ABSOLUTE POWER - The Helen Clark Years.

[rainman]

Oh, and the limiting anonymous donations clause; some people claim that having to declare donations makes the system transparent. Well, yes to some extent, but in which case why do we have anonymous ballots? If it's transparency everyone wants, why aren't the parties and candidates each person voted for a matter of public record?

The two are quite different. Although I don't mind people knowing who I vote for, in the general case it's a bad idea - for example some groups may be inclined to visit reprisals on those around them that voted differently to how they wanted them to. And everyone's vote is equal (not true of the impact of big money), so there's no reason to disclose. In many other cases though (eg. committee voting) "all-in-favour-say-aye" style voting is quite effective and accountable, so secret ballot is clearly not the only way to vote on issues.

Accountability is the fundamental point of disclosing financial donations - it's more about who has received what, rather than who has given, but the two are of necessity inseparable. If a party gets a large donation and subsequently bestows a large boon on the donor, there should be outrage, and if necessary legal recourse. Consider the Owen Glenn fiasco - because we all know he gave Labour a big chunk of money, the Monaco diplomatic post discussion was treated with the derision it deserves. Because we know that Labour gets money from unions, we can predict the impact on their policies and vote accordingly (although the name of the party is sometimes a bit of a clue). But we don't know the nature of the deal (if any) between National and the EB, or the insurance industry - so can't make a fully informed choice at election time... or nail the bastards to the wall if they do grant a boon to their anonymous trust donors, because we don't know who they are. This is sometimes reflected in the common perception (eg. "slippery John") that National are untrustworthy and likely to change their stated policies after election.

Why did the 'transparency' provisions of the EFA only affect those aspects of political operation that Labour didn't like? Why wasn't the link between the Unions and Labour targetted, for instance? The 'transparency' argument is simply spin designed to give somewhat legitimise to Labour's barely-disguised attempt at perpetuating their grasp on power.

Doh! 'Cos they're politicians. Are you naively suggesting that National will also not do what it takes to get and keep the treasury benches? That "your team" is the team of principle?

[Skyryder]

Wikipedia says differently. Although approved by the Senate and Congress, the proposed amendment was not ratified by enough states and so never got accepted as an amendment to the constitution. The Thirteenth amendment is the one banning slavery (which as an interesting aside, was only ratified by Kentucky in 1976).

Secondly, the not-quite-an-amendment bears absolutely no relation to the EFA, unless you want to go down the well-trodden (and completely unsubstantiated) path by saying that Don Brash was simply doing the bidding of some shadowy American overlords. The not-quite-an-amendment was designed to stop american citizens being given or holding titles in foreign countries, thus splitting such citizen's loyalty. Although the US has never banned its citizens from holding multiple citizenships (I thought it had, but was wrong) the Oath of Allegiance says contains something rather similar in meaning to the not-quite-an-amendment:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…

But again - sod all similarity to the EFA. Oscar had it spot on - there is no other western democracy that has anything similar to the EFA. It's not so much the monetary limits imposed on campaigning, it's the differentiation between sitting MPs and everyone else and the deliberate setting of donation limits to just above what Labour received and well below what National received. Oh, and the limiting anonymous donations clause; some people claim that having to declare donations makes the system transparent. Well, yes to some extent, but in which case why do we have anonymous ballots? If it's transparency everyone wants, why aren't the parties and candidates each person voted for a matter of public record? Why did the 'transparency' provisions of the EFA only affect those aspects of political operation that Labour didn't like? Why wasn't the link between the Unions and Labour targetted, for instance? The 'transparency' argument is simply spin designed to give somewhat legitimise to Labour's barely-disguised attempt at perpetuating their grasp on power.

I agree that there is some controversy over this issue but if you are interested these links provide better definitive of the issue than Wikipedia.

The first is lengthy and gives a relative in depth view. See Ch 2 TABLE OF RATIFICATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS. If you want to skip Ch 1.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/13essay1.html



The second link claims that the amendment is still law.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/13table.html


from our perspective it is of little consequence whether the 13 ammendment is law of the USA or not. I think what is important is that there was an attempt to limit outside sources from influencing the political affairs of the United States of America and this was in their founding years.

Labour’s EFA is to be seen in the same spirit. I personaly don't have a problem with this others do and have interpreted the EFA as an assault of democracy.


Skyryder

[Robert Taylor]

High taxes, low wages, living costs going through the roof....yep, Labour is for the working man. Enough said.