Pre-election 2014 thread

[CCS]

So what's the problem here? You understand there are different thresholds dependent on whether the donation is to an individual or a party, right?

Donation disclosure thresholds

For the excitable out there, let me explain the three different sorts of donations and the thresholds.

A donation or a gift to an MP personally must be disclosed if over $500. That is because it benefits them personally.
A donation to an electorate candidate over $1,500 must be disclosed. The spending limit during the regulated period is $25,700 so any donation over 5.8% of their spending cap gets disclosed.
A donation to a political party over $15,000 must be disclosed. The spending limit during the regulated period for a party that contests all 71 electorates is $2,915,700 so any donation over 0.5% of their spending cap gets disclosed

The reasons we have disclosure is to guard against purchasing undue influence. Personal donations to an MP directly benefit them, hence the low threshold. A donation of say $5,000 to a political party represents probably around 0.1% of their election year expenditure, so isn’t significant. That is why the threshold is $15,000 (I think a case can be made for it to be $10,000 as it used to be), not $500.

[cyc]

The left shits here (like all the usual left shits -- note the necessity to distinguish such people from decent lefties and liberals of this world) will just do anything they can to pretend that Cunliffe/anything left is always better and more in the right than anything John key/National/[insert who/whichever else that the left shits hate] does.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

So what's the problem here? You understand there are different thresholds dependent on whether the donation is to an individual or a party, right?

Read my 21:45 post again.

[CCS]

I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that ordinarily Cunliffe would have to disclose donations if they were made directly to him by individuals. But because the donations were made indirectly via a trust, that makes it okay and he shouldn't have to disclose them?

Is that what you're saying?

[fixed_truth]

I'm saying that Key’s political speculation around the donors who wished to remain anonymous left him open for cheeky reporters to put the standard back on him that if donors wish to be anonymous then they must be doing a dodgy deal behind the scenes.

[CCS]

Ummm... no. It doesn't leave him open at all because he's not required to say who the donors at the fundraising dinner are. The donotions also haven't been laundered through a secret trust.

Remember, this is only Gower talking; he is wrong on this. You won't hear Labour demanding to know who the attended the fundraising dinner because then the same question would be asked of Labour's fundraising dinners.

Ruminate on that, will you?

[Golden Teapot]

I have no issue with all donations to all political parties being anonymous.

labour changed the rules to open the books because they were jealous of the amounts other parties received; amounts haven't changed of course but they never were going to. Having done this the evil labour crowd really should comply with their own rules; through not doing this they demonstrate so clearly what they stand for and the type of government they could form in the near future if given the chance.

Running their election campaign (which is essentially what they are doing) has so far included: outright lying, calculated misrepresentation, material non-disclosure on things many voters care about, Asian bashing and so on. In contrast most people are honest, most people are upfront, there's are a hell of a lot of Asians in NZ, their caucus hates their evil leader, and Winston already has all the xenophobes voting for him - are there really many people left who are turned on by their despicable behavior so far? Possibly paid-up unions members but these folk would be better off voting from the bat-shit crazy but otherwise fairly wholesome greens.

What they need to do is put the broom through their corrupt, inept and evil ranks and then spend three years re-building their brand. If they do this then there's a chance they could form a worthwhile government.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Ummm... no. It doesn't leave him open at all because he's not required to say who the donors at the fundraising dinner are.

Learn to read. It's not the funding method that leaves him open - it's his wanking on all week that anonymous means dodgy deals

[ZoSo]

http://twitter.com/CTrevettNZH/statu...56607107903488

Trevett making the more salient point.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Learn to read. It's not the funding method that leaves him open - it's his wanking on all week that anonymous means dodgy deals

Don't start with the 'learn to read' shit. I've been perfectly polite to you.

I'm trying to figure out what your stance on this actually is and you've been dancing a flamenco around the obvious. That's why I'm asking questions and trying to read between the lines of your very vague answers.

You're avoiding answering whether you think Cunliffe was wrong to use a secret trust. Well, Cunliffe himself has said that he was wrong to do so. Then you said that National's fundraising dinner "looks to be all above board".

The funding method absolutely is the point. There's a big difference between Cunliffe laundering donations through a secret trust and both National AND Labour holding fundraising dinners and declaring the donations.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

I've been perfectly polite to you.

Tee hee.

[Ab]

Cunliffe denies helping one of his secret donors buy a multimilliondollar beach property, so of course it turns out he helped one of his secret donors buy a multimilliondollar beach property:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11216495

What the fuck is wrong with the guy? Jesus if I was Matt McCarten I'd just quit right now.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

You're avoiding answering whether you think Cunliffe was wrong to use a secret trust. Well, Cunliffe himself has said that he was wrong to do so. Then you said that National's fundraising dinner "looks to be all above board".

Cunliffe actually claims it was wrong but within the rules.


Key claimed that Cunliffe had to name his donors otherwise it must be a dodgy deal. From that, Gower put the same standard to Key.

[CCS]

Did Key say it was a dodgy deal or did you say it was a dodgy deal?

If Cunliffe says it's wrong, then it must be and he has proven Key right.

[fixed_truth]

Danyl Mclauchlan explains it a bit better . . .

http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/03...t-it-at-all-2/

[pxpx]

Doesn't matter. JK can say "nup" and get away with it, because he's not a smarmy two faced cunt like DC.

[spigalau]

It's not really an anonymous donation when you are surrounded by a room of 100 other people who have also purchased a seat (or two) at the dinner table.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Danyl Mclauchlan explains it a bit better . . .

http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/03...t-it-at-all-2/

Hmmm...

twitter this afternoon has been a firestorm of National lickspittles insisting that National’s anonymous donations are NOT THE SAME THING. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! I understand that the thresholds are different and that everything National did was within the rules but that doesn’t get around the problem that they’ve been railing against anonymous political donations all week when they’ve spent the past few years raking in huge sums of money in anonymous political donations.

Yeah nah. There's a bit of hyperbole there. This quote from Gower's own article:

On Monday Mr Key said Mr Cunliffe "actually owes it to the New Zealand public to say who gave him money and who didn't. It's no big deal."

What was that at the end?

It's no big deal.

Key sounds quite a bit less vehement than leftards are making him out to be.

The other thing is, the thresholds absolutely matter. Key is right to call Cunliffe out because Cunliffe is required to disclose donations made to him. Cunliffe was prevaricating over whether he was going to comply with that rule and that's why he is being called tricky. Shane Jones disclosed all his donations over $500 and Grant Robertson said he didn't have any over $500. Cunliffe is the odd man out there and that's why Cunliffe looks tricky. Key, on the other hand, does not have to disclose donations made to the party, which is what came from the dinner.

The only way Key would be hypocritical is if he or the National Party were under the same obligations as David Cunliffe. Which they are not.

Remember: it's not just Key's standards that Cunliffe is being held to. It's Jones and Robertson's standards as well.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Danyl Mclauchlan explains it a bit better . . .

http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/03...t-it-at-all-2/

David Cunliffe's Trust and the Dinner at Antoine's were not the same. I wish they were, but they just aren't.

http://pundit.co.nz/content/one-of-t...like-the-other

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

Yeah nah. There's a bit of hyperbole there. This quote from Gower's own article:

What was that at the end?

Key sounds quite a bit less vehement than leftards are making him out to be.

But it's Keys speculation about the donors that people are criticizing.

Key suggested that the donors wanting to be anonymous had something to do with their influence on Labour policy and that there was a "secret agenda" going on.

Imo this speculative mudslinging established that anonymous means something to hide (when in reality some people just prefer to donate anonymously) and created the opportunity for that definition to be to be applied to other forms of anonymous donation.

[CCS]

No. I doubt Key would have had a problem with anonymity if Cunliffe had been complying by the rules. It's the non-compliance that makes it look like he's got something to hide.

But really, it's no big deal.

[fixed_truth]

"It came out of the blue, really - I wasn't expecting it at all," said restaurateur Tony Astle of his award.

"I'm very excited about it, because, well, you don't expect these sorts of things when you're a chef," Mr Astle said.

New Year Honours: Tony Astle ONZM

[ZoSo]

So, much like the dinners, par for the course?

ps. grats to Danyl and Paddy. Back from the left's shitlist, if only for another brief moment.

[spigalau]

Ian McKellen

http://www.eventbrite.co.nz/contact-...eid=6734973487

Woah.. short term memory loss... seems same same as a dinner to me.

[Ab]

[Ab]

Election day announced: 20 September.

[Ab]

Labour can't communicate for shit and its comms team are muppets, episode 5430191



Boy there are gonna be some disappointed Labour voters when the result is announced two months before they even lodge their votes.

[CCS]

Lolling! Have they got a high school kid doing this?

"Kid, can you work the tweetbooks?"
"Yeah sure"
Can you work the Photo Shop?"
"Duh"
"Alright. You're our new social media officer"

[Ab]

When Labour makes an announcement, or describes a new policy, or makes a campaign post on facebook, or posts an infographic to twitter, I assume it will be fucked up somehow.

The fuckups range from little ones (like getting an apostrophe wrong in a web graphic) to fundamental ones (like having a new Digital Bill of Rights policy breach the Bill of Rights Act) but the fuckups are ALWAYS THERE. There seems to be no quality control anywhere.

[Ab]

etc

[CCS]

Oh, no grammar mistakes this time. Just... a bunch of idiocy instead.

[Ab]

Read it carefully.

[CCS]

Oh crassic, one of those!

I still take exception to their shit about interest rates. Interest rates go up and down all the time. Surely they're not suggesting the RBNZ has never raised the cash rate during Labour's terms? Pretty sure the Reserve Bank Act is already intended to strengthen the economy. The RBNZ has to keep inflation between 1% - 3%. If Labour is going to bleat every time the OCR is raised, what other tools would be used to control inflation?

[Rince]

Originally Posted by CCS

I still take exception to their shit about interest rates. Interest rates go up and down all the time. Surely they're not suggesting the RBNZ has never raised the cash rate during Labour's terms? Pretty sure the Reserve Bank Act is already intended to strengthen the economy. The RBNZ has to keep inflation between 1% - 3%. If Labour is going to bleat every time the OCR is raised, what other tools would be used to control inflation?

[Ab]

etc

https://twitter.com/DavidCunliffeMP/...585216/photo/1

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Ab

etc

https://twitter.com/DavidCunliffeMP/...585216/photo/1

Whaleoil ‏@Whaleoil 5h
@DavidCunliffeMP and who signed up Novopay? Oh that's right Labour did...love the typo too on an education realted tweet #SMOG

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ab

When Labour makes an announcement, or describes a new policy, or makes a campaign post on facebook, or posts an infographic to twitter, I assume it will be fucked up somehow.

The fuckups range from little ones (like getting an apostrophe wrong in a web graphic) to fundamental ones (like having a new Digital Bill of Rights policy breach the Bill of Rights Act) but the fuckups are ALWAYS THERE. There seems to be no quality control anywhere.

So this one is both typo-level and drawing-attention-to-the-mess-that's-your-fault-level.

[StN]

It's a two-for-one deal - you can't get fairer than that!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

So this one is both typo-level and drawing-attention-to-the-mess-that's-your-fault-level.

A ministerial inquiry has blamed the Ministry of Education's lack of experience and poor governance for failures in the problem plagued school payroll system.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...y-over-novopay

[Ab]

Grit your teeth, Labour fans, the latest Herald poll is going in dry.

Labour's support has sunk nearly six points and it is polling only 29.5 per cent in the Herald-DigiPoll survey.

The popularity of leader David Cunliffe has fallen by almost the same amount, to 11.1 per cent. That is worse than the 12.4 per cent worst rating of former leader David Shearer.

National could govern alone with 50.8 per cent if the poll were translated to an election result.

The popularity of John Key as Prime Minister has climbed by 4.6 points to 66.5 per cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11221487