Speaker: Remembering the Chartists
269 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
You're welcome, Gareth -- of course, I was totally out of line throwing around the creepy bukkake cracks. Wait a mo'....
Ahem. Perhaps everyone could chill a bit. And Craig, it's not as if you haven't used challenging imagery, including the b-word, yourself.
-
But if I moved to Auckland ...
On a 3 year fixed term contract ?
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.
True, but they may give you an accomodation allowance that you could spend as you saw fit depending on you family circumstances.
still leaves an amount of money for living a personal lifestyle that the average kiwi
I think one of the poster's points though was that we don't want the average kiwi running the country we want the best and brightest.
Have to agree with Russell though, there's something a bit iffy about the English rule change. It's looking a bit like Dan Carter sabbatical in France rule.
-
we don't want the average kiwi running the country we want the best and brightest
And if you earn more, you're by definition 'better', right? Oh wait...
(Lucy, that's exactly it.)
-
Anyway, isn't Adam really setting up a bit of a straw person here: Don't recall anyone saying MPs shouldn't be paid, let alone that a great leap backwards to the 19th century would be a good idea. I'm a huge fan of Anthony Trollope's Palliser/parliamentary novels, but I'm not too sentimental about the idea of requiring a large fortune (or the somewhat dubious patronage of someone who has) to get into Parliament.
And the comparisons with the private sector are somewhat strained as well -- especially when shareholders are developing a certain impatience with corporate bosses giving themselves lavish bonuses with one hand while signing stacks of pink slips with the other, as they head off to beg legislators for 'stimulus' bailouts because the value of their companies has corpsed.
-
I think that this from Andy needs repeating:
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.
as it may have got lost in the Craig/Joe sideshow.
It seems that English has been preaching belt-tightening for everyone but himself.
-
English is found to have his snout a little deeper in the trough than most - while dictating austerity for all.
The trough-snouting is endemic on both sides, as Craig will keep reminding everyone until various bovines revert to their domestic abode (maybe to their second homes?), but this is some blatant hypocrisy. The Nats could certainly earn a few brownie points by doing a quick about-face & cutting the double-dipping out but we all know how likely that is, eh?
I guess being on the opposition benches all that time has made them feel somewhat entitled now that they have finally gained the treasury benches, but did they think no-one would notice?
-
The post starts by explaining that the Chartists wanted to pay MPs so that ordinary folk could become MPs. It seems to end by saying that we should pay MPs lots of money so that rich folk want to become MPs.
-
I think one of the poster's points though was that we don't want the average kiwi running the country we want the best and brightest.
With all due respect, I don't believe our best and brightest are the majority in parliament.
The best and brightest likely do a runner either for better opportunities or in embarrassment.
-
Have to agree with Russell though, there's something a bit iffy about the English rule change. It's looking a bit like Dan Carter sabbatical in France rule.
And I feel bound to observe that had the shoe been on the other foot, certain other blogs would have been going seven shades of ballistic.
It's worth remembering that Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle were stood down and subjected to an official inquiry for doing what now appears to be common practice.
At the time of their troubles, National was demanding their resignation. They were openly accused of fraud. Even though they were cleared (Hobbs more than Bunkle, frankly) David Farrar still lists both of them on a "roll of dishonour". It's a bit bloody rich.
-
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...)
The problem is it's hard enough to get engaged in the political process at the best of times.
Going to be damn near impossible if travel receipts and rental allowances are the main political issue for the next month, and then every three months after that. If more transparency comes as a result, great. But endless populist tub thumping because all politicians are bastards is a good way to guarantee only populists and bastards run for parliament.
-
The Nats could certainly earn a few brownie points by doing a quick about-face & cutting the double-dipping out but we all know how likely that is, eh?
Stewart: I wouldn't underestimate the motivational value of a mega-dose of good old-fashioned shaming. Russell is quite right that comparisons with Moatgate in the UK need to be made carefully, but the Brits sure managed to get moving once they realised the issue wasn't going away, and nobody was going to get away without a egg facial.
The trough-snouting is endemic on both sides, as Craig will keep reminding everyone
Up to a point, Stewart. I just think its worth noting that this didn't just happen -- and in my view, the rules have been loaded with *cough* strategic ambiguities for a very long time, and with the happy collusion of MPs from all sides of the House for a lot of years. If Key and Goff want to retract the pointing fingers and get serious about fixing things, I'll give credit where its due and would like to sooner rather than later.
-
And if you earn more, you're by definition 'better', right?
No, but it you are 'better' you quite possibly deserve to earn more.
With all due respect, I don't believe our best and brightest are the majority in parliament.
correct
-
Kyle:
And we're not a business, we're a country.
Unfortunately there are those who suffer from the delusion that dictates otherwise. Chances are they'll find themselves fighting a shareholder revolt on one front, and bossnappings on the other.
-
I have no problem with Adam's historical reminder of the growth of Parliamentary system. Interesting. Pleased to be in a country that does a pretty good job of running democracy. However Mark then makes the jump at the end which says to me that I should be grateful enough to ignore discrepencies. What was the saying about "eternal vigilance" ?
-
And I feel bound to observe that had the shoe been on the other foot, certain other blogs would have been going seven shades of ballistic.
I also feel bound to point out that if we're thinking of the same "certain other blogs", that's a base line buried at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. :)
-
Thanks a lot Adam for the interesting history lesson. It is not something I'm familiar with, and it's interesting to know.
However, like others here, I do not begrudge the MPs their salaries because they need to be paid well to encourage skillful people to become MPs. But based on the evidence I've seen thus far, English's actions appear to be a rort to gain himself more dollars than those to which he should have been entitled.
If this is within the rules, then I think that Mr English, instead of taking advantage of the inadequate rules, should have modified the rules to make them work better.
And the hypocrisy makes it even worse ...
Cheers,
Brent. -
Running a country is very, very complicated. It needs smart people. Just like I want the surgeon about to operate on me to be an elite expert, I want the person looking after my interests to be intelligent, educated and open minded.
Surely to get those people we would need to employ them rather than have an election?
-
The thing that gets me about various justifications for the high remuneration for MPs is this notion that it's required in order to get the best people, as though all the best people are the ones who currently make a lot of money.
I reckon there are a lot of people who have the intelligence and judgement to be in Parliament who are paid far, far less than an MP, because they are already in jobs where they serve the community rather than being in business for themselves.
I don't necessarily mind people being paid a lot to be an MP, but I do mind the implication that only the financial high flyers deserve to be one. If you're on a half million a year, and you have to take a 50% pay cut, well, the nation thanks you for your sacrifice. If you don't like it, I'm sure we could find a teacher, or a scientist, or a GP, or perhaps a plumber, and they'll do the job just as well -- and maybe better.
-
With all due respect, I don't believe our best and brightest are the majority in parliament.
Oh, God help me, but I'm going to be the least cynical person in the room here. If you want to say the House of Representatives has its share of hacks, seat-warmers, oxygen-thieves and outright crazies who couldn't organize an orgy at a sex addicts' convention I'd be hard put to refute the charge. But couldn't you say the same about any other occupational group or workplace?
-
It seems to me that the intersection of politics and trusts is continually an issue in NZ - largely because of the secrecy they allow.
Why else do you have a family trust unless you're trying to avoid some tax somewhere?
Perhaps we need a bit of trust busting - start by requiring them all to file yearly public financial returns on the trusts website
-
Sure Craig, it was two-sided tango etc so shouldn't have lumped you alone. But yeah, interesting discussion, shame to see it potentially derailed so fast.
Would anyone be complaining if English was getting $900 a week to keep the Dipton place as his electorate house though? I would think no, or certainly much less. So perhaps he's just guilty of putting the wrong address on his Pork Form 17(b).
(Or more likely the rules aren't setup that way). -
Craig, I know you want to stick up for the Blue Team, but do you think most of them would recognise shame if it jumped up and nipped their dangly-bits? (not saying the Red Team is significantly better).
If they could feel the shame and make some show of redress then you are quite right. And the UK's "Moatgate" showed, as a similar enquiry likely would here, that there was fault on both teams behalf.As you say, it has developed over a considerable period and is not a recent or partisan phenomenon, but there is no reason not to pull their collective heads in, admit to maximising their own reimbursement while playing the austerity card, and make an attempt to put this shameful matter to bed. A big mea culpa would go down well in the public's eyes.
-
Democracies cost money to run, and I agree with the general thrust of Adam's post: it's reasonable to pay an MP for the costs associated with being an MP.
The problem I have is with the administrative gymnastics required to obtain the position that English's family actually live in Dipton. Like Russell, I'm interested in why he kicked away the ladder in the Budget. It all seems very odd. However, it does appear that the restructuring of the trust may be a red herring because political reporters have pointed out that he was able to claim the $900 regardless of the structure.
Unlike parliament, ministers are subject to the OIA, so I expect some pretty interesting information to appear in the next few weeks.
I can understand National's chagrin, though. The foxes had been in charge of the henhouse so long, this kind of behaviour was probably accepted as normal. And then, after Nine Long Years (tm), National finally get their go at this particular trough, and it all goes septic in the UK and the Greens outfox them by releasing their own costs.
I think the media reaction has been reasonable, though. Any MP who is on the high end of expenditure has been asked to justify themselves - and no, Roger, legal entitlement != justified - and I think public accountability is A Good Thing.
Finally, did anyone else get miffed at Key's suggestion that they needed to pay their ministers the extra $48K/yr otherwise their marriages might suffer ? Removing support for disabled schoolkids is surely going to add stress to the parents' relationships, and they don't have a >200K income to fall back on. OTOH, you've got to make sacrifices to find the 35m for private schools, don't you ?
-
Excellent post. We want a competent and professional government. Cutting back on its employees renumeration is not what we are looking for. The Chartist argument stands up today.
If we shout too loudly about the expenses National may conduct a review that does something about it. Where will we be then? By enforcing some austerity amoung politicians they could achieve two things: "fix" a legacy problem from the past 9 years of Labour and promote themselves moral when tackling expenses in a "bloated, expansionist" civil service.
And there is no possible payout for Labour. National ministers take flack for recently detailed expenses; Labour did not detail expenses. National ministers exposed as maximising benefit payouts under Labour government rules; Labour minister demands bribes be paid for undertaking duties.
-
Blimey am I the only dimwit who had to look up the b-word.
What really gets up my nose about all this, really gets up my nose is the whole English "move along folks, nothing to see here" response. Damn it, Mr English, you are an elected representative and if I want to linger and smell the hypocrisy oozing from your veins, I will!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.