The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

Oh that's OK then, 100,00 of thousands demanding preferential treatment via their very own party is MUCH better than two.

Here's an idea, how about we arsehole the lot, nobody gets to own or buy politicians?

Whose of those 100,000 of people demanding preferential treatments?
You are confusing the unions with those giving National huge individual donations that National gets split up so don't have to declare them.

I think the amount of political money needs to be capped along with the spending, With lengthy Jail time for those caught cheating.
So whats your thoughts on How long Simon will last?

[Ocean1]

Whose of those 100,000 of people demanding preferential treatments?
You are confusing the unions with those giving National huge individual donations that National gets split up so don't have to declare them.

I think the amount of political money needs to be capped along with the spending, With lengthy Jail time for those caught cheating.
So whats your thoughts on How long Simon will last?

Why would they need their own party if they had no wish to influence policy in their favour beyond what ordinary voters can?

There's been graft as long as there's been politicians. Longer. And if you think that's more prevalent at the other end of the political spectrum from the one you live in then you're fucked in the head. That's not the problem in a modern democracy, the problem is institutional graft, where political influence beyond the usual democratic process is allowed.

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

Don't care, in spite of your assertions this latest drama isn't the end of the world. I don't like him, personally, and though that's not necessarily any reason to want him gone I'd be happy to see someone with less socially conservative ideals instead.

[Katman]

.....then you're fucked in the head.

Well durrr.

[husaberg]

Why would they need their own party if they had no wish to influence policy in their favour beyond what ordinary voters can?

There's been graft as long as there's been politicians. Longer. And if you think that's more prevalent at the other end of the political spectrum from the one you live in then you're fucked in the head. That's not the problem in a modern democracy, the problem is institutional graft, where political influence beyond the usual democratic institution is allowed.

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

Don't care, in spite of your assertions this latest drama isn't the end of the world. I don't like him, personally, and though that's not necessarily any reason to want him gone I'd be happy to see someone with less socially conservative ideals instead.

What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

[pritch]

And as I said, arsehole all contributions, saves all the angst about what they're used for and who's buying what.

This has been suggested before but previously it seemed over the top. We don't want what the Yanks have now though, where some politicians won't even speak to anybody who hasn't donated to them, and most of them are working for the various lobbyists rather than the people who elected them.

It would seem that we already have people buying influence so perhaps it's time to consider that each party should receive election funds from the government purse. No other funding permitted. Of course working out the formula as to who gets what would likely be a rare shit fight.

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

[Katman]

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

More than this?

[Swoop]

The biggest concern is the chinese bribing their way into parliament.

Much the same way they operate in other countries, attempting to sway favour with bribes, then really go in for the full penetration arse fucking of the entire country.

[Katman]

Much the same way they operate in other countries, attempting to sway favour with bribes, then really go in for the full penetration arse fucking of the entire country.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

[mada]

The biggest concern is the chinese bribing their way into parliament.

Much the same way they operate in other countries, attempting to sway favour with bribes, then really go in for the full penetration arse fucking of the entire country.

Yep same here. Been rattling on about this for the past 10 years... cbf any more though. I especially find it ironic when blue men go on about "socialists" going to ruin the country but are all good with taking cash and backhanders from true totalitarian commie pricks. You then see them at ANZAC day parades espousing vitriol about fighting for democracy against evil.... if it was the 1930s, most of our current pollies would be sucking up to the Nazis and their stolen gold just as much in the name of "trade".

Left and right balls deep in it.

[jasonu]

The biggest concern is the chinese bribing their way into parliament.
.

They are like cockroaches. NZ should have been way more hardline (like the Aussies) iimmigration wise in the mid to late 1990"s.

[Ocean1]

What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

The labour party. Is owned. By the unions. They built it, directed it's internal structure and continue to hold voting rights over caucus appointments.

Which is why they're always so cohesive, with never a cross word or disagreement....

I'm open to suggestions. But, I'll point out that you get to have political parties who represent whoever pays them the most, or ones that represent their constituents. You get to choose, but you can't have it both ways.

[Ocean1]

This has been suggested before but previously it seemed over the top. We don't want what the Yanks have now though, where some politicians won't even speak to anybody who hasn't donated to them, and most of them are working for the various lobbyists rather than the people who elected them.

It would seem that we already have people buying influence so perhaps it's time to consider that each party should receive election funds from the government purse. No other funding permitted. Of course working out the formula as to who gets what would likely be a rare shit fight.

There might be considerable potential for entertainment?

America was a sort of prototype democracy, don't underestimate what they did, there, for the individual it represented a huge improvement over governments their parents had in the old country, but it's nothing like ours. Ours is a later version, although mostly
copied from the British, without the two houses. That was shaped by several hundred years of internal bickering between the crown and the minor houses, mostly about limiting the crowns power to tax the landed gentry. The shape of both is affected by it's roots, some bits no longer fulfill their original purpose but affect areas they weren't designed to.

The thing I dislike about both is the lack of integrity in straight up mechanical policy design. Who the fuck thought that funding state police directly from the profits of crime was a good idea? Makes for great public buy-in, but it results in cops finding crime in the most profitable activities, confiscating cars, boats, pretty much anything they say was involved in a crime, and keeping the loot.

And if that sounds counterproductive then we're generally too far the other way, penalising the most productive and rewarding the least productive is absolutely guaranteed to damage productivity across the board.

[husaberg]

The labour party. Is owned. By the unions. They built it, directed it's internal structure and continue to hold voting rights over caucus appointments.

Which is why they're always so cohesive, with never a cross word or disagreement....

I'm open to suggestions. But, I'll point out that you get to have political parties who represent whoever pays them the most, or ones that represent their constituents. You get to choose, but you can't have it both ways.

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.

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

[Banditbandit]

What own party are you referring to?
All parties are a collection of individuals with similar common goals or ideals
If you areshole all contributions how do you expect to have any political party?

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.

[sidecar bob]

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.