Hard News: Meet the New Bob
172 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
I'd like a category for worst name of a block of flats or houses.
And you had your chance to suggest that back in October!
Well you just walk down Hill Street and see how you feel about it then Joanna. Then we will talk about "October" and "suggest".
-
Though if $50,000 is correct, then I'll take over organising his marches for him. I could do it for a quarter of that no problem, and keep the difference. *sells soul*
Now that's an idea... Matthews & Ranapia, Rent-A-Rabble 4 Less (This Week Only, Bonus Fly Buy Points!)
Still, I guess if (as seems probable) that the restrictions are going to last the whole of election year, I'd love to be running a PR/lobbying shop. Because it sure looks like getting 'free media' (access to friendly and uncritical journos, columnists who will push your spin on an issue etc.) is going to be even more critical - and the best spin wins.
Yeah, I've been trying to form my thoughts around this: I like I'd appreciate the ability to know a bit more about these groups.
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, isn't a shit idea a shit idea who matter who is 'behind it', or how slick and well-financed the spin effort is? IMO, the best remedy to bad speech is more - and better speech - not trying to shut it down. Perhaps I'm a naive old whoopsie, but I actually have a little more faith in the good nature and bullshit detection skills of the peasantry that most politicians.
-
He has spent $50k campaigning against the EFB
the joys of Post-Modern politics.
-
Wellingtonista-Public Address Christmas Party at Welington's Mighty Mighty on Thursday, December 6.
Damn. I'm off to the Family First Fun Evening that day. I've already got my walk shorts ironed and a new pair of knee socks and sandles.
-
Who Would Tim Finn Thank?"
er ... Neil?
Wellingtonista-Public Address Christmas Party at Welington's Mighty Mighty on Thursday, December 6
anything planned for Auckland? I'll have to wear a mask of course ... (or maybe just Snake Pilsen's eye patch)
-
Meet the New Bob
For a brief moment, I thought this was going to be another post about David's poor viciously-slandered baby.
-
Heh. When I worked at a stockbroker, a content filtering system was put in on mail that excluded exactly 4 words f-word, c-word, sl-word, wh-word.
IIRC, the good burghers of Scunthorpe have no end of troubles with such filters...
-
(or maybe just Snake Pilsen's eye patch)
I think Daryl Hannah already nicked it off him...
-
Righto, here's Radio NZ's report:
A Parliamentary select committee has recommended substantial changes be made to the Electoral Finance Bill.
Parliament's Justice and Electoral Committee has tabled its report on the bill, saying clauses on the definition of third party advertising should be removed because they are too broad and confusing.
The committee says the bill is not intended to capture all issues-based advertising and promotions and deleting the specific clauses will make that clear.
It also recommends increasing the spending limit on those groups still caught by third party advertising rules from $60,000 to $120,000.
The report also suggests a new clause to make it clear that Government agencies are not entitled to engage in election advertising, a concern that was raised by the National Party.
The report also says amendments should be made to require that a person who contributes more than $1000 to a political party must identify themselves to the party or their financial agent.
If they make multiple donations which exceed $10,000, the party must disclose that person's identity.
Overseas donations must not exceed $NZ1000 unless the donor is a New Zealand citizen or registered to vote.But the Government's intention to have campaign finance rules apply from January, rather than for just three months before an election, is unchanged.
In a minority report, National opposes the committee's view.
National says it opposes the bill because it has not been developed with cross-party support, it potentially breaches the Bill of Rights and many of its clauses - particularly extending the election period for the whole year - are flawed.
The ACT Party also makes a minority report in which it states its opposition to the Bill.
In a third minority report, the Green Party says the recommended regime for anonymous donations is too loose.
I'm inclined to agree with the Greens, although it's interesting how much of the supposedly well-informed speculation in the newspapers turns out to be correct.
Meanwhile, here's the NZPA story after the Herald's done its job on it.
-
When I worked at a stockbroker, a content filtering system was put in on mail that excluded exactly 4 words f-word, c-word, sl-word, wh-word.
i.e.: family, community, social, whanau?
Yep, I can see how those'd be unacceptable around stockbrokers. -
In a minority report, National opposes the committee's view.
The ACT Party also makes a minority report...
In a third minority report, the Green Party...
I thought Mission Impossible were the only Tom Cruise movies that went to trilogies (da boom ching!)
-
DPF,
One should read the bill, not the PR exercise known as the report which has no status in law.
The bill actually extends the definition of publishing to include using a meagphone on a protest march. And this is not an accident - it is clear is is deliberate. If you shout "Down with National" into a megaphone you need to also shout your name and home address. And all the placards also need your name and address on them.
Also if you have gotten used to making comments under an alias on the Internet - forget it. Unless the comment is on a non-commercial blog (ie not Usenet) then it also needs your name and address if you advocate for or against a party next year.
This amended bill is a perfect example of why one should not rush these things.
-
1 fundamental question.
Why are people / organisations affraid of identifying themselves as donors to political parties?
1 supplementary question
A paltry number of paranoid dickheads turn up for a rubbish protest in auckland and it makes headline news. WTF! -
and b) as one of its much-loved sons I'm quite likely to sweep various "Best in Wellington" categories
Heh heh, except we've rigged it.
-
And all the placards also need your name and address on them.
DPF - are you sure this is new? There have always been tight controls over that sort of material has to be attributed during election campaigns. If new, it sounds more like a clarification than a death knell.
I am very happy with National's new stance opposing anonymous donations, maybe they could do a deal with like minded parties to force an amendment through to that affect.
-
I'll also nominate "Hill Street Mews", on Hill street,
Was it actually a mews? Which is a word that I only found out last week denotes an urban horse stable. 'Cos if it wasn't I think they should change it.
-
A paltry number of paranoid dickheads turn up for a rubbish protest in auckland and it makes headline news. WTF!
Perhaps it is because the cause is media driven,rather than anything else.
A headline to the effect that '1,316,700 people didn't turn up' to the protest in Auckland would hardly seem newsworthy...let alone plastered on the front page of a publication that thunders every five years or so...
Then again one won't see the headline to the effect that 122,890 folk didn't turn up at the demo in support of Ngai Tuhoe in Dunedin yesterday...
-
DPF - just read your (very fast) analysis. You object to press political releases being attributed is in electronic format:
Press releases that advocate for or against a party are still defined as election advertisements. If you e-mail out a press release, you’ll need to include your address on it.
What? Why is this a problem to you?
I can understand that there are objections to the bill as with most bills. I can believe it has areas that are badly drafted and incoherent. Seems our politicians delight in that.
But your objections seem to be very scatter gun, I struggle to differentiate the critical from the fluff.
Or is attributing press releases to real people really a death blow to democracy?
-
I doubt it was a mews although I can't be certain. I've seen a bunch of mews about Wellington that are highly suspicious - like that one half way between Wilton and Karori.
I actually live in a mews now, and some kind stranger (well, real estate company that specialises in mews) gave me a free book on London mews. So I deem myself an expert on mewsness and Hill Street's garish orange brick flats lack the essential stableness or cobble stones that a true mews should have.
-
Press releases that advocate for or against a party are still defined as election advertisements. If you e-mail out a press release, you’ll need to include your address on it.
If I was teaching someone to write media releases, which I have done from time to time, then I would tell them that they should include full contact details on it somewhere, including their address. Apart from anything else (like making it possible for them to contact you), it helps create an image of authority in the media's mind if they at least know that you are willing to tell them where you work/live/campaign from.
Whether or not it should be electoral finance law...
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, and I may well be, but wasn't it the addresses on the Exclusive Brethren leaflets that were the first tip off to who was behind the campaign? I can't remember, but I thought it was important for some reason.
I will be interested to see what the HRC, the CTU and the Law Commission say about the amended Bill. For some strange reason I'm not all that inspired to take Farrar's criticisms at face value. He has rather a vested interest in portraying the new Bill as worse still, there needs to still be something wrong with it for National to continue to oppose it.
-
there needs to still be something wrong with it for National to continue to oppose it.
National was for it before they were against it...with the reservation about the time period being extended out to include the whole year of an election.
I think National sees it as a wedge issue now....
-
...there needs to still be something wrong with it for National to continue to oppose it.
but that wouldn't be politics
Labour fumbled the ball and National are doing a George Gregan.
-
I am very happy with National's new stance opposing anonymous donations, maybe they could do a deal with like minded parties to force an amendment through to that affect.
Seconded. C'mon, give us your SOP!
(Though actually, if we want it to pass, the person we really need to pressure is Winston).
-
Sue,
oooo @Robyn is coming to the paaarty
how wonderful
and vote Craft2.0 people
becuase maybe if it win's we'll get lovely jubbly sponsorship money and then we can have one in auckland
Post your response…
This topic is closed.