm.
Organiser of the Auckland and Wellington marches
John Boscawen will speak.

Thus came the clarion call for more dissent of a polite kind from kiwiblog http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/ on behalf of one John Boscowan ( I might have known where there was a march to be organised, a Cornishman would be in there somewhere).

Meanwhile no one is taking my paranoia that the EFB could be used to pervert election results, so I'll just have to wear the pointy hat.

I opined (there's that word again) that the marches need to get more 'media-savvy' and start to burn effigies of Helen and (now I add, with a rum and Sprite inside me) the odd flag.

Point is the left could give lessons on this kind of thing and the polite display of faint approbrium at the EFB so far exhibited, isn't going to make any headlines.

My quote of the day comes from another kiwiblog poster (gd) who said:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/the_law_of_common_sense.html#comment-371517

"IV2 Lee C Pascal I have been posting here an elsewhere for some time now that the concepts of Left and Right are old outdated 20th century ideas.
the 21st century is now about freedom v control.

I call it the Max/ Min concept"

Back to me: But I think there is a crisis in the 'left':

I think that the crisis is a result of the adherence to the 'Third Way' philosophies of Giddens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens

In particular the recent lack of consultation and open democracy prior to the formulation of the EFB suggests that:

In the age of late and reflexive modernity and post scarcity economy the political science is being transformed. Giddens notes that there is a possibility that "life politics" (the politics of self-actualisation) may become more visible than "emancipatory politics" (the politics of inequality); that new social movements may lead to more social change than political parties; and that the reflexive project of the self and changes in gender and sexual relations may lead the way, via the "democratisation of democracy", to a new era of Habermasian "dialogic democracy" in which differences are settled, and practices ordered, through discourse rather than violence or the commands of authority.[1]

The 'crisis' is that the left started out to go 'centrist' and allow market forces and social change to be administrated side by side, but, the magnetic attraction of capitalism, meant that the social agenda would always be compromised. The result - increasingly doctrinaire and authoritarian laws, to try and rectify the impulses of capitalism.

Back to square one.


Lee C Says: November 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Frank. spoken well. A Royal Commission of Enquiry should have been the first step, then public consultation then consultation with interested parties (Law Society) HRC and others, then a White Paper then a Draft Bill then a vote, then Select COomittee, then a vote.
I mean it isn’t rocket science, is it?
The fact that Labour have done it [the EFB] the way they have indicates an arrogance of breath-taking proprtions. But, as importantly indicates a strategic ‘void’ in their thinking, where they could have created a situation which would have enshrined them in the history books, and have in fact probably written their own epitaph.

I like to quote myself - it adds polish to my conversation. (Andy Capp said it first)

Finally on the Standard this superb article review was provided by:

"the sprout
Nov 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
as long as National re-employ the Liberals’ strategists Crosby Textor, it’ll be race for sure.
http://www.pjreview.info/issues/docs/13_1/PJR13_1_7_hagerpp197-204.pdf"

This is an engaging account of the power struggle within National and how Brash became the 'nearly' man. It also refers to the powerful message of National Strategy prior to the last election. However it explains how Labour could have developed a strategy to marginalise and destroy the National Party's ability to fight an election. The most interesting thing I thought was that Brash was deposed from the inside of National because insider feared the direction that Brash was taking the party in the light of the EB involvement with the pamphlets.

Does this mean that National insiders sacrificed government for the sake of transparency?
Does it compound the loss that public knowledge of the EFB and Brash's deception probably lost them that valuable seat in Parliament?

If so the EFB must sound cruelly ironic.

I would love to see a similar breakdown of Labour's strategy at the same time.

Shooting from the hip I would suggest it is based around one central message. You can trust Labour to protect you from National.'

I can't wait to see what National's next strategy will be....

It's All So Confusing

Thanks to those who have hailed me today across the blogosphere. When I learn how to list others I will start to collate a lkist of worthies. Inventory - thanks for the link.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/

I started out yesterday looking at the discussion on kiwiblog about the EFB (I am not sure it it qualifies as an 'obsession' but heck, it sure is compelling stuff. No Right Turn has come out in support of David Farrer (relax, it isn't what you think):

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/11/access-to-parliament.html

Within the debate I asked if the EFB is in danger of causing some kind of democratic meltdown should an incumbent Government challenge the legality of a contested seat.

No one answered. Because I ask stupid quesions? I don't expect to be understood in my own lifetime.... it is one prediction that becomes increasingly provable as I age, but still.

I asked because New Zealand has a real 'it sould never happen here' attitude, but I am sure the Americans had the same attitude right up until George Dubya Bush had Florida and the Presidency of the United States called in his favour by the Supreme Court. - see opening chapter of 'Dude, Where's My Country?' Where indeed?

The point being that confusion about the law is a bad thing. It encourages certain behaviours, when the object of the Law should be to protect us from certain behaviours.

John Marshall QC of the Law Society is requesting that the amended version go back to Select Committee. We all know that won;t happen. It is vital for some, that the Law is passed preferably before the New Year. 'Ooh! Just what I always wanted!'

The Herald is continuing its critique of the EFB and quotes Dr. Helena Catt of the Electoral Commission:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10477647

Also on Nine to Noon:
that’s our fear, that everywhere where we’ve got areas where interpretation isn’t clear that the parties will start using that as part of their attack on each other and that’s not going to do anything to encourage public interest in politics, trust in the election campaign.

I am interested in the complete acquiescence of the 'left' over the whole EFB issue. They appear hell-bent on defending this as some kind of evangelical angel of vengeance against the evils of 'big business' buying elections.

But I noted that even on Radio live 'The New voice of Talk Radio' Willy Jackson and John Tamihere are starting to talk about the EFB. and Willy suggested that the Unions had been curiously silent about the law.

In my view, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is highly probable that it is a duck. So when you have a large organisation in charge of millions of dollars and in collusion with our political masters, that is a blueprint for corruption. So what is the EPMU for example?

Don't get me wrong, I have a Union background and am sympathetic to Unions. But I have to query what is the diffrence between unions and big business when it comes to the seductive effect that wads of cash have on governments?

To my mind it is a sad reflection on the ideals of the left, that the EFB is illustrating that it is just like the right, only better-branded.

Speaking of the crisis of the left (well it's in the back of my mind)

Farrer did post this:

All Labour had to do was convene multi-party talks in late 2006 or early 2007 and seek agreement on some key issues. They would have been able to get them. They didn’t even try. Then they should have produced a Bill which just added on a few clauses to the Electoral Act, and it would have sailed through.

This does tie in with my growing sense that the - far from vindicating the charge that National is corrupt - rather indicates that this EFB thing is a mess of Labour's own making.

Is it the beginning of the end of 'The Third way'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)

Will Annette King come out fighting tomorrow? http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Biography.aspx?MinisterID=5

Was John Key really under one of those masks at the demonstration yesterday? http://www.thestandard.org.nz/

All this an more in our next thrillling instalment.

(Common) Sense and Sensibility

This day's post has just about written itself. There was a protest in Wellington against the EFB, much to the derision of the 'left' and some young people attempted to disrupt it by attending wearing John Key masks. ( I want one).

The Standard were rather cutting about it. http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=748#comments

Bevan Says: November 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Isnt it ironic that the group campaigning to remove the anonymity from potitical donations, turns up to a counter protest march with their faces covered by masks?

In the meantime http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4247/ a new poll puts national 14 points ahead of Labour.

On The Standard:
insider

Nov 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am
Roy Morgan seems to have missed the debates on tax and the EFB for some issue that most would have supported the govt on

appears to be saying that the public will swing back to Labour - I think he is overly optimisitic. Then again, I am no psychic, and perhaps 'insider' is.

Most of the day was wrapped up in confusion (and that was just me) as people debated what would or would not be allowed under the new version of the EFB. I posted an opinion that the Labour Party and its supporter Parties have 'driven' people towards the National party so they have only themselves to blame.

As I posted this on 'The Standard' I shall go back and probably find my charred corpse still smoking, but wet from urine, dumped in a skip. They really are that violent on the left. (went back and found to my dismay that my opinions had been ignored.) So replace 'violent' with 'insensitive'.

Annette Kings plea for 'common sense' to interpret the EFB has been met with some derision. Even the hard out lefties have chosen to leave that one at the door, when they came in to debate today.

It will be interesting to see Annette King's progress after this. I sense it will be like watching a stricken B-52 fall out the sky, while we vainly watch for signs of a parachute.

virtualmark Says: November 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Kimble, this is one of those areas where I’m a lot more sanguine about this bill than some. Personally I think:
* the Bill is poorly drafted and will not actually prove able to stop the behaviours it’s meant to stop* any attempt by Labour to see the Bill enforced will prove to be a PR disaster for them* the swing voters who’ll decide the next election are not Labour-acolytes and will be turned off by the attitudes this Bill encapsulates* the media attention on this Bill will tend to reinforce people’s general perception that Helen Clark is a cynical, mean-spirited, untrustworthy, died-in-the-wool politician who is only capable of self-interest* Labour will spend the entire electoral campaign defending themselves against this bill, making it all but impossible for them to get positive stories out into the media
I could go on, there’s other aspects of it that I think will backfire on Labour.
Overall it’s a sloppy piece of mis-guided & evil legislation that attacks our individual freedoms. But I think it’ll hurt Labour not help them, so for that reason I can’t get as wound up about it as some others.

In the meantime, the Greens are starting an offensive against Nationals' involvement with the Exclusive Brethren prior to the last election: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00404.htm

This Time it's Personal

The recent emergence of The Standard has created a belated storm in a teacup for one Mr. David Farrar (aka DPF).

Of late, he has appeared to devote much energy to addressing issues raised by the Standard, when he posts on his own kiwiblog.

A proper little ding-dong of he-said/she-said has resulted.

Further to that, he has detected at least one 'Robert Owen' posting after his banning from kiwiblog back on kiwiblog as 'Santa Claws'. The ruse was (zzzz) ingeniously constructed so that 'Santa Claws' was 'outed on the Standard as DPF, but then denied it. Then he emerged on kiwiblog as a 'concerned right-winger', who posted his worries about the National Party, and John Key, in particular under the aegis of 'we will never win the election until we first clean up our act.'

I spotted him first. I called him as a 'sock-puppet', http://loupdargentonline.blogspot.com/2006/03/fwd-how-to-create-online-sock-puppet_23.html

DPF found him out today through checks on his URL. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/hilarious_hypocrisy-2.html#comment-369968

In the meantime, the debate about the EFB rages on, and a second demonstration is planned for tomorrow in Wellington.

My prediction is that the EFB is going to leave a traile of Labour party politician's corpse in its wake. First Burton, next will be Annette King, will the third be Helen Clark? Time will tell.

Re the debate in Parliament, I leave you with dave from kiwiblog.

dave Says: November 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
And if you want to read what Annette King said in Parlament is herehttp://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QOA/e/a/f/48HansQ_20071120_00000079-2-Electoral-Finance-Bill-Freedom-of-Expression.htm
A commentary is herehttp://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/11/lobby-groups-will-struggle-to-keep.html

What they've been saying about the EFB

The Electoral Finance Bill (EFB) http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?m=20071119 has been probably the most controversial piece of legislation to be placed before the New Zealand Parliament since the government used 'Retrospective/Validating Legislation' to approve a deliberate overspend by the Labour Party in the 2005 election. This resulted in the Darnton v Clark lawsuit. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10395879

Is the EFB is a pivotal moment in New Zealand's constitutional history?, and what have the other blogs, and other bloggers have been saying about it?

'Monkeys with Typewriters' was born as a result of an online ding-dong I was having with a poster called 'sonic' one day, in kiwiblog http://kiwiblog.co.nz/. it was about nothing in particular, but he remarked something along the lines of 'you can give a thousand monkeys typewriters and they will eventually produce Shakespeare, but that is more likely than me ever saying anything clever on a blog.'


This use of the monkey with typewriter imagery tickled me hugely. So here it is.


Needless to say, along with the knowledgeable and astute bloggers out there, it is the other 'monkeys with typewriters' on the other blogs that are the stars of this blog.


After the euphoria of debate around the Bill, in which the right accused the left of eroding democracy, the left retaliated by accusing the right of cow-towing to big business.

But also there is a worry about who will speak for the average kiwi? The National Party have shown such ineptitude over their handling of the oppositon to this Bill, and the Labour Party has gone to such extremes to maintain it as a 'beltway issue', that I feel that New Zealanders have been left out of the debate completely.

Apart from when the new Zealand Herald stepped in to slam the Bill. I wonder if they too will require some lind of regulation after this?

The consensus, perhaps may decide that 'democracy' is the main victim of the EFB, and not for the obvious reasons of its appalling drafting, either.

I'll be back later with some reports.