Comments on: A rort is a rort is a rort

By: feddabonn

feddabonn — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:40:29 +0000

rather one sided, but i found this song called johnnies boys rather apt! http://www.myspace.com/subversifpoet

By: Key’s lies on housing rort exposed at The Standard

Key’s lies on housing rort exposed at The Standard — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:56:07 +0000

[...] I alluded to yesterday, the claims from John Key that he has slashed hundreds of thousands of dollars from the cost of [...]

By: Herodotus

Herodotus — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:57:21 +0000

Toad, I agree the lack of noise from many parties (You mention labour) is very interesting. Whenever topics such as this appear, the stillness of the air around Wellington is almost deafening !!
remember a certain ex MP who stood for Wellington Central, but after that geat man 9Who ever he is I have forgotten) won this person then claimed out of town accomodation, and there were a few others even from the Alliance Party !
But politicians are no worst than some senior execs (Many in the Forboes 500 come to mind). They both have little in common with the common man and both do thier best to insulate themselve from any meanful contact with such a person.

By: blacksand

blacksand — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:52:47 +0000

oh yeah, a 14 year period; so presumable all the bullshit about korrupt practice tars the Fourth National Government with the same brush?

By: blacksand

blacksand — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:45:44 +0000

My arse it is; it’s a reflection on the manner to which Messrs English et al have become accustomed. How many shipping containers does it take to accommodate a family of 8? There’s a trailer park in the offing close to Parliament at that…

By: toad

toad — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:42:49 +0000

No, Herodotus, black (ie NZFirst) knew better how to “represent themselves before anyone else, at our expense” than the rest of the parties – and they had no moral reservations about doing it.

Which is why NZFirst are no longer in Parliament and Winston isn longer the Minister for Racing.

But we do need more transparency to expose the rorts, particularly the blatant ones like that of Sir Double Dipton, who is claiming an allowance for his family home in Wellington.

By: burt

burt — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:17:56 +0000

I agree re: Labour. I hear there are circa 5 people employed by PS looking after ministerial properties so I assume there will be savings for parliament re: 5 less salaries as well – that is if 5 an accurate number ?

By: Herodotus

Herodotus — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:56:05 +0000

Why not review all payments to politians, why should they all get of them get about $12k p.a. to cover entertainment, and not submit where this money is being spent. Is that not just another non taxable increase to their packages. Be they be red/blue/green/black or any other colour they ALL know how to represent themselves before anyone else, at our expense.

By: toad

toad — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:54:36 +0000

Oh, and burt, g.blog is auto-moderated only for spam. Otherwise, it is free expression over there.

The authors do, however, reserve the right to delete or edit comments that are grossly offensive or defamatory.

But most commenters (d4j and his alias identities excepted, who has come close to being banned on a couple of occasions there, as he has on most other blogs he has trolled on) respect that and engage responsibly without being abusive.

And good on you, even though you disagree with the Greens on many issues, for doing that and engaging constructively

Um, and do you notice the relative silence from Labour on this issue?. Methinks there are a few skeletons in the closet there too.

By: toad

toad — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:40:49 +0000

The answer is here burt. Stop being mischievous. The Greens are trying to get transparency and accountability brought into this. Do you really think they would be doing that if their MPs or their super fund had something to hide? .

By: burt

burt — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:17:26 +0000

If it’s a condition then I guess as tax payers you lot will be paying for it.

Seriously, I have no issue with toad or any others from g.blog making a clear equivocal statement that this change of rules will not effect the Green Party Super Scheme (now or in the future). Lets see how the response is worded to my question.

I never claim to be right all the time and I’ll always apologise if I get it wrong so your reactions are indicating to me that I’m cutting a bit close to the nerve. Lets see what g.blog have to say.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 +0000

He’s just tilting at flags snoozer. It’s a condition.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:00:57 +0000

Speaking of autonomic responses from the brain stem, you might want to try teaching that horse at least one other trick.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:59:42 +0000

What are you trying to say Burt? If there’s an accusation against myself in there, let’s here it, with evidence if you don’t mind.

I seem to recall a certain joker that was all about how political parties should be pure, and if they weren’t then we mustn’t support them. Wasn’t me though.

In case you think that this means I think we should just let any infraction pass, think again. And if you think that means I judge actions based on flags, then again, think again. Maybe get your little horse to help.

(Some words you may find useful; ‘cases’, ‘merits’, ‘norms’.)

By: snoozer

snoozer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:54:25 +0000

how has the greens’ setup got anything to do with this?

They have a superfund that owns some houses, the MPs rent from those houses at market rents. Someone’s got to make a profit from renting out those house, it may as well be the superfund.

It’s got nothing at all to do with the ministerial housing allowances and isn’t affected in any way by the changes to them