Reasons to be pleased I live in the country #1

We get to vote for the best people without the complication of party tickets in local body elections and don’t have central government politicians using our money to tell us for whom we should vote.

25 Responses to Reasons to be pleased I live in the country #1

  1. robertguyton says:

    Can you give us your estimate for how much that email cost us Ele?

    Like

  2. pdm says:

    RG – it will cost Auckland Ratepayers tens of millions and perhaps billions of dollars if the people he was cheerleading for get elected.

    I take it from your response that you condone Politicians breaking electoral rules.

    Like

  3. homepaddock says:

    RG – – in money whatever a few minutes of the staff member’s time costs which probably isn’t much.

    Bt it’s not the cost which is the issue, it’s that he broke the rules. MP’s can’t use parliamentary Resources for this purpose.

    Like

  4. David says:

    Hi Ele, I alos live in the country, but I guess in a different part to you. Here we have had central government politicians telling us we don’t know how to use our vote so they have voted for us and installed a junta to run Canterbury.

    Like

  5. robertguyton says:

    Then why say ‘using our money’ Ele?
    You are employing emotive reporting as a dog-whistle.
    Poor form.

    pdm – you ‘take it from my response’ entirely wrong. I only asked for Ele’s estimation of the cost incured to ‘us’. You too have ‘gone emotional’ on the issue. perhaps we should sheet your emotional response to Ele’s emotional reporting – yes?

    Like

  6. homepaddock says:

    Then why say ‘using our money’ Ele?”

    Because it’s against the rules, regardless of how much or how little they spend.

    Like

  7. pdm says:

    RG – If a staff member does it there is a cost and the taxpayer pays for yet another Labour rort. It is not the cost it is the principle.

    Emotion has nothing to do with it.

    Like

  8. robertguyton says:

    It is not the cost it is the principal.

    My point exactly pdm.

    It is not the cost, so using the cost as a headline is cheap 🙂 emotional ploy.

    That’s what I’m saying.
    I suspect other right-wing commenters are using the same cheap emotional ploy.
    Should we check?

    Like

  9. Sally says:

    RG writes, “It is not the cost it is the principal.”

    I think RG needs to take some English and math lessons.

    Like

  10. pdm says:

    RG – what you say is bullshit. When people lie and break the rules there is always a cost. This time as I said earlier the ones who will pay will be the Auckland ratepayers.

    Next year it will be taxpayers and the country cannot afford a Labour government ever again.

    HP -your post is bang on.

    Like

  11. robertguyton says:

    pdm – in her post Ele says ‘using our money to tell us for whom we should vote.’

    Ele doesn’t live in Auckland, so it’s clear she doesn’t mean what you have taken her statement to mean.
    She means ‘all taxpayers money’ am I right Ele?
    But she is wrong to make that point and admits that the cost is minimal (“probably isn’t much’)
    Your ideological claims (“the country cannot afford a Labour government ever again.”) is worthless in regards this post.
    Ele’s post, or at least the ‘cost to us’ claim, is bang-off’.

    Like

  12. robertguyton says:

    Sally – ha! Correct! (in principle).

    Like

  13. homepaddock says:

    “It is not the cost, so using the cost as a headline is cheap emotional ploy”

    The headline doesn’t mention cost nor does the post complain about the amount.

    The issue is not how much of our money was used it’s that it was used at all.

    The amount may be an issue when considering consequences but it doesn’t change the fact that any use of money from the public purse to tell people how to vote breaks the rules.

    Like

  14. Sally says:

    RG is so confused! LOL for us all.

    Like

  15. robertguyton says:

    Ele – you said: “Bt it’s not the cost which is the issue, it’s that he broke the rules.”

    The cost is not the issue, why highlight it?
    (It was highlighted in blue 🙂

    Like

  16. robertguyton says:

    I’m laughing with you Sally!
    (but I’m not confused).

    Like

  17. homepaddock says:

    It’s highlighted because that’s what happenens when you link and the highlighted bit doesn’t mention how much because that’s not the point.

    You’re the only one who seems to find it difficult to understand it’s the principle of using public money not the amount that was used which is the issue.

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    Breakdown –

    “central government politicians” – clear enough.

    “using our money” – you what? Our money? Whose money? How much?

    “to tell us for whom we should vote.” – clear enough.

    Like

  19. homepaddock says:

    “Whose money?” The public’s, taxpayers’, yours and mine, ours.

    “How much?” I don’t know, at no point in the post or subsequent comments have I said I do or that is what matters.

    Which bit of it’s not the amount which is the issue don’t you understand?

    Like

  20. JC says:

    Money is part of it, but much more so is the fact that using public money for this purpose is a corrupt practice and is a continuation of such over the $800,000 corruption, the Owens affair and the attempt to subvert the Electoral Finance Act.

    JC

    Like

  21. robertguyton says:

    “Which bit of it’s not the amount which is the issue don’t you understand?

    “Well this is the easy bit Ele.

    I’ve said that using the phrase ‘using our money’ is a shoddy emotion-charged dog-whistle to your readers.
    If the amount is, as you indicate, inconsequential, then the only reason for using it is to inflame your reader with the emotion-charged thought, ‘our money! The b*stard! That’s our money!!!”
    You might just have easily said ‘and he sent the email through an electronic system that is able to access porn sites!!!.
    Pointless detail that stirs up emotion for effect.
    “Using our money” you needlessly added.
    C wot I mean?

    Like

  22. Angus says:

    I’m missing the point here. How can it be assummed that we are voting for the “best” people because we live in the country. Certainly not the case in Gore District. Definitely, the standard of the GDC has already been raised by the standing down of one urban Gore Cr. But I cannot accept the assumption that the rest are the “best”. Snouts in troughs.Again.

    Like

  23. homepaddock says:

    Angus – I meant that our elections are free from party politcing. Whether or not we’re able to vote for the best people depends on who stands – and that is very much a matter of opinion.

    Like

  24. Neil says:

    Thank you so much for the giant compliment Angus.

    Like

  25. robertguyton says:

    Angus – you are right to be anxious.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: