The 2017 Election Thread

[Ocean1]

1 the labour party is owned by its member whether they be in a union or not most members are not in a union.
2 The Labour party voting rights is based on a majority vote of its members/Afiliiates.

It's owned by those who get a vote as to party construction and personnel, and that's split between party members, (union members or otherwise) AND union AND affiliated votes. Some of the individuals involved can be voting several times, with different hats on, and then AGAIN in accepting/rejecting senior party personnel appointments.

Spin it however you like; labour IS the unions.

I could just as easily say the National party is now partially owned by its Chinese donors. 50K per party vote list MP seat it seems is their going rate.

You could say that. But not with the same certainty that you can demonstrate that labour is owned by the unions, to anywhere near the same extent, or with anything like the same absolute control over policy.

You made the suggestion to get rid of party donors its up to you to decide how they will be funded.

No it's not, you're the one claiming your party is all above board with how they spend donations, but the other lot isn't.

I'm simply pointing out that the only way anyone can be sure donations aren't influencing policy is to ban 'em. Again, take your pick, you can't logically have both.

National recieve 3-4 times the money yet still are not in government so it seems the level of funding labour has should be the bench mark.

Apart from the complete lack of logic and obvious jealousy involved with that statement, doesn't the disparity of funding simply confirm the poll data that more people support national policies than do labour?

[Ocean1]

Hear Hear! No new taxes if you vote for the silly hat party!
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19147...ld-labour.html
Just bigger existing ones & new & interesting ways of collecting others.

Is that going as well in Aus as it started out?

Or have the bulk of international suppliers still simply closed the door on their Aus customers?

[husaberg]

It's owned by those who get a vote as to party construction and personnel, and that's split between party members, (union members or otherwise) AND union AND affiliated votes. Some of the individuals involved can be voting several times, with different hats on, and then AGAIN in accepting/rejecting senior party personnel appointments.

NO its not, Affiliate members only have the same voting rights one vote for each member. the few unions affiliated with Labour vote on an individual basis to be part of a Union affiliated with Labour or not.

Spin it however you like; labour IS the unions.

If that statement was remotely true then all unions would be part of labour
I could just as easily same freemasons own the national party or the BRT own National or Chinese own NATIONAL.

You could say that. But not with the same certainty that you can demonstrate that labour is owned by the unions, to anywhere near the same extent, or with anything like the same absolute control over policy.

as ABOVE

No it's not, you're the one claiming your party is all above board with how they spend donations, but the other lot isn't.
Only i never made that claim, nor do i have a party.
I'm simply pointing out that the only way anyone can be sure donations aren't influencing policy is to ban 'em. Again, take your pick, you can't logically have both.

Apart from the complete lack of logic and obvious jealousy involved with that statement, doesn't the disparity of funding simply confirm the poll data that more people support national policies than do labour?

What jealousy? its facts National raised many more times the money than they could spend in the election money that they are now spending on smear campaigns to discredit the current government and still don't end up in power, Did you miss its MMP.
National actually raised far more money than they were legally allowed to spend in an election. Thats without the current round of being caught out manipulating the amounts to keep the donors from being under official legal scrutiny
The disparity in funding raised suggests the complete opposite of what you claim as it came for individual donors of a mere few percent of the population.
Using your logic makes Gareth Morgans party huge player in NZ politics based on the money he threw at it.
It seems you want National to have a greater level of funding than any other party based on one result. Where they spent more money. Yeah thats logical.

As for you continued assertion Labour is somehow my party.
I dont belong to a union or the labour party nor have i ever. belonged to either, Nor do i always vote for them. Can you say the same about you and National.
I voted based on policies and based on my views of the person standing.

[pritch]

Sounds like a conspiracy.

To some people everything sounds like a conspiracy.

Large parts of the world run on corruption, people buy jobs for what they can make "on the side". It used to be like that in Britain until they decided that civil servants should be paid enough so that they didn't need to take bribes. If there is significant immigration from those parts of the world where corruption is still the norm, the immigrants will bring their customs with them. Since they are likely to be waving large sums of money there will be temptation for people here to play along.

New Zealand is rated, possibly optimistically, as one of the least corrupt countries. Care need to be taken or we could lose that reputation.

[husaberg]

No - I'm sorry - the Labour Party was originally set up by what became the federation of Labour - it was a union-established party.

National was created by combining the Reform Party (conservative) and the United Party (Liberal). Before Labour these two parties were opponents .. Both United and reform had strong links to the farmers organisations - such as the contemporary Federated Farmers .. even though they do not have the formal links like Labour-Unions.

Thats history not a refection of how it is now which was the point Ocean was attemting to make.
Both National and Labour occupy similar parts of the majority voting base now, one is slightly left of center one slightly right of center.
Well i m sure Ocean likes to live in the past i prefer current day the future.

To some people everything sounds like a conspiracy.

Large parts of the world run on corruption, people buy jobs for what they can make "on the side". It used to be like that in Britain until they decided that civil servants should be paid enough so that they didn't need to take bribes. If there is significant immigration from those parts of the world where corruption is still the norm, the immigrants will bring their customs with them. Since they are likely to be waving large sums of money there will be temptation for people here to play along.

New Zealand is rated, possibly optimistically, as one of the least corrupt countries. Care need to be taken or we could lose that reputation.

I think you will find Katman tends to confuse Conspiracy with "conspiracy theory" he it appears cant tell the difference

[Ocean1]

NO its not, Affiliate members only have the same voting rights one vote for each member. the few unions affiliated with Labour vote on an individual basis to be part of a Union affiliated with Labour or not.

If that statement was remotely true then all unions would be part of labour
I could just as easily same freemasons own the national party or the BRT own National or Chinese own NATIONAL.

as ABOVE


What jealousy? its facts National raised many more times the money than they could spend in the election money that they are now spending on smear campaigns to discredit the current government and still don't end up in power, Did you miss its MMP.
National actually raised far more money than they were legally allowed to spend in an election. Thats without the current round of being caught out manipulating the amounts to keep the donors from being under official legal scrutiny
The disparity in funding raised suggests the complete opposite of what you claim as it came for individual donors of a mere few percent of the population.
Using your logic makes Gareth Morgans party huge player in NZ politics based on the money he threw at it.
It seems you want National to have a greater level of funding than any other party based on one result. Where they spent more money. Yeah thats logical.

As for you continued assertion Labour is somehow my party.
I dont belong to a union or the labour party nor have i ever. belonged to either, Nor do i always vote for them. Can you say the same about you and National.
I voted based on policies and based on my views of the person standing.

Right, so without the list of names for each of those categories of vote to establish that eligibility for one removes eligability from the others, and basing union influence solely on the 20% votes specifically allocated to actual unions, and ignoring the fact that the labour party's constitution was written by the unions: that somehow compares favorably with guaranteed influence over policy for specific groups within every other party exactly how?

OK, labour is owned by fewer unions than originally invented it. Better?
And you go right ahead, show me where freemasons et al actually designed national policy and are guaranteed exclusive voting rights at caucus. 'Caus I think you're full of shit.

More spin and straw.

Yes. But I base my vote on party policy, the person standing for my electorate has a far smaller impact on outcomes.

Specifically, I vote for parties are cognizant of the fact that the owner of the benefits of an individual's labour belong to the person that created them. As a close second I vote against parties that represent socialist ideologies, in spite of the 100% failure of anything closely resembling socialism since it's inception.

And no, that hasn't always been national.

[jasonu]

National recieve 3-4 times the money yet still are not in government so it seems the level of funding labour has should be the bench mark.

They also received more votes than Labour...

[jasonu]

Hear Hear! No new taxes if you vote for the silly hat party!
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19147...ld-labour.html
Just bigger existing ones & new & interesting ways of collecting others.

If it gets too difficult or annoying overseas retailers might just stop selling to NZ.

[husaberg]

They also received more votes than Labour...

So are you sugesting that because one election result should decide the level of funding a party recieves for all further elections in perpetuity in order to make elections fair is reasonable

[husaberg]

Right, so without the list of names for each of those categories of vote to establish that eligibility for one removes eligability from the others, and basing union influence solely on the 20% votes specifically allocated to actual unions, and ignoring the fact that the labour party's constitution was written by the unions: that somehow compares favorably with guaranteed influence over policy for specific groups within every other party exactly how?

OK, labour is owned by fewer unions than originally invented it. Better?
And you go right ahead, show me where freemasons et al actually designed national policy and are guaranteed exclusive voting rights at caucus. 'Caus I think you're full of shit.

More spin and straw.

Yes. But I base my vote on party policy, the person standing for my electorate has a far smaller impact on outcomes.

Specifically, I vote for parties are cognizant of the fact that the owner of the benefits of an individual's labour belong to the person that created them. As a close second I vote against parties that represent socialist ideologies, in spite of the 100% failure of anything closely resembling socialism since it's inception.

And no, that hasn't always been national.

You might want to read the parties constitution before spouting a heap of twaddle.
Labour is not owned by any union any more than the free masons own National or the Chinese own National or the Business round Table own National.
I have explained how the affiliates votes work you chose to not listen.
You do realise you have two votes rather than one one is for a party the other is for a candidate. It seems you will vote the party line no mater who the candidate is which is great for those that buy and sell MP'S positions.
Like National were.

[Grumph]

They also received more votes than Labour...

And I repeat - Then couldn't find a friend to get them into power. Why do you think that happened, Jason ?

[jasonu]

And I repeat - Then couldn't find a friend to get them into power. Why do you think that happened, Jason ?

Simple. They fucked Winston up the bum and he got a bit of utu on them.

[jasonu]

So are you sugesting that because one election result should decide the level of funding a party recieves for all further elections in perpetuity in order to make elections fair is reasonable

It was an observation with no hidden suggestions.

[pritch]

They also received more votes than Labour...

That doesn't always mean as much as it might. Hillary got more votes than Trump. Al Gore got more than Dubbya. National got more than Labour.

It used to be back when we had FPP that Labour almost always got more votes than National, but farm votes being bigger than town votes we usually had a National government.

These anomalies generally don't stop politicians talking "mandate" though. If Gill Scott Heron was still around he'd likely say,
"Mandate my ass".

[mada]

They also received more votes than Labour...

They certainly received a lot more Chinese votes than Labour.