Skip to main content

Chris Trotter paints Labour as Victim

Chris Trotter's propaganda piece below, published in the Dominion Post today and retyped here for your reading pleasure by yours truly, is attempting to paint Labour as the innocent victim of Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, who maliciously "fined" Labour $800,000 that he knew Labour could not pay back. What a piece of work.
Mushrooms and Toadstools

What are we to make of Labour's plan to have political parties partially funded by the taxpayer? Will NZ democracy be improved, or weakened, by transferring the responsibility for resourcing these crucial electoral organisations from civil society to the state?
The answer, as is so often the case, is both "yes" and "no".

State funding has become a matter of necessity for the Labour Party because of the unprecedented and massive political fines levied on it by the auditor-general in 2006.

Future historians' judgements of the auditor-general's actions will probably differ markedly from those of his contemporaries. They will note with interest - and perhaps a little cynicism - that the parties upon which his findings fell most heavily were those whose voices kept Helen Clark's Government in power.

They will also note the arbitrary character of the decision to restrict his investigation to printed material distributed in the final three months of the 2005 election campaign (thus excluding National's billboards). His legal justification will be critically scrutinised by successive generations of post-graduate law students. It is highly probable that future historians and jurists will be obliged to ask searching questions concerning the auditor-general's rationale for imposing such a crippling penalty on the governing party.

My prediction is that, like Sir John Kerr - the Australian governor-general who dismissed the Labor government of Gough Whitlam in 1975 - the Auditor-general, Kevin Brady, will come to be seen as a man who misconstrued his constitutional duty.

That he is not yet perceived in these terms is largely due to the way he has been lionised and hailed as the "People's Watchdog" by those who led the campaign against his principal victim, Helen Clark. Sadly, this includes a great many of my own profession who, along with all the usual right-wing suspects, somehow managed to convince themselves the 2005 election had been stolen by Labour.

Exactly the same process of demonisation preceded the sacking of Mr Whitlam. In Australia, too, the conservative opposition recklessly abandoned centuries-old parliamentary conventions in a bid to whip up a full-scale political crisis and force an early election.

The key difference, however, is that in this country there is no upper house to deny "supply" to the House of Representatives. (It was the opposition-controlled senate's refusal to pass the government's budget that spurred Sir John Kerr into action.) And while at least one right-wing commentator raised the option of attempting to involve the governor-general in the pledge-card "scandal", National's strategists were confident that the auditor-general's findings, by themselves, would be sufficiently swingeing to destroy Labour's re-election chances in 2008.

Because asking a centre-left political party to find $800,000 in the year immediately following a brutal and extremely expensive election campaign is tantamount to asking it to fight the next election without any funds at all. Labour parties cannot simply hold out their hands to big business and immediately fill their coffers (unless, like the Labour parties of David Lange and Tony Blair, they have already abandoned their democratic principles). If Mr Brady was not aware of that fact when he forced Labour to clean out its accounts, he should have been.

Labour's prospects were made more dire by the fact that National's Australian consultants, Textor-Crosby - certain that they 2005 election would be extremely close - had prevailed upon their client to keep enough money in reserve to fight a second campaign immediately, and without the need for additional fund-raising,

So, if Labour doesn't re-stock its war-chest with the taxpayers' money, the 2008 general election will be the sporting equivalent of the All Black vs Niue. That's because Mr Brady has set Labour the impossible task of raising the equivalent of three general elections-worth of funds in three years. That is, quite simply, a democratic and constitutional outrage. Why should working-class voters be made to suffer for Labour's spending "sins"? Especially when, three years earlier, they were not sins at all?

Long term, however, Labour would be much better advised to reassemble the sort of active mass membership which propelled it to victory in 1935 and 1938.

As the poet A.R.D Fairburn supposedly replied when asked if he favoured the creation of a state literary fund:

The mushroom grows in the open ground
The toadstool under a tree.


Related Link: Trotter from the Ivory Tower of Isengard

Comments

  1. Long term, however, Labour would be much better advised to reassemble the sort of active mass membership which propelled it to victory in 1935 and 1938.

    Love it.

    Because of course the parliamentary labour party almost entirely consists of Academics, Lawyers, Trade Unionists and Gays and various combinations thereof who all of whom have little in common with those they would lord it over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Never let the welfare of the nation get in the way of the survival of the Labour party.
    The party is the people, the people the nation and thus the party is the nation.
    (queue a rousing marching song here.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. That this socialist mouthpiece is paid to produce this utter condescending drivel is a sad commentary on the state of our print media.

    Any self respecting paper would have a real journalist tearing this hack a new one whenever he opens his yap to spout his tired old refrain of the peoples flag.

    Hey Chris communism fell on its arse, turns out its a crap idea that doesn't work. You must have heard, it was in all the papers.

    It just breed power mad, grasping, dishonest megalomaniacs.

    Not having to search too far to find one of those are we.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So will National pay back the $5,000 per month of taxpayers money it paid the guy who designed their billboards? According to the Hollow Men, he was paid out of National's leaders budget (the same budget Labour used for the pledge card) to do nothing more than design advertising material for National's election campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chris:

    I hope you have children one day - because, believe you me, the cries of 'but he didn't it first' and 'everyone else is allowed to' gets real tired, real fast.

    And here's a nice thought experiment: Translate Trotter's little apologia into a corporate CEO complaining that the Commerce Commission, Employment Court and IRD are all part of a vast left-wing conspiracy and it's a matter of public interest that the corporate welfare must flow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good post. It seems some people might have trouble understanding Commie speak - so I've translated it:

    More Courageous Corruption

    ReplyDelete
  7. Even now, some fool still wants to quote The Hollow Book.

    Spare me.

    Pay the stolen 800k back you thieves !

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes the hollow deceptive thieves enjoy breaking the law with callous disrespect for accepted decency standards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh my.....I just realised....you know, Kevin Brady is probably a christian, even a fundamentalist christian.....or perhaps, with a name like his he may even be (shudder) a Catholic....the conspiracy against the only true church, Marxism is expanding....quick lets ban christians from campaigning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're approaching SPAM with your attempt to hijack threads with the same post on as many blogs as you can, Chris.

    What is astonishing is Trotter's presumption that Kevin Brady should have taken into account the fundraising consequences for the Labour Party by making a judgement on the application of the Public Finance Act with regards to spending of public money my political parties.

    What was Brady supposed to do? Say: "Oh, technically Labour misspent $800,000 that it wasn't supposed to, on the last campaign. But since Labour tells people it represents the poor, and since it's awfully hard for a third-term government to come up with new ideas and generate new members, and since Labour's relationship with donors has sunk to the point that it isn't bringing in as much cash as in the past, and since National has many more supporters, it is unfair to hold the only political party that systematically rorted the system at the last election, despite my warnings to all political parties to play by my rules, I'm not going to suggest any sanction."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.