Hard News: Costly indeed
308 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Per-diems are not the answer; they're legitimising the rort in the same way that national's tax cuts legitimised tax cheating.
I/S ... as Slarty says, that's complete nonsense. Obviously you've never been obliged to spend extended periods away from home working. It's personally expensive not necessarily fun.
@Slarty ...
No, the thing that really depresses me is that there are hundreds of times as many ignorant, envious little fucks out there who will wank on for hours about this trivia as if it was important. But if you actually gave them the job they'd be whining about over-time and days off in lieu and compensation for cash costs and on and on.
Harsh but fair.
I/S, if public service employees suddenly suffered a change in conditions along the lines you suggest, you'd be the first to condemn the evil managers who made the decision.
With all the emotional satisfaction to be had from railing about the issue, I think some people have lost touch with what's reasonable.
-
With all the emotional satisfaction to be had from railing about the issue,
So that smug look on the parade of commentators/talking heads tittering with sly innuendo, and who have obviously got their sex organs in a box - that they only open to check that they are still there - is actually "emotional satisfaction".
One twit was bold enough to call the next election result.
-
@Russell: "With all the emotional satisfaction to be had from railing about the issue, I think some people have lost touch with what's reasonable."
I agree if you mean that some pickings say more about the pickers than about the pickees. I wonder if the pickers are doing so from a political position or a moral position or are they just trying new positions to spice up their umm lives? -
With all the emotional satisfaction to be had from railing about the issue, I think some people have lost touch with what's reasonable
Well put.
-
With all the emotional satisfaction to be had from railing about the issue, I think some people have lost touch with what's reasonable.
*sigh* Well, Annette King of all people actually made a good point -- current and future ministers, of whatever party, are going to be a damn sight more careful knowing that the evil Press Gallery are going to be pouring over their credit card charges every quarter from now on. And who knows, they might actually stop treating scrutiny as some kind of impertinence on the part of the peasantry.
I wonder if the pickers are doing so from a political position or a moral position or are they just trying new positions to spice up their umm lives?
@Ian: I wonder how many of the "pickers" are public employees who know they'd be pilloried, and unemployable, if they even tried that kind of crap on.
-
Chris Carter threatens to take his ball home.
-
Chris Carter threatens to take his ball home.
Oh well, I guess we should be thankful Carolyne Meng-Yee didn't ask Carter and Kaiser if they're into having sex in the shower.
-
I was - and basically still am - very annoyed with Jones, Carter and co, for their stupidity as much as anything.
But if there are more performances like Paul Holmes' on Q&A this morning, I'll be forgiving them faster than they deserve.
By any reasonable measure, our MPs are not noticeably worse than those of other democratic nations. Those who report on the MPs, for our "public" television, clearly are.
Somehow I don't think David Dimbleby or Jeremy Paxman would treat us to a Chris Carter impersonation, complete with pantomime fairy voice.
-
And who knows, they might actually stop treating scrutiny as some kind of impertinence on the part of the peasantry.
Lets hope you are right, and ALL parties take this stance now and in the future, not just to expenses, but to policy put forward as potential legislation as well.
Why do I have my doubts? -
Oh, and to give credit where credit's due Mark Burton calmly responds to a reasonable inquiry:
A two-week trip to Europe by former Defence and Tourism Minister Mark Burton and his wife included a hotel bill of $15,203.46 - including two nights while the Burtons were on holiday elsewhere.
In 2003 the Burtons stayed at the Trafalgar Hilton in 2003 from October 30 until November 11, before heading to Munich for a night, to promote tourism and defence interests.
Cabinet papers show that the first days until November 2 were supposed to be "private travel at your own expense", but Ministerial Services confirmed yesterday that there had been no repayments.
Mr Burton said yesterday that plans had changed, and a new schedule meant he had to attend a series of defence meetings on Friday, the day after they arrived.
He and his wife then travelled to Salisbury for two nights - at their own expense - but their room at the Hilton was kept at a cost of £293.75 a night.
The cost to the taxpayer was $1606 for the empty rooms, using the exchange rate at the time.
"The room was kept because that was the advice we were given. There was no financial advantage to empty the room and then to check back in," Mr Burton said. "To have broken continuous occupancy would have potentially affected the daily rate."
Well, that was relatively painless wasn't it? And based on my own relatively limited experience of the suite life, perfectly sound advice too
-
3410,
Well, that was relatively painless wasn't it?
Actually, no, because the TV news last night simply said that it "cost the taxpayer $1600", so that'll be the impression left with most people.
-
Somehow I don't think David Dimbleby or Jeremy Paxman would treat us to a Chris Carter impersonation, complete with pantomime fairy voice.
Paul Holmes did that?
-
Well, that was relatively painless wasn't it? And based on my own relatively limited experience of the suite life, perfectly sound advice too.
No, not really.
That non-story was the Herald's page three lead, under the headline: 'Empty room charged to ministerial card'.
It's not until the seventh paragraph that we discover that the keeping of the room was apparently a cost-saving decision.
Turn back to the front page. The box at the top right promotes the story with these words:
MORE BIG SPENDERS: EX-MINISTER'S LUXURY JUNKET , with a picture of Burton.
There is, in fact, so such junket, and the story trails off into wittering about $188 in kitchen equipment for Burton's ministerial office in 2004.
But it's not hard to guess what impression will stay with the casual reader.
I'm actually pretty disgusted by that.
-
3410 Yes. You have hit the nail. This has happened all the way through. An accusation made. But without a reasonable reason being published or if done it is ridiculed.
Carters limousine answer should be easily checked but people say, "Nonsense. If it didnn't happen to others then it couldn't happen to him." Slarty I think? -
Turn back to the front page.
It was front page on line all yesterday. 3rd banner but at the front.
-
@Russell:
I didn't see the dead trees Herald yesterday, so really didn't have anything useful to say about the placement or the way the story was teased. But, yeah, I remain impressed by Burton's calm, factual response to a not unreasonable inquiry concerning an apparent discrepency between his schedule and his hotel bill.
No blaming Ministerial Services.
No "you just hate me 'cause I straight" or "red-blooded male" nonsense.
And absolutely no vomit-inducing Bill English "I'm not going to let you jackals destroy my family" crap-ola.
So, I think I'll stand by giving one of the evil Liar-bore Dykeocracy credit where I think it's due. He did it right, IMO, and has no responsibility for how his statement is reported.
-
BTW, would it be unreasonable to suggest that any current or past Minister who thinks the coverage of their expenses is inaccurate or unbalanced has exactly the same recourse to the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority as anyone else? No more, but certainly no less.
-
Yeah because those media standards watchdogs have absolutely spanked liars in the past, haven't they. Journos, presenters and editors will be quaking in their boots.
-
Amidst the Herald editorial's obituary for Jones' leadership aspirations (as if leadership only comes in one flavour) is this detail about Carter's spending I hadn't heard so far:
Most gallingly, he used his ministerial card to buy flowers for Lianne Dalziel after she was sacked as Immigration Minister for lying about having leaked documents to a television channel.
The logic by which he could regard it as a ministerial duty to console a colleague who had sought to deceive the public remains obscure to everybody but him, it appears.
-
Oh look. Cheerful intellectual Kerre Woodham provides a case study in not letting the facts get in the way:
Phil Goff thundered sanctimoniously that Heatley's position went to his head. He'd barely been minister for a year, Phil Goff expostulated, and his sense of entitlement was such that he ordered two bottles of wine with dinner.
Uh no, he expected taxpayers to pay for his wine at his party's annual conference, and the way it was recorded did not seem to match - later explained in detail by the audit office as a misunderstanding involving the Minister's staff.
But getting that right that would require thinking and research of course. Better throw in some blunt digs about Carter's sexuality instead. Let the satisfying talkback sanctimony continue...
-
Cheerful intellectual Kerre Woodham
Rofflenui!
-
Yeah because those media standards watchdogs have absolutely spanked liars in the past, haven't they. Journos, presenters and editors will be quaking in their boots.
*sigh* I've got my issues with both the BSA and the Press Council, but I think Tze-Ming and Keith achieved more by laying complaints to the Press Council over that load of Coddingtonswallop than any number of righteously indignant blog comments.
But, hey, I guess it's much easier for pissy politicians to put their sock-puppets at Kiwibog and the Sub-Standard to work than actually lay a complaint with bodies that have a marginally higher evidentary bar than "wah-wah!, you're BIASED".
-
I'm keen to patent a device that sends a mild electric current through Craig every time he starts a post with "*sigh*". I've got proof of concept, anybody want in?
-
BTW, would it be unreasonable to suggest that any current or past Minister who thinks the coverage of their expenses is inaccurate or unbalanced has exactly the same recourse to the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority as anyone else? No more, but certainly no less.
I suspect it would be a case of front page for the original story, minor retraction for the Press Council finding. Damage still largely done.
I'm surprised that Labour didn't get out in front of this. They must have known this was going to be released this week. Why weren't some ministers making releases a couple of weeks ago so that they could control the story better? This has been awfully played.
-
Gio:
Hey, I'm quite happy to denote my exasperation with some trollish prickery that leads to nothing but an incivil derailment of Tangiwai proportions. But I'm trying to kick the habit, if that's OK with you.
But back on point, am I wrong that politicians have recourse to the Press Council and BSA if they think they've been on the receiving end of inaccurate or unbalanced reporting? Just because the outcomes aren't to Sacha's liking (or mine, come to that), I don't see the case for dismissing the bodies out of hand. I'd respectfully suggest North & South is going to be a damn sight more careful about how it reports "Asian crime" -- and that's down to the thorough spaking it got from the Press Council (thanks to Keith and Tze-Ming and others) NOT righteously indignant comments on blogs.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.