We are you, you need to be them
"Who are these Vision people?" commenters ask.
Here's an idea: they could be you.
It seems to us the Diva has you all right where he wants you. There's "them" and there's "us". And then amongst "us" there's people who seemingly wouldn't care what the Diva did provided he left alone whatever pet project they favour; there are those who just seem to like a good stoush; there are those who seem truly concerned for the future of Wanganui; and there are those who just want to heap scorn upon people who - hilariously - have nothing to do with the blog beyond what they contribute as readers and/or commenters - precisely the same status as those doing the finger-pointing.
There are even a handful of people who have some very odd ideas indeed (a hole in the tinfoil hat letting in all those government death-rays, we suspect).
And so "us" roundly abuse one another while "them" get on with running things their way - and some of us don't even know who most of them are.
So here's a radical proposal: Join them. Take them over. Have them run things the way we believe they ought to be run.
As can be seen from this document Vision Wanganui is a party. And parties have rules. Now, the Diva's record with bringing democracy into the political party process is, shall we say, a tad tarnished. Well alright, it's so rusty bits are falling off.
The first thing he does is stack every available position with the sycophantic and ambitious, the venal and the short-sighted, and occasionally the good-hearted but deluded.
But what if we all put up our hands? Dug into our pockets, found whatever joining fee they're asking, and used our membership cards to attend every meeting?
And at those meetings we made sure that we voted that any "central committee" had very limited powers. That the party as a whole met regularly and was forced, by its very Constitution, to implement policies acceptable to the majority of its members.
Make them us, and us, them. But do it now, while things are at a formative stage, not when a Constitution that suits the Diva's ends is writ in stone and needs a ridiculous majority to change.
It's just like this blog, really. LawsWatch is you, too, not just us. We don't have the resources of the Chronicle but we don't have it's difficulties either. And much as we do take our collective hats off to the reporting staff, who seem to be doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances, we'd pit you against them any day - because there are more of you and many of you have access to better infoprmation.
Unlike the owners of the Chronicle, we can and will publish anything we deem of importance, because we're very difficult to sue and as much as we'd like to be bunged a nice fat wad of ratepayer's cash to run pro-Diva waffle, we'll keep our day jobs and spend as much of our free time as we can right here.
However - and do please note this, because we're very proud of the fact we haven't deleted a comment yet - people's private lives are strictly off limits. Absolutely, and without exception. Everybody's. Provided they live their public life in a fair, honest and democratic manner, we really, truly don't care if someone has had a long-term affair with a goat, and nor should you.
Comments on this post are now closed.
37 comments:
Hear hear.
One of the Visionaries says they all put in $2,000 (or $2500 I forget) each to join. Can't see many of us stumping that up. The doc. makes no mention of how new membership is to be attained.
Either way, good idea Lawswatch. Who's up for it? When do they meet? What are the relevent laws (ha!) governing political parties? Do they have to accept new members even if they might be trojans?
We suspect the $2000 might be just for candidates, to fund the party's overall campaign (with, no doubt, handy leakage into the Mayoral campaign, justified by the "profile" it brought other candidates).
Each candidate also listed a $2,500 campaign contribution from Vision back to them, incidently
That's right. each candidate paid $2500 and vision contributed the same. its on the official expenses forms they all lodged. The candidates didnt subsidise vision, it was the other way round.
So what? All political parties organise, select candidates, raise funds. Have you people not looked lately - we're currently in the midst of an election. And Vision is not the first party to contest Wanganui - it was the Ratepayers Assn under 'Action Wanganui' who funded and promoted a team of six, and had 2 of their number elected. Most of whom it seems now support Vision. I go back to what I said in an earlier blog - it would take a TEAM to have any effect in 2007.
He also asked five other people, I know of,to be in the party but they declined. So we have the B team.
Stupid idea, LawsWatch. They'd see us coming from a million miles away & not let us anywhere near the membership let alone the executive. Are you dumb?
Who did he ask?
No, we're not "dumb". It's like being lunchtime monitor in the playground, running this blog. You there, stop bullying the other children.
It's true, for instance, that Winston has maintained control of the NZ First party apparatus since the outset by personally kneecapping any challengers to party president Doug Woollerton and racing round the country influencing "elections" to the ruling council.
But that's only because the starry-eyed Winston worshippers that make up the membership let him.
No party can deny a person membership on spurious grounds (ref: Electoral Act, Bill of Rights etc) and, once inside in suffcient numbers, you can vote who you like on the executive, provided you have the cojones to stand up to pressure from the "leader".
You don't really understand politics, do you? ANY party can decline the membership of ANY person without giving a reason. The Bill of Rights does not apply because these are private groups. National, Labour, NZ First, the Greens decline members who they suspect don't have their best interests at heart every day. Second, I'm assuming Vision is NOT a legal entity (ie charitable trust, incorporated society, trading company) so it has no corporate identity. Nor is it registered as a political party - it's not required to be. It's a loose gathering of individuals with a common aim much the same as your local darts club or writers group.
I only did one semester of administrative law but the last poster is right. Also, the Bill of Rights only relates to discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. They could decline membership solely on the basis that they didn't like you.
Just as I thought. Set up so as to be that very antithesis of democracy: a private club. if all the above were true Bob Walker wouldn't be in the Labour Party.
Who's Bob Walker?
Can I go back to my query?? Who's Vision - who are the people in it for we uninformed? Are they local Wanganui people or not? Help us out: Vision for Dummies.
First, we're assuming that there is or will be an underlying entity to all this - just as there is a NZ First party and a little-known NZ First Inc (for all sorts of legal reasons, including being able to receive money, so it could sue others if need be etc) - it's a structure followed by most political parties. Heck, even Pauline Hanson was smart enough to figure that one out, and copy it, so we're assuming the Diva is.
Second, while the Electoral Act provides only that candidate selection must be fair (section 71), being denied membership of a political party is potentially an arguable case in several fora.
For start, it's up to the Electoral Commission whether a party is, or stays, registered and registration can be objected to. The problem is, the Commission has no legislative guidelines against which to judge whether a party is behaving itself.
A case with which the Diva would be more familiar was that which was brought after he and Winston cooked the NZ First 1996 party list. One of their defences to the party being sued by disaffected persons in the High Court was that those persons were no longer members when they brought the action. That's a de facto admission that had they been, the party would have acknowledged their standing.
Third, the Bill of Rights protects against discrimination on grounds of "...ethical belief... political opinion..." not just gender, ethnicity and religion - so who knows what the Human Rights Commission might make of a complaint.
Fourth, and most importantly, are you so scared of the Diva you think he has the power to divine your intent when applying to join? It's those evil, piercing eyes, isn't it? They look right into your soul...
Or perhaps he's sent you here to make others give up before they begin to try.
For goodness sake, just join already.
Where and how?
Bob Walker is the president (chairman? fuhrer? generalissimo?) of Vision Wanganui and a member of Labour Party electoral committee.
Anonymous said...
He also asked five other people, I know of,to be in the party but they declined. So we have the B team.
4:03 PM
One being Ross MA-A!!!
"Ethical belief, political opinion" would surely be the things most relevant to your suitability for membership of a particular party. Surely they'd have the right to at least ask the question(s) of applicants. In any event, all they realistically have to do is provide no mechanism for people to join.
Irrespective of all this, word is Laws really got into Tuffy Churton today at his "mayoral" meeting. Bringing up Tuffy's past as though he hasn't got one himself. Hypocrite.
Who are the five? If only they'd known. They could have kneecapped him from the start. Bugger!
It's a good idea but I think it would probably fail. If Laws and Winston could cook the books in Wellington and get away with it then its going to be even easier in Wanganui.
I think the way to get rid of Laws is to go through the back door. Laws is an experienced politician, this will all be water off a ducks back to him.I think he encourages the attention and the attacks because it diverts attention from his real weakness, the other six vision councillors who support him. In this case it's kill the body and the head will die. Lets face it, theirs no sharp knives in that draw. I think we should be putting some pressure on these people.
Are you INSANE? Give Laws some credit, he would never ask Mitchell-Anyon & I'm a supportive blog reader. I will recount a conversation which I overheard at the end of 2003 when I served a coffee to the Dark One and a certain newspaper editor. They both were agreeeing that Mitchell-Anyon was a tool. Sorry, but there you have it.
This Pimpia entry is a pervert. Check her/him out. Probably some bald 50 year old whacking himself off in LA. Fuck off arsehole, this is serious shit. This is about the soul of a city.
I was at the mayoral meeting today. I can confirm: Laws did get stuck into the credibility of Tuffy Churton, the Port of Wanganui promoter. Reckoned he was a bankrupt and, get this, spent a few months in prison last year. That's it, isn't it? Sue the guy for defamation. None of this is true, is it??
I was at the mayoral meeting today. I can confirm: Laws did get stuck into the credibility of Tuffy Churton, the Port of Wanganui promoter. Reckoned he was a bankrupt and, get this, spent a few months in prison last year. That's it, isn't it? Sue the guy for defamation. None of this is true, is it??
Yeah you had me right until the moment you said Laws asked M-A to join Vision. Sure he did. Right after he asked Chas to be his running mate.
Answer the Q: where & how???
Fact: Ross M-A claims to have a hand-written letter signed by the Diva asking him to join Vision. He made this claim in at least one letter to the Chron.
So, while I'm sure you're telling the truth about the conversation you overheard, perhaps it just points to the fact that Michael Laws is all over the place like a mad womans shit.
http://www.michaelformayor.co.nz/columns/040606-column.html
Laws' attack on Tuffy.
However, the PoW scheme rests on firmer ground than Tuffy does. This is typical of Laws. He has turned the project into a popularity contest, instead of the boring serious analysis it deserves. If we can't discuss this issue without dickhead screeching about people's pasts we'll never get anywhere. The project itself looks pretty attractive, which is why Macquarie were prepared to spend $250,000 of their own money on a feasability study.
I have no axe to grind here, beyond what's good for Wanganui.
You didn't happen to overhear any more parts of Maslin(?) and Laws' coffee fuelled chat, by any chance?
:)
Yeah, Ross told me about Laws' letter. So either Ross is hallucinating (possible) or Laws asked him. The balance of probability is that he (Ross) is telling the truth.
But what the hell, ask him yourself.
I'm interested in the Vision thing (sorry couldn't resist). Where do we join? How do we join? If the answer to both of these questions is: "you can't" we have a very funny animal indeed. Can anyone else think of a political party that doesn't want members?
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/how_register_party.html
says you have to have provide "Satisfactory evidence of at least 500 eligible members"
so I guess that means Vision Wanganui isn't registered as a political party. Your concept seems dead in the water, Lawswatch, especially when this http://www.visionwanganui.co.nz/visionwanganui.html
doesn't even tell me how to make a donation.
Simple test: ask Ross Mitchell-Anyon to provide the letter as proof. My bet is that it doesn't exist. From the outset Laws wanted no serving or former councillors on his council team - he took the new broom approach. M-A is bullshitting. But he can restore his reputation by providing the proof.
I've just read this thread to my earlier Q on Tuffy Churton. The answer seems to be that Churton is a bankrupt and did serve time in prison last year as Laws publicly claims. So Laws can't be sued for libel or whatever because it's true! Shit, man - no wonder this Port group has gone nowhere.
I've followed the port issue closely these past months. I've not read anything anywhere about Macquaries putting $250K into it. Again, where's the proof? I'm getting tired of all the unsubstantiated rumours on this blog - good blogs provide the proof too & then the Chron can follow it all up.
Yeah Laws wouldnt want M-A. Ross is big-noting (as he does).
Post a Comment