There is an obvious point about Labour's justification for the Electoral Finance Bill which needs fleshing out somewhat. Chris Carter's assistant highlights it here when defending Carter's response to an e-mailer;
A spokeswoman for Mr Carter said the question was the minister's standard response to messages against the Electoral Finance Bill.
"He was making a point about people trying to buy elections. He's trying to make the point that the Exclusive Brethren tried to influence the 2005 election secretly."
For Labour 'buying the election' means people spending their own money to influence how other people vote.
It doesn't mean spending taxpayer's money, half of whom do not support them, furnishing bribes to would-be voters. This type of politicking has gone on so long in New Zealand that most people are inured to it. Perhaps we should start pointing out that if those of us opposing the EFB are 'buying elections' then Labour and its lapdogs are 'stealing' them.
Let's just remind ourselves of the many ways this is so;
The whopper 'steal' was of course Working For Families which promised substantial pay-outs to earners and beneficiaries with dependent children. This is costing over $1 billion a year. There are at least 360,000 families benefiting. A very quick guess is non-recipients are paying on average around $6-700 each to fund these fairly secure votes for Labour.
To keep the more secure working-age beneficiary vote (beyond the WFF recipients) costs taxpayers around $4-5,000 each.
Then there are all those people who pay for private health insurance and private schools for their children who fund the votes of those staunch believers in the 'free' public health and education systems.
We have the ongoing and expanding system of health and education funding according to residential decile rating leading to large subsidies for Labour voters.
Other 2005 election bribes included interest free student loans, free 20 hours childcare, increased Super and issuing the Goldcard, Kiwisaver, and Welcome Home loans.
I am guessing next years bribes will include a full years paid parental leave, and some way of capitalising WFF for first home buyers (in the way family benefit used to be able to paid up front for a home deposit).
So the gall of these harping hypocrites who tell us those who oppose them are trying to 'buy elections' is staggering. It shows just how out of touch and removed from reality these redistributive robots are.
And the very worst aspect of it all? Their ideology is steadily diminishing New Zealand's prospects - economically and socially.
The American Voters’ Mandate
30 minutes ago
2 comments:
A friend who was on the losing end of a group discussion about the widespread practice of "borrowing" from the very large company he worked for stated "it is only a racket if you are not in it".
Expect the return of the Labour-led Government.
If we valued talent more in New Zealand, we'd be looking for ways to encourage our brightest students/graduates to live here, instead of emigrating to Australia or other wealthier countries.
Redistributing wealth maybe make some people more comfortable but ultimately it is not creating wealth.
And were are we on the OCED now?
Gloria
Post a Comment