I'm not posting on this page any more. I got arsey and decided to do a newer version it's called
Monkeys with Typewriters
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/
visit me there if you please.............
Friday, January 4, 2008
Friday, November 30, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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
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
Monday, November 26, 2007
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
