Thursday, September 18, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
you don't have to hide anymore
I've been having a bit o' fun on the National Billboard 2008 site, where you get to make your own contribution to National's election campaign advertising. Because I am completely shameless , here are my own contributions:
Your turn, chumps.
Your turn, chumps.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
all that distance reconciled
Amidst all the kerfuffle around Winston Peters' funding arrangements, I thought I'd ruminate on my preferred way of funding political parties.
Being a wishy-washy that socialist it behoves me to be reflexively attracted to the idea of taxpayer funding and disapproving of the possibility of elections being defacto bought by that malign club of dark, smoky businessmen with the largest cheque books. On the other hand I'm not too much in favour of parties being able just to vote themselves an amount of money, which seems to be somewhat a conflict of interest and an enticement to foul corruption. With that in mind, public donation to political parties seems to be a much better system, since funding will follow party support more closely in between elections, rather than being at the whims of the winners of the last election - as long as you have a way of weighting those donations those rich individuals do not have disproportionate power than their citizenship should imply.
And so, naturally, I suggest a compromise - try to combine the best of the two systems - remove the sluggard money-men from the temple of democracy, but make sure to replace it with a democratic alternative.
My proposal would be for each taxpayer (i.e. any single person - no companies - who has paid a positive amount of income tax in the financial year) would get the opportunity to allocate a fixed amount to their party or parties of choice. For arguments sake I'll say $10 per financial year. It doesn't sound a lot, but multiply that by the number of taxpayers involved and the money involved could be reasonably significant. And political parties would have an incentive every year to be on their best behaviour, otherwise it hits them in their campaign budget. And if you really wanted to twist the knife, you could have an option for taxpayers to vote their contribution back to the Treasury - or their favorite government department - as a vote of no confidence ...
I think it is important to make it a flat-rate amount of money that citizens get to donate, rather than some pro-rata arrangement based on your taxable income - it creates an equalising effect, one-man-one-vote style, and it makes sure that political parties aren't pandering just to rich voters for the sake of campaign finance (as opposed to pandering to rich voters because that's the philosophical basis of your politics). And obviously, you would have to ban donations to parties outside of this system, and bolster that with a rigouous, and public, accounting of all party spending. Which leads me to my next point ...
This proposal unfortunately does nothing to solve the really big issue the Labour's EFA was supposed to crack down on - third party campaigning; in fact it would probably only exacerbate the problem, as there would be a lot of special interest groups out there with great gouts of money they would otherwise be giving toNational the mainstream political parties suddenly free to float it out to extremists single-issue groups with a greater degree of autonomy and anonimity.
... but I have no smart answers for that issue, and more's to the point, I can't be solving all your fucking problems for you, ya lazy bastards.
Being a wishy-washy that socialist it behoves me to be reflexively attracted to the idea of taxpayer funding and disapproving of the possibility of elections being defacto bought by that malign club of dark, smoky businessmen with the largest cheque books. On the other hand I'm not too much in favour of parties being able just to vote themselves an amount of money, which seems to be somewhat a conflict of interest and an enticement to foul corruption. With that in mind, public donation to political parties seems to be a much better system, since funding will follow party support more closely in between elections, rather than being at the whims of the winners of the last election - as long as you have a way of weighting those donations those rich individuals do not have disproportionate power than their citizenship should imply.
And so, naturally, I suggest a compromise - try to combine the best of the two systems - remove the sluggard money-men from the temple of democracy, but make sure to replace it with a democratic alternative.
My proposal would be for each taxpayer (i.e. any single person - no companies - who has paid a positive amount of income tax in the financial year) would get the opportunity to allocate a fixed amount to their party or parties of choice. For arguments sake I'll say $10 per financial year. It doesn't sound a lot, but multiply that by the number of taxpayers involved and the money involved could be reasonably significant. And political parties would have an incentive every year to be on their best behaviour, otherwise it hits them in their campaign budget. And if you really wanted to twist the knife, you could have an option for taxpayers to vote their contribution back to the Treasury - or their favorite government department - as a vote of no confidence ...
I think it is important to make it a flat-rate amount of money that citizens get to donate, rather than some pro-rata arrangement based on your taxable income - it creates an equalising effect, one-man-one-vote style, and it makes sure that political parties aren't pandering just to rich voters for the sake of campaign finance (as opposed to pandering to rich voters because that's the philosophical basis of your politics). And obviously, you would have to ban donations to parties outside of this system, and bolster that with a rigouous, and public, accounting of all party spending. Which leads me to my next point ...
This proposal unfortunately does nothing to solve the really big issue the Labour's EFA was supposed to crack down on - third party campaigning; in fact it would probably only exacerbate the problem, as there would be a lot of special interest groups out there with great gouts of money they would otherwise be giving to
... but I have no smart answers for that issue, and more's to the point, I can't be solving all your fucking problems for you, ya lazy bastards.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
his heart in every line
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?”
Ahh, the smacking debate. There's a good long rant in there somewhere, but it's late, so I'll just leave you with this: Where's the age limit?
No, really. Where does the statute of limitations for my parent's ability to smack me run out if this wonderful slice of sadism passes in the referendum next year? 10? 15? 25? Fucking never? Can my Dad still give me a state-sanctioned wallop when I'm 35 and he's 72 if I piss him off*?
What idiot drafted such an open-ended referendum question anyway? And can I give him a smack for fucking it up so royally?
You always wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:
How would the U.S. military fight a zombie army? - I know what you're thinking, and you're right. That is the best question ever asked.
*I should point out that my Dad seldom if every smacked any of us, and my Mum also worked out the error of her ways quite early ... though not early quite early enough for me not to develop a profound aversion to wooden spoons.
Ahh, the smacking debate. There's a good long rant in there somewhere, but it's late, so I'll just leave you with this: Where's the age limit?
No, really. Where does the statute of limitations for my parent's ability to smack me run out if this wonderful slice of sadism passes in the referendum next year? 10? 15? 25? Fucking never? Can my Dad still give me a state-sanctioned wallop when I'm 35 and he's 72 if I piss him off*?
What idiot drafted such an open-ended referendum question anyway? And can I give him a smack for fucking it up so royally?
You always wanted to know, but were afraid to ask:
How would the U.S. military fight a zombie army? - I know what you're thinking, and you're right. That is the best question ever asked.
*I should point out that my Dad seldom if every smacked any of us, and my Mum also worked out the error of her ways quite early ... though not early quite early enough for me not to develop a profound aversion to wooden spoons.
sitting in the dark
For comparison with the July 2008 results I posted last week - July 2005, again from TV3/TNS:
The undecided vote seems to stay quite consistent at around the 11-12% mark at this point in the election cycle (cf the period directly after the election when it drops to 3 and 4%). The level of support for Labour is 3 points off now versus then; but National is up 8 points. They don't seem to be taking it off Labour, so where is the support coming from?
The answer seems to be that they are feeding off the parties to the right and to the centre - NZ First, Act, United Future, the Christian parties. They also seem to have picked up the people who last time around said they weren't going to vote (3% in 2005, 1.7% in 2008). The problem for National is that they cannibalising support partners, something that Labour doesn't seem to be doing to their left-of-centre partner, The Greens. But Labour's problem is that their voters seem more likely to just throw in the towel and stay home, versuses a seemingly fed-up right-wing. If the 2005/6 poll results can be trusted, it looks to me as though voters for NZ First believed that Winston would stick with National rather than Labour (the numbers dropped the month after election day by 2.2 points). While you can never trust NZ First to stay down after a rightous kicking, voters may have finally learned their lesson.
| July | Original | Actual # | Correct % |
| Labour | 39 | 333.06 | 33.31% |
| National | 39 | 333.06 | 33.31% |
| NZ First | 7 | 59.78 | 5.98% |
| Green Party | 6 | 51.24 | 5.12% |
| ACT | 1.6 | 13.664 | 1.37% |
| United Future | 1.4 | 11.956 | 1.20% |
| Maori Party | 2.2 | 18.788 | 1.88% |
| Alliance | 0.1 | 0.854 | 0.09% |
| Christian Heritage | 0.4 | 3.416 | 0.34% |
| Progressive | 0.4 | 3.416 | 0.34% |
| Destiny NZ | 0.6 | 5.124 | 0.51% |
| All Others | 2.3 | 19.642 | 1.96% |
| Base: | 854 | ||
| Don’t know/ undecided | 12 | 120 | 12.00% |
| Would not vote | 3 | 30 | 3.00% |
| 1000 |
The undecided vote seems to stay quite consistent at around the 11-12% mark at this point in the election cycle (cf the period directly after the election when it drops to 3 and 4%). The level of support for Labour is 3 points off now versus then; but National is up 8 points. They don't seem to be taking it off Labour, so where is the support coming from?
The answer seems to be that they are feeding off the parties to the right and to the centre - NZ First, Act, United Future, the Christian parties. They also seem to have picked up the people who last time around said they weren't going to vote (3% in 2005, 1.7% in 2008). The problem for National is that they cannibalising support partners, something that Labour doesn't seem to be doing to their left-of-centre partner, The Greens. But Labour's problem is that their voters seem more likely to just throw in the towel and stay home, versuses a seemingly fed-up right-wing. If the 2005/6 poll results can be trusted, it looks to me as though voters for NZ First believed that Winston would stick with National rather than Labour (the numbers dropped the month after election day by 2.2 points). While you can never trust NZ First to stay down after a rightous kicking, voters may have finally learned their lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
