Discussion:
Interesting review of NZF donors
(too old to reply)
Crash
2020-02-27 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119704872/billionaires-among-the-full-list-of-donors-supporting-nz-first

Now it is worth remembering that while much of this article may be
speculation, Stuff are subject to defamation laws and Peters does have
a history of using litigation. So Stuff must be fairly certain of
their information sources.

Looking at what Woolerton claims as the NZ First constituency,
Woolerton asserts "It's not the farmers. It's the people who service
the farmers who do the grunt work day to day". The backbone of the NZ
economy is farming, responsible for over 50% of exports. It is the
farmer in the cowshed or mustering livestock that do the grunt work.
Those that provide services to farmers are insignificant in both
people-count and contribution to our economy. That quote is an
incredibly ill-advised and clearly not well thought through.

There is a real possibility that NZF will be gone in the near future.
Those few major donors may well have made their last donation to NZF
and if so the party will be starved of funds as well as starved of
party-vote support in the upcoming election.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-28 01:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119704872/billionaires-among-the-full-list-of-donors-supporting-nz-first
Now it is worth remembering that while much of this article may be
speculation, Stuff are subject to defamation laws and Peters does have
a history of using litigation. So Stuff must be fairly certain of
their information sources.
Looking at what Woolerton claims as the NZ First constituency,
Woolerton asserts "It's not the farmers. It's the people who service
the farmers who do the grunt work day to day". The backbone of the NZ
economy is farming, responsible for over 50% of exports. It is the
farmer in the cowshed or mustering livestock that do the grunt work.
Those that provide services to farmers are insignificant in both
people-count and contribution to our economy. That quote is an
incredibly ill-advised and clearly not well thought through.
There is a real possibility that NZF will be gone in the near future.
Those few major donors may well have made their last donation to NZF
and if so the party will be starved of funds as well as starved of
party-vote support in the upcoming election.
It would be interesting to see the equivalent list for the other
political parties - and the level of interest is such that I expect
there would be little resistance to reducing the reportable amount to
something like $1000 (cumulative in any year). While interesting, and
there are a few things covered in the article that may well be
questionable either politically or legally, we do have the knowledge
that Simon Bridges was not charged in relation to the current National
donation scandal; I suspect Winston will also survive. What it may do
is prompt a more thorough investigation of National, Labour the Greens
and ACT. While there has been no suggestion of impropriety or
wrongdoing from these, an independent audit may well answer those that
claim "but they all do it"; and provide good information for a review
of donation rules.

From the article:
"NZ First has traditionally pitched itself to voters as a party for
grassroots Kiwis in regional New Zealand, a party keen to trim the
excesses of neo-liberal capitalism."

I gather that most NZ First members were happy with the choice to go
with Labour following the election, so the demise of NZ First could
help Labour more than National, especially as National seem to be
trying to appeal more to their supporters that a further right than
the centre.

Winston is more combative than Peter Dunne, but that is probably
needed for a small party in the centre - they need the publicity.
Dunne merged with a lot of other small parties to keep ging, but
eventually time ran out. We shall just have to wait and see regarding
the results of legal investigations.

Thanks for posting the reference
Crash
2020-03-02 07:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119704872/billionaires-among-the-full-list-of-donors-supporting-nz-first
Now it is worth remembering that while much of this article may be
speculation, Stuff are subject to defamation laws and Peters does have
a history of using litigation. So Stuff must be fairly certain of
their information sources.
Looking at what Woolerton claims as the NZ First constituency,
Woolerton asserts "It's not the farmers. It's the people who service
the farmers who do the grunt work day to day". The backbone of the NZ
economy is farming, responsible for over 50% of exports. It is the
farmer in the cowshed or mustering livestock that do the grunt work.
Those that provide services to farmers are insignificant in both
people-count and contribution to our economy. That quote is an
incredibly ill-advised and clearly not well thought through.
There is a real possibility that NZF will be gone in the near future.
Those few major donors may well have made their last donation to NZF
and if so the party will be starved of funds as well as starved of
party-vote support in the upcoming election.
It would be interesting to see the equivalent list for the other
political parties
Rich that is totally off-topic. None of the other parties (including
Labour) have any donation issues being investigated as the result of
an Electoral Commission request to the Police. The article I cited
was specifically about NZF (the foundation and the party). There is
no suggestion of any related or equivalent wrongdoing of any other
party.

Perhaps you are trying to introduce an off-topic strand because you
have nothing to offer in defence of NZF (as part of a Labour-led
government)?
Post by Rich80105
- and the level of interest is such that I expect
there would be little resistance to reducing the reportable amount to
something like $1000 (cumulative in any year). While interesting, and
there are a few things covered in the article that may well be
questionable either politically or legally, we do have the knowledge
that Simon Bridges was not charged in relation to the current National
donation scandal; I suspect Winston will also survive. What it may do
is prompt a more thorough investigation of National, Labour the Greens
and ACT. While there has been no suggestion of impropriety or
wrongdoing from these, an independent audit may well answer those that
claim "but they all do it"; and provide good information for a review
of donation rules.
"NZ First has traditionally pitched itself to voters as a party for
grassroots Kiwis in regional New Zealand, a party keen to trim the
excesses of neo-liberal capitalism."
I gather that most NZ First members were happy with the choice to go
with Labour following the election, so the demise of NZ First could
help Labour more than National, especially as National seem to be
trying to appeal more to their supporters that a further right than
the centre.
You are confused between NZF party members and NZF party voters.
National have made the logical decision to exclude NZF from a
National-led government after the 2020 election. This makes it very
clear to NZF party-voters that they are not voting for a National-led
government.
Post by Rich80105
Winston is more combative than Peter Dunne, but that is probably
needed for a small party in the centre - they need the publicity.
Dunne merged with a lot of other small parties to keep ging, but
eventually time ran out. We shall just have to wait and see regarding
the results of legal investigations.
There is nothing in common between Peters and Dunne. The party that
Peters leads has been list-only since the 2005 election. The various
parties that Dunne led always had an electorate MP. In don't see any
connection with this and the allegations NZF (the party and the
foundation) faces which is what this thread is about.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-02 08:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119704872/billionaires-among-the-full-list-of-donors-supporting-nz-first
Now it is worth remembering that while much of this article may be
speculation, Stuff are subject to defamation laws and Peters does have
a history of using litigation. So Stuff must be fairly certain of
their information sources.
Looking at what Woolerton claims as the NZ First constituency,
Woolerton asserts "It's not the farmers. It's the people who service
the farmers who do the grunt work day to day". The backbone of the NZ
economy is farming, responsible for over 50% of exports. It is the
farmer in the cowshed or mustering livestock that do the grunt work.
Those that provide services to farmers are insignificant in both
people-count and contribution to our economy. That quote is an
incredibly ill-advised and clearly not well thought through.
There is a real possibility that NZF will be gone in the near future.
Those few major donors may well have made their last donation to NZF
and if so the party will be starved of funds as well as starved of
party-vote support in the upcoming election.
It would be interesting to see the equivalent list for the other
political parties
Rich that is totally off-topic. None of the other parties (including
Labour) have any donation issues being investigated as the result of
an Electoral Commission request to the Police. The article I cited
was specifically about NZF (the foundation and the party). There is
no suggestion of any related or equivalent wrongdoing of any other
party.
There are in fact investigations (at least one arising as far as I
know from a complaint) regarding mayoral campaign financing - where
rules appear to be similar to those for NZ elections. The point is
that regardless of the results of any particular enquiry, it is good
to have all parties investigated - if some are OK it at least says
that it is possible to comply; if none comply then there will be
greater pressure to clean up the rules. Yes it is relevant.
Post by Crash
Perhaps you are trying to introduce an off-topic strand because you
have nothing to offer in defence of NZF (as part of a Labour-led
government)?
Why should I defend them? If they have done wrong a prosecution shuld
result, as it has for National. I am interested in seeing better
transparency of political donations; that will happen more easily if
current practices are seen to be corrupt.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- and the level of interest is such that I expect
there would be little resistance to reducing the reportable amount to
something like $1000 (cumulative in any year). While interesting, and
there are a few things covered in the article that may well be
questionable either politically or legally, we do have the knowledge
that Simon Bridges was not charged in relation to the current National
donation scandal; I suspect Winston will also survive. What it may do
is prompt a more thorough investigation of National, Labour the Greens
and ACT. While there has been no suggestion of impropriety or
wrongdoing from these, an independent audit may well answer those that
claim "but they all do it"; and provide good information for a review
of donation rules.
"NZ First has traditionally pitched itself to voters as a party for
grassroots Kiwis in regional New Zealand, a party keen to trim the
excesses of neo-liberal capitalism."
I gather that most NZ First members were happy with the choice to go
with Labour following the election, so the demise of NZ First could
help Labour more than National, especially as National seem to be
trying to appeal more to their supporters that a further right than
the centre.
You are confused between NZF party members and NZF party voters.
National have made the logical decision to exclude NZF from a
National-led government after the 2020 election. This makes it very
clear to NZF party-voters that they are not voting for a National-led
government.
They have done it before and changed their mind - and if the same
number of seats results from the next election they may decide it is
better to be in government having to deal with NZ First than in
opposition - overall we are certainly better off now than had Winston
gone with National.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Winston is more combative than Peter Dunne, but that is probably
needed for a small party in the centre - they need the publicity.
Dunne merged with a lot of other small parties to keep going, but
eventually time ran out. We shall just have to wait and see regarding
the results of legal investigations.
There is nothing in common between Peters and Dunne. The party that
Peters leads has been list-only since the 2005 election. The various
parties that Dunne led always had an electorate MP. In don't see any
connection with this and the allegations NZF (the party and the
foundation) faces which is what this thread is about.
Dunne was re-elected on exactly the same basis as Seymour is now - a
'grace and favour"arrangement with National.
Crash
2020-03-02 21:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119704872/billionaires-among-the-full-list-of-donors-supporting-nz-first
Now it is worth remembering that while much of this article may be
speculation, Stuff are subject to defamation laws and Peters does have
a history of using litigation. So Stuff must be fairly certain of
their information sources.
Looking at what Woolerton claims as the NZ First constituency,
Woolerton asserts "It's not the farmers. It's the people who service
the farmers who do the grunt work day to day". The backbone of the NZ
economy is farming, responsible for over 50% of exports. It is the
farmer in the cowshed or mustering livestock that do the grunt work.
Those that provide services to farmers are insignificant in both
people-count and contribution to our economy. That quote is an
incredibly ill-advised and clearly not well thought through.
There is a real possibility that NZF will be gone in the near future.
Those few major donors may well have made their last donation to NZF
and if so the party will be starved of funds as well as starved of
party-vote support in the upcoming election.
It would be interesting to see the equivalent list for the other
political parties
Rich that is totally off-topic. None of the other parties (including
Labour) have any donation issues being investigated as the result of
an Electoral Commission request to the Police. The article I cited
was specifically about NZF (the foundation and the party). There is
no suggestion of any related or equivalent wrongdoing of any other
party.
There are in fact investigations (at least one arising as far as I
know from a complaint) regarding mayoral campaign financing - where
rules appear to be similar to those for NZ elections. The point is
that regardless of the results of any particular enquiry, it is good
to have all parties investigated - if some are OK it at least says
that it is possible to comply; if none comply then there will be
greater pressure to clean up the rules. Yes it is relevant.
The topic is the list of NZF donors from the cite in my original post.
The actions of the Electoral Commission in this respect are on-topic,
the actions of other related SFO investigations are not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Perhaps you are trying to introduce an off-topic strand because you
have nothing to offer in defence of NZF (as part of a Labour-led
government)?
Why should I defend them? If they have done wrong a prosecution shuld
result, as it has for National. I am interested in seeing better
transparency of political donations; that will happen more easily if
current practices are seen to be corrupt.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
- and the level of interest is such that I expect
there would be little resistance to reducing the reportable amount to
something like $1000 (cumulative in any year). While interesting, and
there are a few things covered in the article that may well be
questionable either politically or legally, we do have the knowledge
that Simon Bridges was not charged in relation to the current National
donation scandal; I suspect Winston will also survive. What it may do
is prompt a more thorough investigation of National, Labour the Greens
and ACT. While there has been no suggestion of impropriety or
wrongdoing from these, an independent audit may well answer those that
claim "but they all do it"; and provide good information for a review
of donation rules.
"NZ First has traditionally pitched itself to voters as a party for
grassroots Kiwis in regional New Zealand, a party keen to trim the
excesses of neo-liberal capitalism."
I gather that most NZ First members were happy with the choice to go
with Labour following the election, so the demise of NZ First could
help Labour more than National, especially as National seem to be
trying to appeal more to their supporters that a further right than
the centre.
You are confused between NZF party members and NZF party voters.
National have made the logical decision to exclude NZF from a
National-led government after the 2020 election. This makes it very
clear to NZF party-voters that they are not voting for a National-led
government.
They have done it before and changed their mind - and if the same
number of seats results from the next election they may decide it is
better to be in government having to deal with NZ First than in
opposition - overall we are certainly better off now than had Winston
gone with National.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Winston is more combative than Peter Dunne, but that is probably
needed for a small party in the centre - they need the publicity.
Dunne merged with a lot of other small parties to keep going, but
eventually time ran out. We shall just have to wait and see regarding
the results of legal investigations.
There is nothing in common between Peters and Dunne. The party that
Peters leads has been list-only since the 2005 election. The various
parties that Dunne led always had an electorate MP. In don't see any
connection with this and the allegations NZF (the party and the
foundation) faces which is what this thread is about.
Dunne was re-elected on exactly the same basis as Seymour is now - a
'grace and favour"arrangement with National.
--
Crash McBash

Loading...