The funding of political parties in democracies is a key aspect of the quality of that democracy, the degree to which the will of the people is represented, and the confidence the public have in the democratic process.
Hi all, I noticed that the read rate was very low for this newsletter, less than 10% of usual. I assumed there had perhaps been a problem sending emails out so I switched the newsletter to "public" from "paid only" to try and force a resend. Just received the following message from Substack so it looks like emails were sending after all, my apologies for any confusion caused.
"We are observing delays in our email statistics, including open rates. Email sending is unaffected. We are working to remediate the problem, and apologize for the inconvenience."
Just like Spark and Vodafone - "apologies for the inconvenience..." Be good if they added, "we have given you an extra week on us" which is what 'remediate' means
It is a pain but they are normally pretty good. No further emails went out in any case, so all the ones that did indicated the newsletter was for paid subscribers only.
Great piece, Nick. And you're right, I joined Labour, and donate to them, for the sane reason as you with the Greens. No party gets everything right, but I'm very happy to associate myself with folks focused on the good of the many rather than the few.
Best analysis of this issue I've seen so far. It annoys me when even my progressive American friends excitedly talk about how much money has been raised in a critical race. That's the wrong measure in most cases.
When I came back to Ōtautahi from the US in the 90s I had a burst of civic excitement - finally being able to vote in the jurisdiction I paid tax in or something. I made appointments to see local MPs of all major parties. The representative of a large conservative party assumed that the only reason I'd want to see them was to donate - a dinner with the PM, access to cabinet ministers etc. It was pure money for influence stuff. No real discussion of policy or vision. At least the Greens wait until you are a member before begging for money :) To the extent any of us have influence in that party, it's generally through our mahi.
At the same time I met with Rod Donald as the local Green. I thought I'd have nothing in common with him (science, business). Instead he asked marvellous questions, was interested in what I did, what the possibilities were for the work I was involved in. I just regret that I didn't join the party right there and then and actually get to work with him. But he did plant a seed, admittedly one that took 20 years to germinate.
Very clear statement of the realities of what transparency should look like Nick. It is essential that we do not become like the USA where the corporations buy their candidates. I am quite happy to state I donate to the Labour Party and have always followed them and yet still admire the Green Party and Te Pati Maori for what they stand for and their politicians. Compare Green Party and Te Pati Maori politicians alongside Act Party ones currently in Parliament and it obvious why we need the current coalition to win next year's election. The other outcome would be a disaster especially for the lower 90% of earners.
Reading the vile comments on Stuff from mostly NACT supporters but not all- the others are people being sucked in to the narrative which is not in any way concern about the state of our water. NACT and so called journalists like Thomas Manch have defined the issue as the government being undemocratic, and trying to sneak legislation through under urgency. And of course the people they blame are" that incompetent liar Jacinda Ardern" and the "Mahoota "woman who has a secret agenda to ensure Māori get control of all water. Eugenie Sage ,and the Greens decided that because NACT had refused to support legislation entrenching water in public ownership a way to achieve entrenchment woud be to change the rules and allow a 60% majority , instead of the 75% which would have to get agreement from all political parties in parliament. It's unfortunate that the debate around Three Waters has been such a dog's breakfast., and that the opposition and again "journalists "have been able to skew the issue. Manch wrote a piece entitled "Make no mistake, Labour knew they were entrenching Three Waters". Labour have never denied that those who were in parliament at the time, and supported Eugenie Sage's proposal to entench Three Waters at 60%, knew what they were doing. Nanaia Mahuta said in parliament yesterday that she first became aware of the proposal to downgrade the requirement for entrenchment when it was presented by Eugenie Sage in parliament. She is supposed to have said "that could work" according to Manch. The response from a gaggle of Constitutional lawyers has been immediate. Mai Chen - a well known Constitutional Law expert appears to be the only one who is quite chilled about the issue, and indicated that the response from her lawyer colleagues, and the government's response to their concerns showed that our democracy actually works. The fearmongering around Māori getting control of water is unfortunate. The Three Waters legislation as proposed will ensure that mana whenua have a place ,and a say over the governance of our water, along with governance responsibilities.If the NACTS block, or reverse this Māori will use the courts to get access to, and some control of water . My understanding is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is "entrenched" within our legal system. Who knows how far the courts will go to honour the legalities of Te Tiriti. The Three Waters legislation is proactive co-governance which binds all of those involved in that governance.
"They represent the policies and values that are important to me, and you can’t ask for more than that in a political party. Well, some people ask for more than that - which is why we’re here." Precisely.
"(Epsom) is certainly not (one person one vote)" I voted Green once - it was called the Values Party and I also made small donations of my (valueless) time
Hi all, I noticed that the read rate was very low for this newsletter, less than 10% of usual. I assumed there had perhaps been a problem sending emails out so I switched the newsletter to "public" from "paid only" to try and force a resend. Just received the following message from Substack so it looks like emails were sending after all, my apologies for any confusion caused.
"We are observing delays in our email statistics, including open rates. Email sending is unaffected. We are working to remediate the problem, and apologize for the inconvenience."
Just like Spark and Vodafone - "apologies for the inconvenience..." Be good if they added, "we have given you an extra week on us" which is what 'remediate' means
It is a pain but they are normally pretty good. No further emails went out in any case, so all the ones that did indicated the newsletter was for paid subscribers only.
Great piece, Nick. And you're right, I joined Labour, and donate to them, for the sane reason as you with the Greens. No party gets everything right, but I'm very happy to associate myself with folks focused on the good of the many rather than the few.
Have a great Friday Eve! Stunner in Nelson.
Best analysis of this issue I've seen so far. It annoys me when even my progressive American friends excitedly talk about how much money has been raised in a critical race. That's the wrong measure in most cases.
When I came back to Ōtautahi from the US in the 90s I had a burst of civic excitement - finally being able to vote in the jurisdiction I paid tax in or something. I made appointments to see local MPs of all major parties. The representative of a large conservative party assumed that the only reason I'd want to see them was to donate - a dinner with the PM, access to cabinet ministers etc. It was pure money for influence stuff. No real discussion of policy or vision. At least the Greens wait until you are a member before begging for money :) To the extent any of us have influence in that party, it's generally through our mahi.
At the same time I met with Rod Donald as the local Green. I thought I'd have nothing in common with him (science, business). Instead he asked marvellous questions, was interested in what I did, what the possibilities were for the work I was involved in. I just regret that I didn't join the party right there and then and actually get to work with him. But he did plant a seed, admittedly one that took 20 years to germinate.
Very clear statement of the realities of what transparency should look like Nick. It is essential that we do not become like the USA where the corporations buy their candidates. I am quite happy to state I donate to the Labour Party and have always followed them and yet still admire the Green Party and Te Pati Maori for what they stand for and their politicians. Compare Green Party and Te Pati Maori politicians alongside Act Party ones currently in Parliament and it obvious why we need the current coalition to win next year's election. The other outcome would be a disaster especially for the lower 90% of earners.
I believe we need to fund the elections from the public purse, no private donations allowed.
I see that graeme hart has been revealed as one of wayne dinosaur brown's bigger backers.
Great piece, Nick, very informative.
Reading the vile comments on Stuff from mostly NACT supporters but not all- the others are people being sucked in to the narrative which is not in any way concern about the state of our water. NACT and so called journalists like Thomas Manch have defined the issue as the government being undemocratic, and trying to sneak legislation through under urgency. And of course the people they blame are" that incompetent liar Jacinda Ardern" and the "Mahoota "woman who has a secret agenda to ensure Māori get control of all water. Eugenie Sage ,and the Greens decided that because NACT had refused to support legislation entrenching water in public ownership a way to achieve entrenchment woud be to change the rules and allow a 60% majority , instead of the 75% which would have to get agreement from all political parties in parliament. It's unfortunate that the debate around Three Waters has been such a dog's breakfast., and that the opposition and again "journalists "have been able to skew the issue. Manch wrote a piece entitled "Make no mistake, Labour knew they were entrenching Three Waters". Labour have never denied that those who were in parliament at the time, and supported Eugenie Sage's proposal to entench Three Waters at 60%, knew what they were doing. Nanaia Mahuta said in parliament yesterday that she first became aware of the proposal to downgrade the requirement for entrenchment when it was presented by Eugenie Sage in parliament. She is supposed to have said "that could work" according to Manch. The response from a gaggle of Constitutional lawyers has been immediate. Mai Chen - a well known Constitutional Law expert appears to be the only one who is quite chilled about the issue, and indicated that the response from her lawyer colleagues, and the government's response to their concerns showed that our democracy actually works. The fearmongering around Māori getting control of water is unfortunate. The Three Waters legislation as proposed will ensure that mana whenua have a place ,and a say over the governance of our water, along with governance responsibilities.If the NACTS block, or reverse this Māori will use the courts to get access to, and some control of water . My understanding is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is "entrenched" within our legal system. Who knows how far the courts will go to honour the legalities of Te Tiriti. The Three Waters legislation is proactive co-governance which binds all of those involved in that governance.
Speaking of democracy Nick this is worth a listen as always:
https://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_instability_capitalisms_constant?utm_campaign=nd_roundup_12072022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=democracyatwork
"They represent the policies and values that are important to me, and you can’t ask for more than that in a political party. Well, some people ask for more than that - which is why we’re here." Precisely.
"(Epsom) is certainly not (one person one vote)" I voted Green once - it was called the Values Party and I also made small donations of my (valueless) time
Speaking of democracy Nick this is worth a listen as always. https://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_instability_capitalisms_constant?utm_campaign=nd_roundup_12072022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=democracyatwork