There is probably more to the fine print, or perhaps just an exit clause so if in the unlikely event the government starts investing heavily in evidence based rehabilitation programmes then the private company can back out.
Possibly. My guess is that the prison company said that they could guarantee lower recidivism rates than the public sector, and the negotiators got them to put their money where their mouth was. They may be confident they can do that, regardless of the level of public investment. And I assume any increase in prison budgets to reduce recidivism would go to private prisons too. But it was the National government who made the contract so I don’t trust that they didn’t put in an exit clause to keep their business friends happy.
Parties get public funding for election advertising.
I thought it was basically nothing for parties outside of parliament, but they got $66,000 this election, which really isn’t too bad. Not enough to launch the large-scale advertising campaigns of other parties, though I don’t believe those help democracy. Labour and National both got over a million each anyway.
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
Yes, one way to think about it is that a party has a stance and direction, and people who support that direction will donate so the party can keep doing what they are doing. But if new evidence comes to light, they can’t change policy to match because they risk losing the donations they rely on.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
Possibly. My guess is that the prison company said that they could guarantee lower recidivism rates than the public sector, and the negotiators got them to put their money where their mouth was. They may be confident they can do that, regardless of the level of public investment. And I assume any increase in prison budgets to reduce recidivism would go to private prisons too. But it was the National government who made the contract so I don’t trust that they didn’t put in an exit clause to keep their business friends happy.
I thought it was basically nothing for parties outside of parliament, but they got $66,000 this election, which really isn’t too bad. Not enough to launch the large-scale advertising campaigns of other parties, though I don’t believe those help democracy. Labour and National both got over a million each anyway.
And you’re right, Act might not be worried about appearing corrupt. I’m inclined to think that if a party’s giving donators what they want, there’s a tendency to interpret that as corruption - even if that would have been party policy anyway. But it may well be that they’re worried about their donators looking like hypocrites.
This is my main take though - the motivation of basically all political donators is to attempt to influence government policy one way or another. It’s essentially a bribe. We don’t allow the people who interpret the laws (judges) to be given “donations” by those who are in court. Why should be let them bribe the people who make the laws that decide if they end up in court in the first place?
Yes, one way to think about it is that a party has a stance and direction, and people who support that direction will donate so the party can keep doing what they are doing. But if new evidence comes to light, they can’t change policy to match because they risk losing the donations they rely on.
I fully agree.