I'll never buy the salary argument. Where should it start and stop? Why not taxis, meals, etc. Yes it is a good salary, but it is their money once it is paid and I don't want politics to be dominated by those who can afford to throw their own money at it in order to be successful.
I agree you should be reasonable, but I do not think it unreasonable for a person to have a drink the evening when travelling for work.
Now, how much you should spend and whether you should do so at a Party Conference is another question. Examples of how some very poor behaviour by some spoil things for the majority of reasonable people.
I may have to give this politician thing a go. If you can operate as a Minister after downing a bottle of whiskey the night before, how hard can it be?
or alcohol at party conference dinners
I don't really get the alcohol thing. When I travel for work, I always charge the entire cost of a meal, including any booze. I try not to go overboard, obviously.
Not sure why we expect politicians to subsidise their work requirements (schmoozing) with their personal cash.
I don't remember all the details at the time, but do remember feeling a little sorry for these people who are expected to serve SIGNIFICANT time away from their families and the public thought it outrageous for them to be bought a drink.
Anyway, not trying to threadjack, so moving on...
Let's not get too carried away. This is politics we are talking about.
So we have to buy our way out of it? How depressing.
So far (though I guess to an admittedly casual observer and Cunliffe supporter), Cunliffe is the only one who seems able to emphatically answer hard questions.
Will you raise taxes? Hell yeah
Will you remain bound to the Sky City deal? Parliament is sovereign
I don't sense the same from the other two yet.
Probably, but the Greens for me need to translate their stellar poll showings into actual election results. We never really know what they will bring to the party until the night.
On current numbers, Labour won't have any choice. The 'left' block only looks meaningful when you add the Greens and Labour together. Divided, they are both also-rans.
The question which I always come back to is who will Green/Labour have to deal with to get over the line.
But she lost that marginal seat in the context of an election where her party had lost the national debate. I would think losing a marginal seat when your party has won the day should be more indicative of some failing.
I'm in the Cunliffe camp, though I am not truly in any camp, not being a member any more. Would possibly re-join if he were at the helm.
Wow, 8 pages and not a single advocate for the traditional approach? I'm starting to worry that I may be on the wrong website. All these years as a loyal Public Address reader (and even VERY occasional poster) and it turns out I may better belong over at Kiwiblog? Please someone tell me it aint so.
I (think possibly I) recognise the selfishness of it, but it was always important to me that my wife would take my name. In my younger (less mature) years I may have gone so far as to call it a show-stopper - though that was never tested.
It may stem from the fact that from a very young age it was impressed upon me by my grandmother that my role was to carry on my (father's, admittedly) family name. Even as an adult, I could recognise the silliness of that, but it has always weighed on me nevertheless.
I also felt that I wanted to create a strong sense of family and that we all had to have the same name to do that (and, it had to be mine - yes, the less defensible part).
I had one girlfriend who always swore she would not take the name of her husband and what seemed to me to be driving it was her strong connection to her own family. My response was always that I wanted to create that strong connection in my own kids. Always wondered how that would have ended up had we stayed together.
Anywho - no real reason to post except to add to the myriad of approaches recorded I guess. One poster who preferred the traditional approach (as flawed as it may be).
Were I to have my time over, it most certainly would not be a show-stopper. Even the most immature 20 something year old can grow up eventually - though I would always be a little sad on the inside.
Yep, I agree there is a need to address Maori Trust owned land - that is tricky. And conservation land as well, and I am sure there are others. There would be SOME exemptions. Though I'm not sure how they would be chosen. There are Maori trusts in the North Island who make a lot of money from their land.
But in some ways, it just speaks to the need to be able to accurately value the land (in pakeha economic terms, for this purpose!). If it has very low economic value, the cost of the impost will reflect that.