The supposed hypocrisy of Labour taking donations from Unions as justification against publicly funded elections

56
3

nascar-senetors
An idea that should happen here in NZ for this years election

You know how terrified the Right are at the mere suggestion of removing their advantage via corporate money by the shrillness of their argument…

Labour’s hypocrisy ‘galling’
Prime Minister John Key has launched a scathing attack on Labour Party calls for state-funded election campaigns, saying their “hypocrisy was galling”.

Labour and the Greens have raised it as an alternative to seeking political donations.

It comes after scrutiny of donations and allegations of cash-for-access to Government ministers.

The opposition parties have said it is time to look at the possibility of state funding but Key says the idea won’t find favour with the public.

Today, he told media the opposition’s strategy had finally come to light.

“That’s the agenda here. What’s happened is I think the Labour Party is just struggling to raise money, other than from the unions really.

“I just don’t think they’ve got a direction for the country and what Labour and the Greens are really saying is they want you, the taxpayer, to pay for their election campaign.”

But Key called Labour out, saying their hypocrisy was “galling”.

“The reality is that the unions put hundreds of thousands, if not millions [of dollars], into the Labour Party.

“You can’t tell me that they don’t have direct influence over both educational policy and employment relations policy. It’s gone so far that the unions actually picked David Cunliffe as their leader.”

…let’s just confront this whole Labour gets funded by the Unions stuff shall we? Yes Labour are funded by Unions to ensure a political focus on the rights of workers to counter the hegemonic power imbalance the Right enjoy with their wealthy employer class mates. That means worker rights and the protection of those rights becomes part of Labour’s policy framework.

The Right on the other hand have the interests of the already wealthy foremost in their minds when constructing policy. That means corporations with a vicious 3month view to maximising profits are the influence as opposed to Unions who are focused on social justice and the protection of their members long term well being.

Labour is influenced by social equity, National by profit driven corporate greed. It’s really as simple as that.

Even when considering Unions help fund and shape the Labour Party, that doesn’t in any way detract from the righteousness of publicly funded elections. If we want corporate and foreign money influence out of our political system, simply remove the need for MPs to be open to that influence in the first place.

At a mere $20m based on the current 8 Parties in power, this is a cost worth many times over to inoculate our democracy from corrupting influence.

56 COMMENTS

  1. Ah, so private interests donate THEIR OWN money to National because they perceive National’s policies are beneficial to them, and the Unions donate OTHER peoples money to Labour because they perceive Labour’s policies are beneficial to them.

    The idea that the Unions are motivated by social equity is great comedy. They are motivated by a pathological hatred of private capital and the wealthy and successful, and an irrational fear of economic growth and individual enterprise.

    • Donating to the party, whether National, Labour, or any other party, which one thinks will best represent one’s interests in Parliament seems OK. However, taxpayer funding of political parties seems aimed at discouraging the sleazier type of donation given in return for some sort of political favour, and also to prevent takeover of government by the wealthy.

      • The biggest contributors to political parties are the Unions, not rich people. If favours are exchanged for political donations that is illegal corruption, and will be punished by the rule of law. The only recent case I can recall is the Labour Party MP Taito Philip Field.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:
          May 13, 2014 at 4:49 pm

          The biggest contributors to political parties are the Unions, not rich people.

          That is another of your lies, Anonymous ACT Supporter Intrinsicvalue.

          How do I know this?

          For one thing, the Returns to the Electoral Commission easily disprove that lie.

          Second, you cannot back it up with any facts or citation or links to data.

          Thank you. You’ve shown yourself to be the dishonest troll that you are. 😀

          • You’re right! I’d forgotten how much money Phillip Mills have given to Labour and the Greens.

            • Ah, just kidding.

              In 2011 Labour received notified donations of $105,200 from unions as follows:

              NZ Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union $40,000
              NZ Dairy Workers’ Union $27,200
              Service and Food Workers’ Union $20,000
              NZ Meatworkers’ Union $18,000

              That does not include donations below the threshold.

              The next largest contributor to Labour was $50,00 from the Todd Corporation.
              The largest contributor to Nation was a Susan Chou, $100,000.

              Source http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties-0/party-donations/party-donations-year/2011-party

              • Contd. The largest contributor to Act was Alan Gibbs at $116,000. So, strictly speaking there is one donation larger than those DECLARED by the unions in 2008. However I’m happy to bet that the undeclared donations take the union contribution higher than even My Gibbs.

                • In 2008, the Unions gave $117,500 to labour.

                  The parties highest donors were:

                  Labour: Resource Finance $100,000
                  National: John Key $30,000
                  Act: John Boscowan $100,000

                  • *yawn*

                    So?

                    Union give donations. Big deal. They have no ulterior motives except for the wider good.

                    Corporations give donations for self-interest. Surely this must be fairly clear to even someone like you?

                    • The ‘wider good’? Which if these is the wider good Frank:

                      Holding the country to ransom through strikes.

                      Costing the country substantial sums in lost productivity through strikes.

                      Forcing people to join unions via compulsory membership.

                      Using members funds to support political activity.

                      Failing to comply with NZ law regarding statutory returns.

                      The list of union misbehaviour is long Frank. Unions are a throwback to a darker age, and are now completely irrelevant, which is why much of their past membership voted with their feet.

                    • Your comment says it all Frank.

                      One special interest group (unions) donates and u love it, yet when another does it (companies) you hate it.

                      Says a lot about your brain dead, idelogical lens.

      • The only sleaze here is the sleaze associated by Labour failing to appreciate that ALL parties are equally influenced by their donors, be they private individuals or organisations such as unions.

        And the only problem that labour have, at the moment, is that the current crop of leaders of the Labour Party are so devoid of inspiration, so devoid of charisma and the ability to lead that they are completely unable to attract sufficient funds from outside of their traditional support base. Boo hoo, poor Labour. Stop whinging and get on with making yourself attractive.

    • You off your meds as usual, Anonymous ACT Supporter Intrinsicvalue.

      Your own pathological hatred of anything/anyone other than your precious right wing ideology is common knowledge.

      But the facts remain, and even you can’t lie/obfuscate your way out of a simple reality; corporate funding or donations-for-citizenship are done for self-serving interests.

      That is the Right Wing way. (Hence the phrase, “Greed is Good”, and Margaret Thatcher’s comment that there is no such thing as society – only the Individual and his/her family.)

      Union donations are for the benefit of their collective members; their families; and often for society as a whole. You may not like that fact – but it’s a fact nevertheless.

      In essence, it is no different to a religious group giving a donation to a political party. There is no individual benefit, but a collective benefit (as perceived by the religious group.)

      As for the rest of your rant – time to up your meds. You were positively salivating uncontrollably as you typed your garbage.

      Your trolling was not as subtle as it usually is, foolish man.

      • All funding to political parties is done for self serving interests. Unions give to the Labour Party because Labour give them favours. End of story. There is nothing any more benevolent about unions than private individuals Frank. Unions are self serving, irrelevant, often corrupt organisations that serve no useful purpose.

  2. If publicly funded campaigns are nationwide marketing campaigns, then I’d really rather not have them, rather have both sides pay for their own propaganda.

    However if it restricts action down to an A4 summation of candidate, another for party, another for collective history so on and so forth, by a neutral 3rd party then i’d be all for it.
    I would hate to see even more tax money going to putting politicians smug faces on billboards polluting whats left of NZ’s decaying scenery

  3. Mr Bradbury,

    Like the graphic that you pulled together there for the american guy.

    what would Mr cunliffe’s look like?

    • And more to the point, what would Key’s be like – I’ve a feeling he’d be an outlier.

      • Stuart,

        You make a reasonable point, mr key’s would probably be larger than most.

        Though this would be easy to tell, by looking at the register of interests and donations filed by national.

        Unfortunately i don’t think the same could be said of mr cunliffe. His uniform would have large gaps.

        • Yes that’s true. There would be no gaps on Key, I guess you could say he has completely sold out.

  4. No! No! No! Why have the Left come up with this idea? Taxpayers monies for political advertising is quite enough. Political parties should be left to do their own fundraising how they like. Unions can fund Labour – fine. Corporates can fund the National Party – fine. Dinners with M.P’s, Ministers, or the P.M., frankly I don’t care as long as my money is not being wasted. I doubt the majority of voters would buy into this.

  5. Gosman displays a typical right-wing distorted contempt for unions.

    In Germany the unions ( workers ) collaborate and are a integral part of production, quality and expertise.

    Nationals ‘smash the unions’ approach is anti-worker and the opposite to Germany’s very successful approach.

    National could be described as taking us backwards to something that never worked ………. in the interests of their rich sponsors.

  6. Yup, got National and Act in a fair old panic alright. Well, Act was already in a panic anyway….

  7. How utterly naive. Seemingly, you want to take more of the money I earn, through a thing called hard work (use a dictionary to discover the meaning) and fund an agenda I find repulsive. To categorise corporates in that matter shows your ignorance on all things business. We want to employ people, we want to pay them well, and we want the conditions to do so. Your anti-NZ hate of all things commercial places you at the very extreme of the NZ political sphere.

    Maybe if you worked a little harder, you might get rewarded. I have no desire for more of MY MONEY to go towards you and your ilk. We have provided you with an education, now go and use it

    Coward

    • Fancy signing your name as Coward!

      Still I suppose if you’re not prepared to put your actual name that’s fair enough.

      Actually upon reading the post again I realise now it’s a parody – quite a good one too.

    • Oh, “Insider”, you and your ACT cronies are the height of hypocrisy!

      You call Martyn a “coward” and yet you hide behind a pseudonym?!

      Please keep reminding us why we should take you seriously when you can’t even stand behind your opinions with honesty?!

    • Is this the same ‘insider’ who was telling me 2 weeks ago that Labour were down to 25% in a poll? I think you need to get better inside information.

    • Sorry for the late reply; working hard as usual. There are countless posters on this site who do not give their real name, stop the straw man arguments. And there is a poll out this morning that has Labour in the 20s.

      • That may be so, Insider. But none of them call the author of an article a “coward” when they themselves have no intestinal fortitude to put a name to their opinion.

        I trust that’s crystal clear for you?

  8. …. and here we all thought ‘insiders’ were illegal traders making illegal money on insider trading …..

    The Nat’s have has been very good at carving off chunks of Government money ( taxes ) or asset’s and handing them to business on a plate …. ie : charter schools, private prisons, warner Bro’s, rio tinto etc etc etc.

    That and their attack on workers, unions and the less well off has lead to an explosion of poverty and the fastest growth in inequality between the rich and the poor in New Zealands history.

    Brighter future indeed ……………..

    p.s apologies for confusing IntinsicTroll and his anti-worker/union rant with Gosman up-thread ……

  9. A union is simply an association of workers. Federated Farmers is an association of farmers, the Employers Federation is an association of employers. The right criticize Labour for accepting money from workers associations and workers associations for donating to Labour but think there is nothing wrong from business, employers and farmers associations donating to National. Why is that?

    • Because the right suffer from pathological paranoia when it comes to the word “union”. They prefer euphanisms like guild, association, equity, federation (oh maybe not federation because it reminds them of the old commy Federation of Labour), council (as long as it isn’t the Council of Trade Unions), etc.

  10. I can completely understand where Key is coming from if National set up an organisation to collect money from all owners of business, Management of large corporates etc . Then took that money out of there pay each week. Then at Election time decided to give a big cheque to the National Party to help with the Elections. The left would be screaming and whingeing like mad. However in fact that is what the unions do now. They also do it because they expect to get something out of the Labour party ,and they have control of the party. Double standard yes I believe so

    • No Enoch, you are wrong.

      When corporates donate to the national Party, they do so because they expect a personal benefit.

      When Unions donate, they do so for the benefit of their members; their familuies; and often for society as a whole.

      There is no similarity between corporate cronyism and union donations.

      However, I note that you and other ACT/National supporters have taken to parroting National spin doctor’s meme very quickly.

      • “When Unions donate, they do so for the benefit of their members; their families; and often for society as a whole.”

        Bollocks. Unions expect favours, and they get them. A say in the Labour leadership is one such example.

        • Yes IV, the idea of doing something for the good of society would be a completely foreign concept for you, thats why you have no idea of why people donate money. You are only able to look at it in terms of what is in it for you and assume that everyone does the same. Sad!

          • Favours such as?

            Please, do continue. Tell us what “favours” these are?

            A living wage for low income earners?

            Safety in forests and construction zones?

            Equitable workers’ rights?

            The right not to be exploited and under-paid?

            Is this what “favours” you are referring to, Anonymous ACT Supporter Intrinsicvalue?

            Because I’ll tell you this for free, sunshine; if corporate donors gave their cash for similar reasons, instead of expecting real favours from Ministers (eg; Key having dinner with Skycity bosses before signing off on the deal for a convention centre), I don’t think there would be any stories in the media at the moment. Eh?

            Or is it all a vast global monolithic communist conspiracy, involving all the media corporations in this country – including the privately owned ones??

            As usual, you are offer nothing but clumsy spin. (Aka, bullshit.)

            • Favours the Unions EXPECT, Frank. You aren’t keeping up. By donating to Labour the unions expect favours. A say in the Labour leadership is one example already provided.

              • IntrinsicAct- you still haven’t given any examples. I’d be curious as well to know what you mean by “favours”.

                The union vote you referred to was only 20% of the whole vote. So you’re talking more of your usual Act rubbish. Put up or shut up as they say.

                • I have given an example. The unions get a say in who leads the Labour Party. 20% is a significant say, and the result is Cunliffe is in the unions pockets. That is cash for favours.

          • The unions do little or no ‘good’ any more. They did once, but they are utterly corrupt and irrelevant today.

            • Says someone who doesn’t work for a mingy wage, obviously (aren’t you a house speculator?). When union members get coshy jobs on government boards or preferencial govenment contracts for their companies (that they’ll financially profit from) then you may have a point. As a minimum wage worker unions do a hell of a lot for us!

              • No, I am a landlord, and I run a NZ based international business.

                Unions have ‘purchased’ a say in who is the Labour leader. Unions have ‘purchased’ favours from Labour in the horrendous event Labour may ever get back into Govt. Don’t you worry, these debts will be paid if Labour get back in.

  11. Frank
    In regards to this comment below apart from families being spelt wrong.

    When Unions donate, they do so for the benefit of their members; their familuies; and often for society as a whole.

    The benefit that they expect is that Labour will get them better pay, Better employees rights. So your point is??

    My understanding is that the members don’t vote on the amount given to the Labour party this is done arbitrarily is that correct?

    I don’t believe there is a huge spin by National on this I believe they ask a fair question. I personally don’t want to give any more money to the Government for election spending unless I could say which party it went to. The Government spends very wastefully. I would not want any money going to the Greens, Hone, Kim Dot Con as I seem them as a waste of space ,and not good for the country as a whole.

    • enoch powell says:
      May 14, 2014 at 11:28 am

      Frank
      In regards to this comment below apart from families being spelt wrong.

      When Unions donate, they do so for the benefit of their members; their familuies; and often for society as a whole.

      The benefit that they expect is that Labour will get them better pay, Better employees rights. So your point is??

      My understanding is that the members don’t vote on the amount given to the Labour party this is done arbitrarily is that correct?

      Union membership is voluntary. If they didn’t like their Union executive donating to Labour, they would,

      1. Pass a resolution at their Union AGM,

      2. Change their executive,

      3. Cease their Union membership.

      This is a democratic process. So your conflation with corporate cronyism and citizenship-for-cash is disingenuous.

      I personally don’t want to give any more money to the Government for election spending unless I could say which party it went to. The Government spends very wastefully. I would not want any money going to the Greens, Hone, Kim Dot Con as I seem them as a waste of space ,and not good for the country as a whole.

      Funny, the Nats have given millions to Rio Tinto, the Rugby World Cup, Warner Bros, a golf tournament, China Southern Airlines, etc, etc, etc. Yet, you don’t seem to mind that? (I only ask because you haven’t mentionerd it.)

      Like you, I don’t want my money going to the likes of National, ACT, Dunne, etc. But if the alternative is on-going corporate cronyism with the Nats, then maybe we have no other alternative.

      I sure as hell don’t want us going down the US system when billions are spent on election campaigns whilst 600,000-plus Americans are homeless each year.

      • And I sure as hell think it is totally corrupt that unions give other peoples money to a political party.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:
          May 14, 2014 at 8:04 pm

          And I sure as hell think it is totally corrupt that unions give other peoples money to a political party.

          You can think what you like.

          But as usual, there’s never any real solid evidence for your bullshit. Just more of your ACT rubbish. And not even very convincing at that… 😀

          • “You can think what you like.”

            Well that’s encouraging. The left may be trying to control what we say, but at least we can still think what we like!

  12. I believe it should be totally democratic the union members should be able to vote where the money goes. They should be able to say I want my money going to the National Party beleive it or not there are alot of national party voters in the unions especially Teachers. Im sure the truckies would be voting that way now. It shouldn’t be a given that all the funds go to Labour. If some of the union members want their contribution to go to another party like NZ First or what ever at the moment it isnt a democracy.

    • Enoch – that’s rubbish. Members already have that right at AGMs.

      You are implying that right does not exist – something I find a bit disingenuous on your part. That’s like saying shareholders in companies have no right to elect boardmembers or decide on issues at shareholder meetings.

      Spreading this kind of misleading stuff doesn’t add clarity to the issue. But that’s not your intention, is it?

      • The one problem with your thesis is the bizarre belief that unions are really democratic. The reality is very different.

        • They do share some structural features with the National party, true. But strangely those don’t seem to concern you.

Comments are closed.