Thursday, December 6, 2007

ZenTiger Razing the Standard

Insolent Prick (IP) says it like it is. The poor guys at The Standard and their commenting comrades, have no meaningful comeback to IP's extensive, well reasoned and referenced commentary. Then Peter Cresswell (PC) steps in to pick them apart on another issue. Sometimes, both sides make good points on a long debate. In this case, it is all one way traffic.

I could have called this post "A Hanging Offence" but I think I prefer "Razing the Standard". Here's a snippet from the thread, one of many comments by IP:
I didn’t spend five years at law school, and a pretty decent chunk of my career interpreting law, to come to the view that a political party that:

a: rejects a public consultation process on a fundamental constitutional change
b: rams it through the House ignoring the overwhelming majority of submitters
c: rejects the key recommendations of the expert officials
d: has the Law Society and the HRC saying the Bill is irretrievably bad that it needs to be dumped
e: suppresses the official advice from public scrutiny
f: has the Law Commission opt out of advising it
g: then reports back to the House with a Bill that is still so flawed that it needs 150 amendments in a supplementary order paper
h: STILL has the organisation implementing the law not understanding its core functions;

“not a hanging offence”. It doesn’t matter what the outcome is. With all due respect to you, Roger, you are by no means an authority on electoral law. You have no concept of what the outcome is right now, other than that the Labour Party assures you it is a good outcome. The Party has been assuring everybody, at every turn, that it has got it right. At every turn, subsequent scrambling efforts by the Labour Party to fix its many flaws, have resulted in the Labour Party finally saying it has got it right.

When, as the Bill is being voted on through the Committee stage, the Minister of Justice says she can give no advice to the Electoral Commission on how to interpret the ambiguous Clause 80, you cannot possibly have faith in the Bill’s outcome.

There isn’t time to fix it, Roger. We have just a few sitting days left before the end of the year, and the Bill comes into force on 1 January.

It’s all very well to claim rhetorically that that National would never have worked constructively with the Labour Party to get cross-party support on the financing regime. But that is patently untrue, Roger. National made a commitment, long before the Bill was introduced in the House, to work constructively with the Government to place reasonable restrictions on third party expenditure, clarify the use of parliamentary services expenditure in an election campaign, clamp down on excessive anonymous donations, and clamp down on donations from trusts.

Instead of consulting with National, Mark Burton hatched a secret deal with the NZ First and United Future parties. Labour has no official advice advocating the extended election period, has no expert advice on the amounts it is advocating on the third party regime, places no restrictions on donations from trusts, only introduced limits on anonymous donations that coincidentally coincide with Labour’s own anonymous donation fund raising levels from 2005, and leaves the use of parliamentary expenditure in campaigns ambiguous.

Now, Roger, even if Labour had totally ignored the National Party, and gone to the country with an independent group of experts to consult with the public and come up with a policy regime that shares all of the restrictions that we have in the present Bill, I wouldn’t have a problem. At least the process would have been transparent and fair.

But we never had that, Roger. We have a governing party that has written electoral law with its own interests in mind, using a flawed process. Yes, absolutely, that is a hanging offence.
Related Link: IP and PC Raze The Standard

34 comment(s):

Anonymous said...

Hi Zen, um, the merits of the case aside, Roger Nome doesn't write for the standard, and Prick was not responding to anything we'd written.

By all means print his comment, but don't pretend he's in any way 'razing the standard'. Nice title though.

ZenTiger said...

Fair enough. I can't drop that title though, it is just too good. How about "Razing the Standard Bearers"?

PM of NZ said...

Great summary ZT.

Nick C said...

Yes, the left has never really had anything going for itself in this debate anyway. Everything about this bill is a sick joke from the way it has been drafted and forced through to it's actual content. They simply have no retort to a well reasoned comment. All they do have is the negative conotations behind the words "big money" on their side. There is no evidence that one can buy an election.

The people at Kiwiblogblog however dont seem to appreciate IP's intelligence. Perhaps because Robinsod is one of the most foul creatures on the blogshere.

Anonymous said...

Hey Zen, I've gotta agree with Tane on this one. It's a bit like the standard claiming Barnsley Bill is the voice of nzconservative - and we all know you guys are lovely and smart and Bill... Well let's just say Bill isn't quite so lovely and smart. By the way, what's happening to Friday nights? They've seem to have got a bit quiet.

ZenTiger said...

So Roger Nome's opinions (and others, such as Gruela) are not in any way in alignment with The Standard on this issue?

You did offer a weak rejoinder to IP's comments yourself, indicating you don't accept any of IP's views. You seem to think IP is being slippery. I disagree. I think he offered very detailed responses to questions raised the only slipperiness I see is in many of the half baked comments he received in reply.

If buying elections is as easy as the pro EFB camp make out, and therefore seriously limiting the amount of money third parties can spend is going to fix the issue (whilst still not properly addressing the issue of trusts and anonymous donations) then the process to change the electoral finance laws become VERY important, and it is vital we get these changes right.

The process has been bad. It just gets worse. It leaves me with no confidence the public have had full and proper input, given that we only had one round to offer criticism.

With several hundred amendments (150 just dropped recently) since the first paper, their should be another round of public comment at the least.

Instead, its just "push it through and hope it turns out better rather than worse".

That's not the way important laws should be made in this country.

ZenTiger said...

Sorry, forgot to answer your last question: Friday nights have indeed gone very quiet. I'm hoping that it just means more people are spending time away from the computer, ideally with family and friends.

I've been away a bit more than usual, maybe others have too.

But if you are around over the Christmas break, feel free to drop by. We don't need to wear the gloves the whole time!

Anonymous said...

Zen - I hardly think saying "you guys are lovely and smart" is taking the gloves off! I didn't offer IP a real rebuttal because I'm too busy to comment in-depth at the moment and I've had too many experiences in the past where I provide him with a reasoned counter-argument augmented with fact only to have him call me a liar and disengage from the debate. He doe's seem to have picked his game up a bit lately but at the moment I'm still not willing to go to any great effort with him because I expect it to be a waste of my time. Just for the record this has never happened to me on your site and that's why I have respect for you (although that respect surprises some of my colleagues on the left!) I look forward to tomorrow nights free for all.

Anonymous said...

That should be "night's" (I can't believe I missed a possessive apostrophe! Like I said not much time on my hands at the mo'...)

bruddah said...

I visited the (poor) Standard for the first time last night, wondering if the Left had any substantial defence for its behaviour. Their comments revealed a despicable attitude to the Opposition and democracy. In their world, the end (of effective debate) justifies the means. It's an acute case of psychological projection of their Machiavellian, elitist, paranoid delusions onto their straw "hollow men" fantasy.

ZenTiger said...

Zen - I hardly think saying "you guys are lovely and smart" is taking the gloves off!

Hi Robinsod. I simply meant that the Friday Night Free For All is hopefully a time and place of "neutral ground" for us all, an opportunity to speak of things in a more relaxed way.

Maybe that will depend on how hot the flames have been over the week...

Barnsley Bill said...

Robinsod, you would not know a "real rebuttal" if it smashed you in the face. Your puerile filth has lowered the tone on many blogs over the last few months and the sooner your mummy takes your PC privileges away the better for all of us.
IP has been trying to debate you numbnuts for weeks, to no avail as reasoned debate is not why you are all posting. Trying to take the moral high ground when you are siding with the biggest pack of liars and thieves ever to old the treasury benches is a sick joke.

Anonymous said...

you would not know a "real rebuttal" if it smashed you in the face

Bill - this taste for violent imagery is part of the reason you have a reputation as a psychopath. I've defended you on Blogblog - the very least you could do is offer me some civility here.

Barnsley Bill said...

Michael, you have also said some very off colour things about the authors of this blog over at the axis of stupid so get off your high horse mate.
The only people calling me a psychopath is you and the rest of your daisy chain.
I once heard a man say (to a noisy and annoying companion);
"Did you know that it is possible to break your nose with your own mouth"
Think on wee man!

Anonymous said...

Bill - are you trying to prove you are a psycho? I hope for your sake you don't behave like this in the real world.

Barnsley Bill said...

Michael, more to the point, I think it would be more important for you not to behave in "real life" the way you do in the blogosphere.
But of course you haven't been spouting off like this in person have you?

Anonymous said...

Bill - when I'm confronted by psychos in real life I call them on it. Just like I do here. If you met me in person you'd understand why I get away with it (and I suspect you'd be lot more polite to me than you are here).

KG said...

I can't speak for Bill, but going on what you've written here and in other places, if I met you in real life robinson, I'd head for the nearest decontamination station as soon as possible.

Anonymous said...

KG - I'm more than willing to accept your opinion if you can give me some proof. Bill has threated to dismember another commenter, he's threated to break my nose on this thread, he's determined to "out" me for no good reason and he's made consistently racist, sexist and homophobic statements.

Please point out where I have been enven half as vile otherwise I'd suggest you are asking to be tarred with the same brush as him.

Zen - I thought this place had better standards. Frankly I surprised and disappointed by the nature of some of your commenters. Please tell me you don't condone or align yourself with such behaviour.

KG said...

But...I am asking to be tarred with the same brush!
"surprised and disappointed" eh....
I'm sure you'll get over both your surprise and your disappointment--go and have a lie down and a nice soothing cup of tea, petal.

KG said...

oh, and by the way--Bill hasn't "threated" to break your nose on this thread.
Go read what he said again.

Anonymous said...

KG - that's the typical sociopathic response. "I didn't threaten to break your nose because I didn't say so explicitly". I could equally say tell someone they "should be careful not to have a nasty accident in the next couple of days" and then claim that was not a threat. Sociopaths think they are being clever when they make meaningless distinctions like this. They're not.

KG said...

ok--then this quote by you must also be a "typical sociopathic reasponse":

"If you met me in person you'd understand why I get away with it (and I suspect you'd be lot more polite to me than you are here)."

Anonymous said...

No kg - that was not a threat. I don't tolerate aggressive behaviour or hate-speech and it's not in my nature to be intimidated by it.

If you have really followed my comments here and on other blogs you'll note that I will respond to polite and reasoned debate with polite reason. Those who trade in bullying and hatred can expect a more "robust" response.

KG said...

aaaah, I see..
BB would have been so overawed by your intolerance of hate speech if he met you in person that he'd be a lot more polite to you.
And I find people who spout off about "hate speech" tend to be the ones who define whatever speech they find uncomfortable as hate speech.
Very handy term, that.

Anonymous said...

kg - if you can't see how "you'd be going home in a wheelie bin" or "dykocracy" or "smashed you in the face" are hateful then you should perhaps check your moral compass. And if Bill made unprovoked threats against me in person the way he does in the sphere then yes he'd get a smack in the mouth at the very least. I'd expect the same if I behaved like that in the real world also.

Though I must say I'm beginning to suspect you are Bill because I have never seen anyone defend his behaviour before.

Barnsley Bill said...

KG, don't waste your time with Michael. he posts explicitly to get a response. he throws the racism, sexism, homophobia and pyschopath comment at me wherever I post.
He is a chump of little consequence, frankly i am suprised that he is not keeping himself busy on Bebo, bit more his level.

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see now that Bill and KG are the same person (what is the policy on IP checks here).

Bill/KG - The reason I throw that comment at you is that whenever you post you tick one or more of those boxes. When you didn't on blogblog today I engaged with you rationally and politely. I even chided other posters for not giving you a chance. It's simple Bill, if you're nice to people they're nice to you. Sincerely? Do me a favour and have a proper think about that.

KG said...

My moral compass is just fine, thank you. And the day I need it checked it won't be by some mealymouthed lefty I can assure you.
Ok BB. He's not even much fun to prod. We have fiercer rabbits
than him in the Territory.
Smarter too, come to think of it....

Could you get the addy from CR and drop me a line when you have time?

ZenTiger said...

Robinson, there were just two people here that started this thread off on the wrong foot.

There was me, for my tongue in cheek shot at The Standard. You and Tane appeared to take it in good humour, which was appreciated.

There was also you. Your opening comment lobbed a pot shot at BB. He reacted robustly. Not surprising really.

Maybe he didn't have to, and maybe you didn't need to say what you said either.

Maybe this discussion didn't start on my thread, but given you "started it" on this thread, I'm not sure exactly how to respond to your comment: Zen - I thought this place had better standards. Frankly I surprised and disappointed by the nature of some of your commenters. Please tell me you don't condone or align yourself with such behaviour.

Well, no-one has directly offended me, or managed to break my commenting policy as yet, so, like Mallard, if you guys want to engage in a bit of fisticuffs I shall not stop you. You guys are all responsible for yourselves. I'm big on self-defence too.

The sword evidently cuts both ways and will no doubt continue to do so. From where I'm standing, I don't see any right or wrong. Just baggage. So be it, for now.

BTW, I'm pretty sure kg is not BB. And I can pretty much guarantee that Insolent Prick is not DPF. (Was it you that made that call?)

But why aren't we talking about the EFB?

Gee, that EFB. Grrr.

PS: From my own interactions with kg and BB, I personally see a lot to like in these guys. I've also had good interactions with you. There must be hope for all of us? Or I'm a potential referee?

It's probably easier to get off on the right foot if it kept out of one's mouth. (That might not be relevant, but I thought of it just now, so I'm writing it down for the sake of posterity).

Gee, that EFB. Grrr.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough Zen. I'll refrain from taking the piss out of other commenters here without provocation. I think the last place you want to put yourself is acting as a referee for Bill and me.

Oh and I never said IP was DPF.

dad4justice said...

roger nome and stan called me a paedophile and I copped a two week ban from kiwiblog , so what , two weeks on the sewer sub standard starting NOW .

ZenTiger said...

Speaking of sewers, I remember the good old days when I dwelt in that apparent sewer of the blogosphere, Sir Humps. It may have been a sewer to some, but to me it was home. Brings a nostalgic tear to my eye just thinking about it...

Whaleoil said...

KG is definately not BB and IP is definately not DPF.

But Michael Porton is definately Robinson/Robinsod

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.