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.