Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
kind of like how the unlawful raid on Hager’s house did a disservice to the police?. Glancing back through the last 93 pages I wish I shared your confidence.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to mark taslov,
Further to this:
Despite over half of major political cash comes from donations of over $15,000 (Stuff Jun 20 2017), four out of every five dollars donated to big parties is in secret (Stuff Aug 20 2017).
In terms of reconfiguring the legislation it would be remiss to overlook both:
However, political parties are adept at using loopholes to mask donors by trusts and other aggregators, like fundraising dinners and art auctions.
and with this in mind:
In the 12 September exchange Ross asks if it is a “sticking point” that there has been some trouble tracking some individual donors of the wider load of money, all of whom gave under $15,000.
Hamilton replies that the party does need a name and address and “many of the addresses provided don’t match what is on the electoral role."
in taking into account Brady’s recommendation that we better understand "the ‘abc’ of the Chinese party state" the mainland cultural normalcy of spreading larger "problematic" transactions among family and networks as per (from over the page):
For Chinese citizens, it is theoretically illegal for them to move money out of the country to buy property. However, judging from the crowds at the Luxury Property Showcase, an international property fair that tours Chinese cities, you would hardly know.
which brings us back to dough:
It’s rare for the major parties to break the laws around political donations because they get to write the law. It’s designed to work for them, to allow them to solicit money while concealing their funders.
as in; the only thing to fear is capitalism itself.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dennis Frank,
To be fair linger I doubt many voters have the enthusiasm to wade through campaign donation lists – e.g. that the National Party received $150,000 from the Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry is kind of meaningless to the average citizen unless the names are already of public interest and even then there is a very real prospect of further exacerbating “Chinese sounding names” style reactionism. For most voters I'd presume the status quo ‘Politics should be about policy and values,’ will remain.
I’m wary of overstatements regarding the constuency’s attention span without knowing if there are competing reasons for confidentiality. Having said that I personally know of no public interest in preserving confidentiality – resolutely aware that those with the means have plenty of ways to skin a cat at their disposal e.g. using companies.
haven’t seen evidence Labour has yet.
Though historical, I’ll leave this here:
Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.
Liu, to whom Labour gave permanent residency against official advice, says his earlier signed statement on the wine auction was “capable of two meanings” and after repeated inquiries from the Herald he says he wants to clarify what he spent the $100,000 on.
with regard to:
"allow them to solicit money while concealing their funders.”
What caught my interest in those links above – beyond the who’s who – was the proportionality between Labour and National’s $5000-15000 (2m:4.9m) versus $15000+ (1m:2.6m) donations.
Bearing in mind.
Political scientist Bryce Edwards said international research showed large donations usually followed electoral success, rather than the other way around.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to simon g,
Indeed.
Political scientists have a term for this type of behaviour: they call it a gift economy. It’s the same form of unspoken reciprocity as when we exchange presents at Christmas or invite friends to weddings. No one ever says, “You can come to our reception if you buy us something expensive and invite us to your own wedding when we will give you something equally nice.” That would be a weird breach of etiquette. Everyone knows how it works but no one says anything – which is vital from a legal standpoint: for a donation to function as a bribe under the Crimes Act a prosecutor needs to prove it was made to reward or influence them; the unspoken ‘gift economy’ nature of the transactions makes that impossible.
Which does by inference put a damper on some of the more simplistic kneejerk reactions I’ve seen being bandied about over the last week with regard to "tightening up" our electoral donations laws – as well as informing our perceptions of New Zealand as least corrupt country.
Marama Davidson is spot on in pushing for a "major rethink", by contrast Peters is in public denial as to the extent the rot has set in (across the major parties at the very least), but the anonymity of donations is – as the link above suggests – not the system’s key weakness.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to mark taslov,
It’s also worth highlighting that what Hickey is euphemistically describing as “the persecution of minorities” is being widely reported as the incarceration of up to 1 million Uighur Muslim, which the CCP is now defending.
Our leaders’ deafening silence around this most monumental of human rights issues nudges calls from within Government for an enquiry into the fate of journalist Jamal Khashoggi into stark relief.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dennis Frank,
Additional to my point yesterday, another well researched article this morning places Twyford with Zhang.
With regard to this:
Bernard Hickey advises the PM to take the initiative:
Bearing in mind the key positions some ex-Parliamentary luminaries now occupy – as someone whose been calling this on these boards for a decade – this does strike me as a little naïve. Facetiously, perhaps we could appeal to our Head of State? Certainly Marie-Anne Brady’s call is entirely warranted.
"We need to upskill our local politicians and our national politicians in our public sector. In the ‘abc’ of the Chinese party state, we’ve got to be able to engage with China and understand it, but also recognise the risks."
Having, like Yang Jian, also previously taught English for the PLA, it’s been evident for quite some time (well before the FTA was signed) that the PRC sees the New Zealand political establishment as a soft touch when it comes to negotiation and the current administration has shown no great indication of being a notable departure on that note.
Which brings us back to doh:
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been conspicuous in her lack of comment on Jian Yang and on the role of Chinese influence in New Zealand politics. She has also not criticised China directly over its South China Sea incursions or the persecution of minorities in China.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dennis Frank,
Chinese communist infiltration strategy
Good piece that – very interesting to see Andrew Little’s name crop up
Chinese communist party also has close links to Labour politicians like Andrew Little and Phil Goff, who was the recipient of substantial donations for his Auckland mayoralty campaign.
Which does kind of bring into focus the implication that in spite of the obvious racism of the “Chinese Sounding names” fiasco – the heightened specificity of the messaging could be construed as conforming to CCP policy, in tandem with the PRC Government’s insubstantive domestic attempts to crack down on the exodus of capital:
For Chinese citizens, it is theoretically illegal for them to move money out of the country to buy property. However, judging from the crowds at the Luxury Property Showcase, an international property fair that tours Chinese cities, you would hardly know.
Tangentially Tze Ming Mok wrote a wonderfully nuanced non-partisan article on ‘Chinese’ donations in today’s Herald
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
-
Hard News: Shots Fired, in reply to Russell Brown,
Hi Russell, I’d missed that Matters of Substance story on the nature of a referendum question, but I was struck reading it by the overriding emphasis on a single question around e.g. "a specific proposal as an alternative to the status quo" most likely already "drafted and passed by the House" perhaps following a consultation process similar to Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly that – in light of Chlöe Swarbrick’s comments on the need for "an innovative approach" in the run-up to a vote, there’s a case to be made for reversing that process and instead enhancing the democratic nature of the referendum and making better use of paper with not one binary choice but a series of questions along the lines of the 2016 Curia poll, in order that a more representative bill might then be custom-drafted and passed – under a ‘not if but when’ proviso. Likely entailing a lead up more focused on educating the general public en masse as to terminology - evidence - offshore models.
-
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to mark taslov,
Thailand are around $16,000 and costs in a DHB could be around $20,000.
Without accounting for the fact that where 16k was going offshore, now 20k is staying in the economy.
If my use of simple past/present tense there is a little baffling it’s because memeroll (this one feels appropriate):
It is my immense pleasure to announce on behalf of the New Zealand Government that contrary to media reports, Dr Yang is in fact being retained "privately" to perform domestic GRS (only vaginoplasty, not phalloplasty at this early stage) funded by the High Cost Treatment Pool.
To abate any confusion, the situation is such that OIA responses continue to maintain there is "no" surgeon because she’s not technically "employed" due to worries about confidentiality with regard to DHB vs.MoH contract negotiations and around stuff like liability in the case of false information. So officially there’s “no information”, but also “it’s not a secret” that they’re doing surgeries.
It may not be much just yet – but even at this preliminary point – on World Mental Health day 2018 – it’s a sea-change; this tiny glimmer of hope (the ultimate kindness) will help save lives – certainly (assuming the frequency picks up in a timely manner) it’s vastly preferable to the futureless nightmare that some of our most marginalised citizens have been living with day-to-day since the retirement of Peter Walker.
As for banning unnecessary state sanctioned and funded genital mutilation on intersex infants – there is still no word as to whether the Government has or will ratify the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommendations (above).
I can’t imagine why there would be resistance to a practice so distasteful.