Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
there's the interesting (but seldom asked) question of what National would do differently that would assist those struggling to keep metaphorical heads above allegedly-rising economic waters.
Tax cuts 5 years ago, not in 12 months time when it is too little too late.
-
Not worried about the rich, more people possessing much less than $120,000. An "anti-party X" trust fund could solicit individual contributions of much less money from a larger number of people and effectively control a campaign against party X without violating the EFA?
-
The Parliamentary Service is most directly responsible for the benefit the party has received – they're the ones actually making the payment – signing and sending the cheque to the supplier, but – under a legal obligation to do it – they've at least an argument they're not really donating anything.
If the Parliamentary Service are found not to be "donating" anything then could it be possible to set terms for a private trust to mimic the Parliamentary Service? A trust under obligation to finance electoral advertising attacking party X could free its sponsors from the $120,000 restriction of a 3rd party.
-
I wants a MP3 .
-
Next week Media7 had best have representatives from the Small Retaillers association and the liquor industry on to ask what PR is required to point out the lack of causation between alcohol and crime. In response to the usual suspects bleating...
-
And I'm just trying to work out whether they've thought this through. Using the Electoral Finance Act to stop Parliamentary spending makes sense from National's perspective, but the implicit allegation of offending that this attack necessarily entails could backfire. Any complaint about Labour's Mike Smith-approved, but potentially not Mike Smith-initiated, advertising could likely be levelled at every parliamentary party.
Legally it might be of concern, but politically it is no lose for National. Like Kyle says this is minutae of law and the law was written by Labour.
If Labour are caught out they are obviously acting with criminal intent to circumvent the law. Obvious, because they wrote the law and therefore must know what it means. Labour cannot viably claim the law is unclear.
National if caught out can claim that the law is unclear and badly written. In this case they can point to it infringing upon previously accepted electoral advertising practice - making the law seem unfair.
-
When walking around in USA I was shocked to find out they noticed pedestrians (never happened in Auckland). Asked a few people who said they were taught in school Driver Education, they got cheaper insurance by completing the course and the lessons stuck.
-
which is worse:
1. downloading american photo for pamphlet, which 99.9% of electorate won't even notice origin of
2. spending $k on getting a photoshoot done when you could have bought one from the net for $20, and saved the taxpayer a lot of money.Obviously 1, because now the Greens or whoever can freely run a campaign mail out showing the 99.9% of the electorate that Labour is delivering budgets tailored to (neo-conservatives, imperialistic, evil-doing) Americans, when they publish the sane family proudly standing in front of the stars and stripes.
2 is a bunch of bull, as the taxpayers have already handed these $k to the Labour Party and there is no way any of it is ever going to be returned - it is not our money anymore it belongs to the Labour Party.
-
And isn't "NARAL-endorsed Democrat" same as EPMU endorsed Labour Party?
-
So you'd vote for the anti-reproductive rights Republican over the NARAL-endorsed Democrat because your goddamn feelings are hurt?
None of the pro-life groups endorsed McCain in the GOP primaries - all of them went for Thompson or Romney.