If National wins ...

[elZorro]

Of course not. Many very average people become wealthy. Application and focus is all that's required.

So that means that if you're not super smart, but are able to apply focus, you could be wealthy, and would also be a National voter?

I see that National relies mostly on its 30,000 members for campaign funds. What they do then, is channel about 80% of the funds needed for each electorate race, direct to the candidates from the central party. This gets around the rules of notifying who has given what, because central party donations of up to $15,000 are exempt from the naming rules. Labour asks each of its electorates to provide almost all the funds for their candidate. Smaller donations have to have the source mentioned.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11409374

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...+February+2015

[fungus pudding]

So that means that if you're not super smart, but are able to apply focus, you could be wealthy, and would also be a National voter?

It does? Not sure why that labels them a National voter, or a voter at all.

[iceman]

Not true EZ. Much of Labour's funds is taken by stealth and channeled throgh Unions with no reference to the contributor of the funds. By the way, this is yet ankther non issue for Labour to focus on !

Labour asks each of its electorates to provide almost all the funds for their candidate. Smaller donations have to have the source mentioned.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11409374

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...+February+2015

[elZorro]

Not true EZ. Much of Labour's funds is taken by stealth and channeled throgh Unions with no reference to the contributor of the funds. By the way, this is yet ankther non issue for Labour to focus on !

Not true Iceman. The EPMU, one of the biggest unions, funded Labour with just $60,000 in mid-2014. That's $1.71 per member. Note that John Key is one person who puffs that up, and you shouldn't believe everything he says. Major political parties would probably burn through $1mill in operational costs per year, at least. Election campaigns are extra.

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/epmu-i...#axzz3T4gTjEhN

I am axshually quite impressed that National has 30,000 members, that is considerably higher than Labour's count at the moment. I can see the extra benefit that conveys in using the party donation limit rules.

I know the local Labour electorate had some trouble raising donations. It was a bit disorganised, sure, but there just wasn't the full support from those who were approached. If funds had come through for 80% of it from Head Office (there is a maximum that can be spent) it would have been a lot easier.

So National have got this important part of the funding battle spot on, but if any major party in NZ should be funded mostly from member donations, rather than business owners and wealthy families, it is Labour.

[Major von Tempsky]

Whale Oil is quite right in his analysis of Labour's fund raising problem. He notes that Mike Williams (Fat Tony) was the last Labour President willing to do the hard yards of actually going around, chatting people up, maintaining contacts, shaking hands and asking for donations. As long as Labour keeps electing Ivory Tower theoretical hands-off bods without any common touch their fund raising efforts will continue to be abysmal.

[elZorro]

Whale Oil is quite right in his analysis of Labour's fund raising problem. He notes that Mike Williams (Fat Tony) was the last Labour President willing to do the hard yards of actually going around, chatting people up, maintaining contacts, shaking hands and asking for donations. As long as Labour keeps electing Ivory Tower theoretical hands-off bods without any common touch their fund raising efforts will continue to be abysmal.

Labour shouldn't need any big donations like that, at all. It should come mostly from ordinary families and other working people putting a little bit into the kitty each month. It's quite do-able.

MVT, you're just parroting C-T stories again. They're a bit worried about the new guru, Nigel Haworth as President of the Labour Party.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11409340

[elZorro]

Gareth "I should be paying more tax" Morgan on bolt-holes, etc. I wouldn't think there were enough bolt-holes to make an appreciable difference to our tax base. On the other hand, if selling a business for a few hundred million attracted tax, that would help.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/74...y+2+March+2015

[artemis]

Labour shouldn't need any big donations like that, at all. It should come mostly from ordinary families and other working people putting a little bit into the kitty each month. It's quite do-able......

Can't help but think that Labour is targeting a constituency that no longer exists. Mr Little had the right idea when he talked of targeting small business voters, of which there are many. Though I'd like to see the policies.

[elZorro]

Can't help but think that Labour is targeting a constituency that no longer exists. Mr Little had the right idea when he talked of targeting small business voters, of which there are many. Though I'd like to see the policies.

I agree Artemis, there could be some donations from small business, much more likely to be aligned with Labour. These are people who have not forgotten what it is like to be an employee. And sometimes their customers make them feel like they are still employees..

So it would make sense for Labour candidates to heavily canvass retail businesses, owners and employees who talk to lots of people every day. But do they?

I have just looked at some of the Candidate returns. One I saw, the only donation that Louise Upston had to notify, was $29,000 odd, straight from the National Party. What a .. liberty! By comparison, Labour candidates were usually as poor as churchmice.

Note that while he may have been dynamic etc, Stuart Nash was bankrolled far more than any other Labour candidate. Is there a picture emerging, I wonder?

[Major von Tempsky]

About as worried as we were about Moira Coatsworth, snigger, snigger. Nigel H is a non event. Bring back Mike Williams and we will worry.

Some posters about Northland are missing some very obvious points.

Take out the Northern Maori electorate whatever it's called these days, take out the poor whites and Pacific Islanders who can't be bothered enrolling and/or voting and you have a very strong farmers National seat. Winston is not a good electorate man, he lost in Northland before, he's lost in Tauranga (twice?) which he used to hold as electorate MP, even the media can see it's very unlikely to be an upset.