Hypocrisy-Watch: Farrar, Defender Of Democracy No More?
David Farrar would have us see him as the knight on white horse riding to democracy’s rescue by fighting the Electoral Finance Bill.
But the mask just slipped. Here’s how Davey would frustrate the processes of our democratically elected Parliament to block a Bill he doesn’t like:
“Hell if it was up to me, I’d file 30,000 amendments and as each one takes a minute to vote on this would add on 500 hours to the debate and they would conclude it in around 30 weeks time. Sure the Clerk’s Office would never ever talk to you again, NZPA would send an assassin after you for forcing them to listen to 30,000 votes and the Whips would lose their voices, but it would effectively kill the bill”
he then praises National for also perverting Parliament’s rules, in a way that is never done, to frustrate a democratic vote:
“They are delaying the bill by actually debating it clause by clause. They have organised their MPs so each MP can speak on seperate clauses. This makes it very hard for the Committee Chair to take a closure motion when MPs can point to speakers who have not yet spoken, clauses not yet debated and amendments not yet considered. Generally only an hour per Part of a Bill will be given but if you do what National has done, you ensure each Part’s debate lasts several hours”
The fact that the majority of MPs, who were voted into their position by the majority of voters (thanks MMP), support this Bill means nothing to National.
And the stupid thing is, of course, the Bill will still pass. All National is doing is wasting Parliament’s time and, therefore, taxpayer money. A case for wastewatch?
December 11, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Compelely agree, dont know what the hell Farrar is on about esspecially when National will win the next election and repel this bill anyway. If you read the thread you will see that I put up a spirited attack against Farrar, and actually found myself agreeing with Tane for once.
National shouldn’t lower it self into the gutter with this subversion of democracy stuff.
December 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm
yeah, it can be scary to find oneself agreeing with someone from the ‘other side’ - I guess it just shows being right isn’t the execlusive domain of one party or ideology.
December 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Yes it was scary, it is very dangerous when a person considers his cause is so right that he can justify previously unjustifiable means such as filibustering. The last time I saw that in New Zealand was when Trotter wrote that Labour taking $850,000 of taxpayers money was justifiable because Nationals policies in 2005 were so incredibly bad.
[Zos says: and two wrongs?]
December 11, 2007 at 3:59 pm
What decisively turned me off of giving my party vote to National was people like farrar. At first glance it’s a fairly poor reason to base a voting decision on, but I was undecided how I was going to vote until I saw the spin, vitriol and childish petulance put out on Kiwiblog. And let’s be clear here, I didn’t need KBB or The Standard’s help to see it. It’s pretty much as plain as daylight. Farrar’s blog is offensive to the centre-left/centre-right mindset.
A few months ago after I first encountered Kiwiblog I thought to myself: I’ll probably swing back around once National puts out some policy and I’ve had time to forget these dickheads.
I was wrong. IP, TDS, 3Bags, Santi, both BBs and the occasional glance at Kiwiblog more or less ensured I won’t be following National this election. Those guys combined have done more to lose the vote of everyone who might read their comments than all of John Key’s apparent weakness. They are decisively offensive.
The more I read crap from the above posters, the more I started to associate it with National and the less forgiving about the gaffs I’ve seen come out of that party.
I wonder how many others encountered Kiwiblog and said to themselves “this crap isn’t for me” and started to distance themselves from National?
Kiwiblog has been a monumental PR cockup and continues to be so. National may have distanced themselves from farrar but he’s still damaging their image on a daily basis. If he was really smart about it he’d give up his very localised version of fame and shut down his blog or attach himself to a party that doesn’t mind going down with him. Perhaps the Republican Party. Although I’m not sure farrar is an improvement over dad4justice.
I’ll finish with this: You know what I’d hate? That if the trolls on here turned out to be some unreal plot by to destroy the right. I would hate to have my faith that humans still have the capacity to be revolting pieces of shit revoked. So here’s to you IP, 3Bags, TDS, Santi and both BBs. Here’s hoping you really are the disgusting, nauseating, disastrous pigs you are online. Thank you for introducing balance and causing so many people to look twice and become inoculated to your revolting far-right fantasies.
December 11, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“decisively offensive”
nail on the head.
“You know what I’d hate?”
yes i’ve often wondered to beany the extent to which that lot are actively trying to derail KBB and Std
KBB and Std are both are probably starting to hurt the bog.
KBB and Std both seem to be getting a bit of traffic from msm journalists (i doubt the bog gets much of that these days).
so a coordinated attack from those threatened by KBB and Std is entirely feasible. i just hope that the minders of both stay vigilant of that sort of tactic, and mindful of how PAS was undermined.
December 11, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Someone from the NZPA has been using the aggregator to browse from work. I got warm fuzzies when I realised someone was potentially finding it useful in a professional sense.
December 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Sorry, the point was: you’re being watched by the MSM.
December 11, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I’ve wondered before (through the hills maggie), about how ideological DPF actually is.
At the last US presidential election he came out luke warm for Bush on the sole basis that it would piss off the liberals. How can anyone who gives a shit about actual politcs, rather than the horse race, think like that? It’s the same deal with the Sillibuster, he thinks it’s clever ’cause it annoys the left (he thinks).
I think it will if anything backfire on the Nats,. it achieves nothing and delays the business of the house, like banning BZP. Which National supporters are more likely to want to see happen. Just saying.
December 11, 2007 at 4:36 pm
“someone was potentially finding it useful in a professional sense”
it’d take a brave msm journalist to start getting too accurate about the substantiated Left arguments, but it will at least weaken their resolve to keep propagating their editors’ lines.
December 11, 2007 at 4:47 pm
You make some good points Nih in your 3.59 post.
I do think you over-estimate the influence of Kiwiblog, though. It’s just a blog, preaching to the choir, like The Standard.
Most people reading political blogs are firmly entrenched in one camp or another from the get-go, and the blogosphere is much more polarised than real-life society is. Extremism is usually welcomed on blogs, and if one is a moderate other posters come after you like a pack of hounds. Such has been my experience, anyway.
This place seems friendlier than most, which is good
December 11, 2007 at 5:03 pm
It really is. And that raises another observation I’ve made. On the leftish blogs, pretty much everyone (apart from the trolls) gets along like a house on fire. Everything is all very constructive and chummy.
However go to any rightish blog and you start seeing trouble. The other day I watched a D4J vs Hinamanu vs Burt vs Tina bitchfest, and they’re all avid right-wingers. They’re always fighting.
Anyone care to expand on what they think that means?
December 11, 2007 at 5:08 pm
puts a lie to the idea that organizing the Left is like herding cats.
really though i think generally the Right are more cohesive because there is a much simpler and homogeneous ideological structure than for the Left. nevertheless i agree the tone between most here is pretty cordial which is grand and to be treasured.
i think those particular rightie bloggers’ frictions are just symptomatic of their unwellness.
December 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm
The right wing blogs now are a model of decorum compared with what they would be like if Key became PM, leading some kind of National/Winston/Dunne/Maori arrangement - a government that would do very little of what the fanatical fringe want.
December 2008: the confidence and supply agreement is announced. A few minutes later, amidst the explosion of rage, Kiwiblog gets its first “At least with Klark you knew where you stood” comment.
December 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Nice prediction. Let’s revisit this in a year if National win.
December 11, 2007 at 6:01 pm
yes it would almost be worth it for the laughs.
December 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The fact that the majority of MPs, who were voted into their position by the majority of voters (thanks MMP), support this Bill means nothing to National.
Surely you can understand that in this situation there is a divergence between the interests of sitting politicans and the electorate when the bill the politicans are voting on gives a significant advantage to their own incumbency.
That’s true for both opposition and the government MPs, and explains why over half the MPs are voting for it in spite of so much opposition from outside the House.
December 11, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Can anyone name a western democracy where incumbants don’t have an advantage?
Seems like a structural perk.
December 11, 2007 at 8:27 pm
—-it’d take a brave msm journalist to start getting too accurate about the substantiated Left arguments, but it will at least weaken their resolve to keep propagating their editors’ lines.—-
Just a general observation, it does amuse me that to Kiwiblog the meeja are leftwing pinko commie lickspittle, while to Kiwiblogblog they are more and more starting to appear as reactionary right-wing apologists. If they’re pissing off both camps, maybe they’re doing something right?
—-I do think you over-estimate the influence of Kiwiblog, though. It’s just a blog, preaching to the choir, like The Standard. —-
Agree with you 100 percent on that, ruth123. I do think it’s easy to lose a little perspective. Having said that, I enjoy KBB and appreciate the far more congenial atmosphere. Can’t say I agree with everything here, but I appreciate the way differing viewpoints are treated (excluding the swamp trolls, of course).
December 11, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Can anyone name a western democracy where incumbants don’t have an advantage?
Of course you are correct: but the point is that in this case the politicians are the ones determining that advantage and therefore they can not be expected to get the balance right.
There are many other ways to go through this process in which something like a right balance might be found. What is happening is that this is being pushed through at short notice with a bare majority among the politicans, the one group with a vested interest, and without the checks and balances an independent commission would bring. I believe you would find this would be opposed by about the same people whoever is sitting in government. Dislodging bad politicians is a good idea, it is something Left and Right can readily agree on: this bill makes that harder.
December 11, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“—-it’d take a brave msm journalist to start getting too accurate about the substantiated Left arguments, but it will at least weaken their resolve to keep propagating their editors’ lines.—-
Just a general observation, it does amuse me that to Kiwiblog the meeja are leftwing pinko commie lickspittle, while to Kiwiblogblog they are more and more starting to appear as reactionary right-wing apologists. If they’re pissing off both camps, maybe they’re doing something right?”
hey wheronui, you would think so but no this is a case where the evidence supports the left. if we take New Zealand as a specific example
firstly virtually all of our media is commercially owned or, if owned by the state, it is run as a crown owned company. this means that the first priority of virtually all our mainstream media is to return a profit to their shareholders, the way they make money is through advertising hence their second priority is advertisers. the interests of advertisers are served better by targeting the largest audience and the audience with the most disposable money (consider the court case where maori tv was born. fascinating stuff). this is more likely to favour a conservative audience and a not minority groups.
secondly a majority of media is owned by companies that have cross market shares (own several papers or even tele and radio etc) or even shares in totally unrelated business (in america the five big media companies also own shares in oil, car companies, white ware etc) this means that media is more responsive to positions that support their owners and shareholders and these positions are generally right wing business friendly ideals. examples of this include this quote from media mogul O’Reily about free market NZ:
“Looking at and participating in the miracle of New Zealand in commerce, I have no doubt whatsoever that the next century will confirm what we already know – that New Zealand has found the economic way of fairness and transparency and a real return on capital; and that because of this, many others are in the process of finding the way to invest in this extraordinary country” read the rest of Rosenberg’s article on foreign media ownership for context
http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Miscellaneous/mediaown.pdf
thirdly our media is largely owned by overseas media companies who will suffer little or no cultural or social effects from decisions made by our representatives- their quality of life will not alter with our public policy. thus their main concern is the profit they gain from our country and their competitiveness drives other outlets that may be new zealand owned.
lastly owners do have editorial impact on their media- nz doesn’t have as many documented examples as america but see rosenbergs article for a couple. owners have been known to fire editors that challenge their viewpoint or threaten their business interests or to only hire those that share similar ideas. they also create a form of unspoken pressure where workers know what is required of them and deliver a conservative product rather than producing material that may rile shareholders.
December 11, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“Can anyone name a western democracy where incumbants don’t have an advantage?”
the german research is the most advanced on this question, they call it the “Chancellor Effect” in terms of the media advantage of the inbumbent.
in recent elections though, this effect seems to have reversed, such that the extra scrutiny incumbents receive from the media works against them, while conversely Oppositions can spout a lot of pie-in-the-sky without their positions being carefully evaluated.
December 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Woah bean - I don’t think I’ve ever seen you that wordy before. Excellent stuff - feel free to be wordy more often!
Re comments above on how we all react to things, it’s interesting isn’t it. ‘Twas Rob Muldoon that motivated me into political activism (though the action came some many years after the impulse, as I was away living in Thatcher’s England). And I must admit that reading KB (which I do about once a month or so) certainly does inspire me to work harder for Labour.