Dick Cheny wasn’t on this hunting trip by any chance?
We didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when told that Bill English had claimed that our unassuming little anti-privatisation postcards are part of a “covert campaign” by Labour and the Greens and apparently on a par with the infamous Exclusive Brethren campaign in the 2005 election.
They are not aimed against any particular political party, and they’re certainly not from any political party. CAFCA is not a party and is not affiliated to any - we reserve the right to criticise all of them, and do so
I’m not sure how an organised, national campaign can be unassuming; but nevertheless, this is not the only error of judgement CAFCA makes. Firstly, they failed to register as a third-party; secondly, they organized an anti-privatisation postcard campaign without stating who they were on the postcards.
Obviously, the people at CAFCA haven’t heard of the Electoral Finance Act (EFA). The EFA is clearly designed to stop groups campaigning against a particular policy, without registering first with the government and abiding by a spending cap. So in principle the CAFCA are wrong, but we’re not all that surprised.
Under the EFA, all parties, irrespective of their political alignment, that choose to campaign on an issue that is either supported or denounced by a political party, must either register (and accept all the conditions of doing so – e.g. spending cap, registering with the government) or shut up, and put up. It appears the CAFCA is refusing to do either.
I’m vehemently opposed to the EFA, as most people are, because I personally feel the CAFCA should be able to promote their opinions without any heed or hesitation (even though I think their position is ridiculous). However, under the EFA which was passed by our Parliament (Labour, Progressives, NZ First and the Greens) is law, and the law must be abided by, regardless of who, or why.
I’m almost 100 per cent certain that Bill English doesn’t really care about the CAFA pamphlet. But what National appears to be doing is running a campaign that highlights to everyone how completely unworkable the EFA is. That is why National has taken the EMU to court, and meticulously applied the EFA provisions in all cases, no matter how small. It is a clever campaign to prove to everyone just how ludicrous and unworkable the EFA is – and it appears to be effective
We will not vote for any going back to the failed policy of privatisation which has caused such enormous damage to the economy and community over the past couple of decades. Hands off our assets.
Yes, failed policy of privatisation. Like:
Privatisation has its advantages:
Just because the government has brought back the railways (shudder), doesn’t mean that privatisation has failed. One of the greatest failures of the Soviet Union was that it tried to centralise and control everything.
When will people like the CAFCA learn that socialism just isn’t relevant anymore?
The report by ML does not say that National will privatise ACC. Rather they think National will, and think National ought to. Good on them for voicing their views, but clearly their views are not the same as National’s policy. ML wants National to “privatise” because it is in their best interests for National to do so; this does not mean that National is hiding its ACC policy. Pierson is convinced that because Key hasn’t personally provided him with a pre-released copy of Nationals policy (on anything), therefore National must have none. It’s a simple world according to Pierson.
If Pierson had bothered to take any neutrality in his political scrutiny, he would have realised that National has consistently promoted “opening up competition in ACC”, since well before 1999. In fact it has appeared in every election manifesto, and is not really a surprise to anyone that it might be in the 2008 one; except of course, the Standard (the lot, of whom, are surprised at everything).
Furthermore, National has never used the word “privatisation”. There is a monumental difference between Key’s stance of “introducing private competition” and “privatising” ACC. If you can’t tell the difference, please, for the love of God, don’t say anything.
But you see, Pierson is totally opposed to competition of any kind and would rather that ACC costs billions of dollars to the tax-payer (of which he is not one), without giving NZers a choice. Choice is bad; choice is overrated. He cannot bring himself to respect people’s choices that differ from his own. Pierson despises choice because it leads people away from his perpetually saintly Government – ultimately he hates choice because people would not choose Labour.
The only good thing about this post - is that Pierson didn’t mention Cosby-Textor once. Congrats!
Take a page from Kiwiblogblog’s book, and bite the dust, Pierson.
