- the proposal for taxpayers to fund politicians both to run their offices, and to run for office;
- the proposal to force taxpayers to pay for political parties whose opinions they may well despise;
- the proposal to allow the ruling party to force taxpayers to pay for their election campaigns.
- Labour can't find enough people willing to voluntarily write a cheque to support them.
- The slimy buggers have been caught with their hands in the till so they want to legitimise the theft.
- They've been found breaking the rules that define the difference between democracies and dictatorships, so they want to changing those rules.
- They'd rather have everyone talking about changing the rules rather than how they broke the rules.
RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Darnton v Clark
3 comments:
As a working taxpayer, I already fund treatment for paedophiles, gang members in jail enjoying their televisions and ordered-in KFC, solo mums laying on their backs to breed more brats,IVF treatment for lesbians,a standby income for unemployed arseholes dealing dope etc etc etc.
Why should I also fund the lower life forms who choose politics as a career?
And Jordan, "all voters" don't own the political system.
Tghe rotten political system rolls on and we the people get to choose what we hope is the best of a bad bunch every few years.
The political system is no more "ours" than the justice system.
Accusing someone of arrogance isn't a good look, coming from you.
Jordan:
Yes, it's a simple issue to anyone who actually believes in freedom of association in a civil society, and that political parties should be funded by their supporters NOT the state. And your arrogant and otherworldly confusion of the self-interest of the Labour Party with the 'public good' shows that you're on the wrong side of the argument.
Post a Comment