Post by -Newsman-Post by Sue BilsteinPost by -Newsman-Ah, thanks.
Mmmm...interesting.
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we knew
that already.
And National's hands are squeaky clean? Of *course* they are Sue!
Well, their hands are clean of shrieking hypocrisy about anonymous
donations. And of spending $450K of taxpayers money on
electioneering, acknowledging that this should be funded by the party,
promising to pay it back after the election, and then welshing on the
pledge. And of 150km/h motorcades through Canterbury suburbs to get
la Presidenta to the rugby. And of exploiting constituents for cheap
and free labour in return for immigration services. And of sharp
practice leading to the bankruptcy of business partners.
Did you have some other kind of dirtiness in mind? Do be specific.
Post by -Newsman-Post by Sue BilsteinPost by -Newsman-Someone out there surpise me and individually name each person behind
The Waitamata Trust.
Especially as it seems those behind the Trust may have contributed up
to as much as two-thirds of the total donations to the National Party
in 2005, which single contribution is, in turn, about 35% more than
the total published funding of the Labout Party in that same year.
Again, The Waitamata Trust alone contributed approximately $1.25
million to the National Party, more than 4 times the total sum given
to labour by seven anonymous donors.
Compared to those anonymous Labour tiddlers, that Waitamata lot really
meant business, didn't they?
What a surprise. The party that is attacking free enterprise gets
fewer donations from business than the party which promotes it.
Thats' a hoot!
The party that so critically depends on a secret Trust and a wealthy
secret society (Exclusive Bretheren - and Brash patently lied about
their involvement, too) for the support of its election funding has
only desperaton for an ally. And, for all of that million-plus
dollars, the irony it still came to nought anyway!
You lot do bang on about the Brethren. Why don't you throw a fit
about the Sensible Sentencing Trust? They did exactly the same kind
of election ads. "Vote for the party that will prevent violent
offenders from getting parole", IIRC. That meant National.
Why don't you object to the unions who publish a heap of pro-Labour
campaign material? Some of them actually said "Vote Labour", which
means they should have been included in Labour's campaign budget, but
I don't believe they were.
But there's no hope of honesty or consistency from you and your like
non-minds.
Post by -Newsman-Post by Sue BilsteinPost by -Newsman-But is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
If Helen can pass legislation banning anonymous donations, all parties
will get less money, as those who want to be anonymous will refuse to
donate.
Which is just fine. The less spent on political donations, the more
"honest" the electoral system might become.
I agree, that would not be a problem.
However, Helen also proposes to slap the political parties on the
public tit. I assume you don't like the idea of your taxes going to
fund National's campaign. But quite possible to succeed in
Parliament, as all MPs will have a motive to sink their snouts deeper
in the trough. The only party that may oppose it is National, which
has supporters who are willing to fund it.
Post by -Newsman-Post by Sue BilsteinIt still won't fix her party's anti-enterprise image.
A distraction. I'm addressing the matter of the probity of party
funding methods, not the image of Labour as perceived by third
Is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
What say you?
I have no objection to anonymous donations - to political parties,
charities or anything else.
If you're moaning about Labour's low level of funding, consider that
they should try to increase their enrolled membership and make their
policies more compelling to donors. There's a financial downside to
being the party of the social workers, school teachers and university
lecturers, as well as the disadvantage that they think up such
appalling policies.
Given the spending limits on election campaigns, even a poor party
like Labour can compete with a well-funded party like National. If
they steal hundreds of thousand of our money for their campaign, they
can even get the winning advantage.