Greens Are Nasty Not Nice

The so called "nice" party have once again proven that just under the services they're actually nasty and dangerous:

"On Sunday night, about 700 National Party billboards across the country were altered by activists who fixed new slogans over the billboards."

"The Greens had previously denied involvement, however, Dr Norman told media this morning Green Party member Jolyon White, the partner of Dr Norman's executive assistant, was the person who coordinated the defacing."

Russel Norman has already changed his story from "the Greens had no involvement" to "the actions are those of individuals, not the Green Party" and is claiming he had no idea about it, despite it being the partner of his EA who organised the crime.

My first thought about this story was the similarity to the Exclusive Brethren in 2005, when the Exclusive Brethren told Don Brash they would be making some leaflets to distribute to warm people about the Green's policies.

The Greens later claimed that Don Brash was behind the entire thing and that he lied when he said he didn't recognise the leaflets (what, they thought he designed them for the Exclusive Brethren too?).

But then I realised - the Exclusive Brethren paid for their own leaflets, distributed them all themselves, and broke no rules or laws while expressing their own political opinion.

By contrast, the Green Party have been plotting this crime since at least October, secretly defaced private property under cover of darkness and blatantly ignored electoral law.

I wonder whether the media will hound the Green Party about their nasty behaviour for the last two weeks of the campaign - or does that only happen to right wing politicians?

UPDATE: Russel Normal has admitted that his EA (not just the EA's partner) has known about this planned crime for months, but still claims he had no idea about it.

UPDATE II: The Greens are down 2% on iPredict today already - that's 3 MPs gone for them.

File Attachments: 

US Version Of The Electoral Finance Act Struck Down

The US Supreme Court has today voted 8-1 and 5-4 to strike down various campaign finance restrictions on US elections, including the infamous McCain-Feingold law.

The laws banned spending that was seen to "influence" a vote in any way or that could "potentially" rather than actually lead to corruption, but contained exceptions for unions' spending - very reminiscent of the Electoral Finance Act here in New Zealand.

One organisation has already announced its plans to run a campaign against "earmarks" at the 2010 election.

[Via WSJ]

Book Not Published Because Of EFA

Labour Chinese candidate and lawyer Raymond Huo - who had planned to launch a book to help Chinese understand politics and the media before the elections - says it will now be one of the first things he will do when he gets into Parliament. Mr Huo, a former Herald reporter, said one of the big struggles for immigrants from China is to understand New Zealand's politics, law and media, which is why he plans to write a bilingual book to help them. The book, called Immigration Quartet, will discuss current affairs, media reports and New Zealand law. "Through my own analysis, I will explain, for example, why the Premier in China has a guaranteed front page there and why it won't happen in New Zealand," he said. "It is good for the community to understand so if they see the Herald run a story that is not particularly favourable to the Labour Party, it does not mean the Government is in trouble." He had hoped he could get the book out before the election, because "it would be a substantial business card for me ... but I just haven't got time". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10537952 I call bullshit. There's only one reason why the book hasn't been published yet. The Electoral Finance Act.