Saturday, November 11, 2006

PAY IT BACK

It always makes my day when I still see some intelligent comments on Kiwiblog. No disrespect against DPF, who at least makes intelligent commentary as opposed to the other right wing blogs out there which offer no new material and just reiterate National Party wank.

"Refusing to pay the GST on the media advertising spending was clearly and unambiguously illegal. Bash [sic] helped to design New Zealand’s current GST policy in the 1980s so it’s hard to imagine that the Nats weren’t aware of this. The Nats should bite the bullet and pay the GST back, and then pay the fine for the overspending. It's the only honourable course of action. Refusing to pay the fine would be like getting a whole pile of illegal drugs on tick and refusing to pay for them would because it would provide evidence for consuming the drugs. What National is essentially trying to do now is say, “oh, we now want to pay for the drugs, but are now aware that doing so would incriminate us, so how about we just change the law so it’s legal to pay the dealer back Sorry, but that just ain’t going to fly with any right minded person."

Phillip John

I'm sure I've just effectively opened the floodgates. Flame away!

16 comments:

Pamziewamzie said...

Yeah I agree, DPF is one of the *less* offensive bloggers.

David Farrar said...

Hopefully not totally inoffensive or I'm wasting my time :-)

Heine said...

The day I regurgitate National Party wank is the day I join the National Party... and as that won't happen I hope you are not including me and my co-bloggers in that unfair appraisal. :)

Now Lulu. Are you saying that Labour will support a move to make it easier for National to pay the GST back without going into the same trouble that Labour got themselves in? Or are you saying that National should pay it back, and then get in trouble for overspending?

I don't need to remind you that National offered to pay it back immediately when they saw their mistake and Labour refused to allow them to do so.

While yes I agree National screwed up and overspent, albeit through the tax part, they are guilty like Labur. What the difference is that Labour deliberately overspent, refused to admit it, and then changed the law to makewhat they did legal.

Totally different. I know what side I'd rather be on. :)

Lulu said...

Hang on Heine, you're making some MASSIVE assumptions there. You claim that Labour deliberately overspent. That is highly disputable, and therefore, the burdern of proof falls on you. What is not to say that Labour genuinly believed what they were doing was within the law? If that is the case, than Labour is perfectly justified in being *slightly* annoyed at having to pay something back that they assumed to be legal.

In my view, both parties made genunine, stupid mistakes and now are facing the consequences. In hindsight it would be better for Labour to pay back the money straight away to retain the confidence of the public, but then hindsight is beautiful thing :)

Heine said...

LOL, sorry Lulu but Labour knew exactly what they were doing. They were warned about this before when they used taxpayers funds to paint up bus shelters with "You're better off with Labour".

Labour aren't stupid, they are a 3rd term Govt and they didn't get there through sheer luck. The pledge cards were the main platform for the Labour campaign and yet non Labour money was used to pay for it.

You do the math, Labour used leadership funds, which we all know are not to be used for campaigning and were caught out.

I do agree with you with one thing, and that is yes Labour should of paid it back right away. They didnt and the polls punished them for it.

However, what is your opinion about Labour changing the law to make what they did legal, and avoiding a messy court case at the same time.

Lulu said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lulu said...

Heine - are you a member of the Labour Party? Didn't think so. You don't have an actual authority to base any of your claims on. I find it highly amusing, that you, while living half way across the world seem to think that you have the knowledge and expertise to comment on a highly complicated issue.

Finally, this is a clear case of right-wingers attempting to turn the entire discussion back onto Labour to get the heat off National. Accept the fact that Labour has moved on from the issue, National however has not. That is the issue that I'm raising in the post, and I would appreciate if you discussed THAT.

David Farrar said...

Labour were warned three weeks before the election that the pledge card had to be included as an election expense. They had the choice of reducing expenditure in other areas to stay within the law, but instead adoptyed a strategy where they actually lied to the Chief Electoral Officer by saying they would include it in their election return and then after the election they reneged on their promise.

Seamonkey Madness said...

Dear God, Red Confectionery has gone off the rails.

It sounds like you went to the same Labour Party conference that MVT went to and were as inspired as she was. Wild guess?

"...are you a member of the Labour Party? Didn't think so. You don't have an actual authority to base any of your claims on....

...Accept the fact that Labour has moved on from the issue, National however has not. That is the issue that I'm raising in the post, and I would appreciate if you discussed THAT."


And that really takes the cake. So unless you are a member of the Labour Party - and not one of the many, long-suffering public - you apparently don't have any authority to form an opinion of your own from the very clear evidence that DPF presented on his blog to come to the conclusion that what Labour did was deliberate.

What we don't know is did National do it as well? If Labour can produce evidence of the same clarity, then maybe you can add some weight to your argument. Instead, what you quote is something that the VRWC could be proud of.

And among all of this Labour are still - what is it now - $1.4 million in debt? And have they made any effort at all to make reparations to the NZ public and restore at least some measure of confidence in the Parliament and if it is possible at all, in Labour?

Heine said...

Ouch, Lulu. Hate to say it, but you got burned.

My advice, because you're all new to this, is to remember that the whole world doesn't revolve around the Labour Party.
They got caught with their pants down and did nothing but make themselves look bad trying to get out of it when a dose of good old fashioned Kiwi honesty would of been enough to put this to bed.

Seamonkey Madness said...

"...while living half way across the world seem to think that you have the knowledge and expertise to comment on a highly complicated issue."

It's called the internet darling. When coupled with reading it and using your brain to come to a logical conclusion, it is quite a powerful tool.

"Finally, this is a clear case of right-wingers attempting to turn the entire discussion back onto Labour to get the heat off National."

Careful! You nearly said 'right-wing bloggers' there.

=)

Heine said...

LOL. Tread carefully, the VRWC are still out and about!

Maria von Trapp said...

We're paying it back. And we are working towards raising the money required to pay it back. That's why I got up at 5am last Saturday to sell raffle tickets for our fabulous Prius.

Unfortunately we don't have a huge resource of anonoymous business backers channelling money through trust accounts to fund our activities.

Actually, no that's fortunate. Am proud to be part of a party where people aren't fearful of being a member.

Oh and National "knew about the EB".

Eat that.

Seamonkey Madness said...

"Eat that."

Let them eat cake huh?

"Am proud to be part of a party where people aren't fearful of being a member."

Are you also proud to be a member of a party which steals in the first place to fund its election campaign?

And do you know why non-Labour party members are sometimes fearful Maria? Because if they aren't following Herr Clark's line, then they get punished for it. Either by a change in the law, a reduction/withdrawal of government funding or a failure to renew a perfectly legitimate contract with a private business that which has been performing better than the equivalent public service.

And on that last reason, perhaps that is why Labour doesn't have any 'anonoymous business backers' funding Labour's 'activities'?

Wake up and smell the banana-flavoured coffee.

Heine said...

Ha ha ha. So should we mention the times when Labour had more anon backers and money pouring in than National?

Clark might be MVT's saviour, but she will not see the damage she has done until Clark flies off when she leaves in 08.

In MVT's world, stealing money from every worker in NZ is far more admirable than individuals giving their own hard worked for money.

Insolent Prick said...

Maria,

Don't be so dishonest. You're on Labour's Governing Council now. You know very well that Labour has over $10 million in assets at its disposal, hidden through various incorporated societies and charitable organisations.

Pay it back now. Stop leeching off the taxpayer.