Speaker: Remembering the Chartists
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
A CEO of a large corporate isn't spending taxpayer dollars. The issue is not one of renumeration, it is about a deliberate and planned legal double dipping for taxpayer dollars whilst lecturing the public about restraint.
The issue is hypocrisy.
-
Did Adam Hunt write this or was it Bill English?
-
I like thoughtful posts. I also like the print media's practice of telling us a little about their Guest Speakers, eg the Herald on Monday told us at the foot of the piece on heavier trucks that
Tim Davin is director of public policy at IPENZ (Engineers New Zealand)
Would Russell or Adam mind doing the same here? I'm guessing that Adam is the person whose submission is on the Royal Commission's site re Auckland governance.
-
Well put sir.
As much as I like watching Bill English squirm at the moment - and on the face of it he does look like he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar - it's a sideshow. Ever since the UK scandal broke, local media have been smacking their lips waiting for their shot at the big time. It appeals to their over-weaned sense of self importance while pandering to the public's dislike and distrust of politicians.
-
If I was expected to work away from home - in Auckland, say - then I would expect the company to pay for it. And if I purchased an apartment in Wellington and rented it out then what business is it of theirs? I'm still living away from home, after all.
But if I moved to Auckland while I maintained a weekend home in Wellington the company would probably pay moving costs and maybe even a lump sum to furnish the new home.
But if asked the company to pay the mortgage on my new family home then they'd laugh in my face. That's just not how it works. Politicians are the only people who get a perk like that and the only reason they have it is because they could give it to themselves without anyone else knowing. A CFO of a properly run company would never get away with this because they wouldn't be able to explain to the board of directors why it was in the comany's interest to pay an employees mortgage. -
3410,
we must rise above our petty, penny-pinching envy
Boy, you really don't get it, do you?
-
Excellent post, Adam. It's good to get the context that we're not paying for some guy's house - we're paying for the services of a professional politician, and that if we didn't, the alternative cost us a lot more.
-
I agree that there are many more important things for us to worry about than accommodation allowances -- and mindful of the damaging impact of media-driven sentiment in Britain. But I've found myself more exercised about this than than I really wanted to be, because the circumstances seem so bloody unusual.
Who made the decisions that led to the house being deemed an official residence and leased back from the English family trust? Why was that avenue then closed off after the Budget? Why has it been difficult to find this out? It just seems odd.
-
A CEO of a large corporate isn't spending taxpayer dollars.
*cough* The words 'stimulus' ring any bells? :)
-
Somewhere in there is the assumption that our representatives are making some kind of sacrifice to serve at our behest.
Bollocks I say. They are in it for the usual reasons. Power, money, recognition, influence, lifestyle etc.
One simple thing is all I ask. You want to represent the people? Set an example and behave in a way you'd want others to behave.
You want a nation of greedy hypocrites who put themselves above their fellows?
Ur doing it rite.
-
It just seems odd.
We're living in odd times. For example, a nothing to see here move along little lumpenproletarians post at PA. Who'da thunk it?
-
Did Adam Hunt write this or was it Bill English?
Ian: It's good form to let a guest taken their coat off and get a drink before you get up in their face and act like a cock.
-
And dumb home-boy common sense is no qualification to judge
intelligence reports (or cerate sentencing rules for that matter).Perhaps if would be better if they were to create or delete rather than cerate
-
We're living in odd times. For example, a nothing to see here move along little lumpenproletarians post at PA. Who'da thunk it?
And who would have thunk you'd do such a good impersonation of the more prickish end of the Kiwibog geek chorus? Anyone actually got some substantive rebuttal or analysis, or should we move along because there's nothing to see?
-
we're paying for the services of a professional politician, and that if we didn't, the alternative cost us a lot more.
Quite right. Politicians are an easy target because they are almost by definition morally and ethically challenged - course voters can take some of the blame for that, we voted 'em in - and undergo years of training to become the pompous hypocrites we see.
But the sense I get from the coverage is that the media was going to hammer away relentlessly on this, regardless of whether anyone broke the rules (or laws).
-
And who would have thunk you'd do such a good impersonation of the more prickish end of the Kiwibog geek chorus? Anyone actually got some substantive rebuttal or analysis, or should we move along because there's nothing to see?
Craig, I know patronising disingenuous spin when I see it. Now toddle off and get your regular bukkake from the likes of Redbaiter, you'll get no joy here.
-
And who would have thunk you'd do such a good impersonation of the more prickish end of the Kiwibog geek chorus? Anyone actually got some substantive rebuttal or analysis, or should we move along because there's nothing to see?
What's to rebut Craig? Seems to me like a jaunty little defence of any MP who dares to take a bit more than they really should. But that's ok cos, crikey, without them we'd all serfs to the rich and powerful elite.
Oh, hang on....
-
We must make it possible for our brightest and best to represent us without having to take a too much of a cut to their personal lifestyle.
Huh? when ministers are earning $240k a year already? what sort of lifestyle are they going to cut down from? If their mortage costs took $60k a year, feeding and clothing the family another $40k cars and toys $40k that still leaves an amount of money for living a personal lifestyle that the average kiwi can only dream of.
English et al are part of a government that campaigned on tax tax cuts north of $50 for the average worker, then canceled them, while keeping the earlier cuts that clear them another $5k a year in the hand and leave most kiwi taxpayers with a few coins. The taxpayer face the cost of increased borrowing to fund those cuts.
They have spent 9 months preaching austerity and the need for kiwis to expect a lower standard of living, all the while maximising to the full the expenses thay can rort of the taxpayer. English can argue to he's blue in the face that altering his trust arrangements was not driven by money but I don't believe him. -
Craig, I know patronising disingenuous spin when I see it. Now toddle off and get your regular bukkake from the likes of Redbaiter, you'll get no joy here.
Thank you for proving my point, Joe -- that's the best Redbaiter impersonation I've seen for a very long time. Meanwhile, it took all of two minutes for someone to launch a drive-by accusation that the author of this post was some kind of sock puppet. For people who love to affect their moral superiority over WhaleOily and Kiwibog, you're not doing a terribly good job of acting any better than the smug, prickish trolls who spastically sneer down anyone who goes off the reservation.
-
And if the job was CFO of a business spending $70 Billion a year, I would expect to be spending well over $2,000 a month on accommodation.
Well that's nonsense.
Any CFO of a 70 billion dollar business that was racking up deficits like NZ is for the next few years would be out on their butt.
And Bill English wouldn't get appointed CFO of a business that size. Microsoft doesn't earn that much in a year FFS.
And we're not a business, we're a country.
-
Well that sure turned vicious quickly, cheers Craig =|
I think the point that an allowance for maintaining a second home is valid certainly stands. It's just that in English's case, it strikes me that his home in Dipton should be regarded as the second home and the allowance applied there. I've been suggesting that a well-constructed and transparent main/second home system (whereby main home is defined as where your family or you spend most of your time perhaps?) seems like the clearer way of doing it. Mr English would have still got his payment, it just would have had much less mud stuck to it.
It does raise issues around paying someone $900 a week for a place in Dipton OR Wellington, but introducing sliding scale payments would just force odd family decisions I think.
-
Am I supposed to have a more eloquent reaction than a visceral 'ewwww' to this particular piece?
Because it's really not happening right now. But I'll keep you posted.
-
Am I supposed to have a more eloquent reaction than a visceral 'ewwww' to this particular piece?
Because it's really not happening right now. But I'll keep you posted.
I feel a game of political Bingo coming on (two squares already - why are you complaining about X when Y is happening, why aren't your properly grateful for what you already have...)
-
Well that sure turned vicious quickly, cheers Craig =|
You're welcome, Gareth -- of course, I was totally out of line throwing around the creepy bukkake cracks. Wait a mo'....
-
Would Russell or Adam mind doing the same here? I'm guessing that Adam is the person whose submission is on the Royal Commission's site re Auckland governance.
Like many PA readers, Adam's a public servant, but writes here in a private capacity. He doesn't work in Wellington and is not affiliated with any political party.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.