(Note To Self: take a deep breath before hitting REPLY.)

Sometimes that means you don’t consider all the possible consequences of your words or how some people might take them. Sometimes that means you make mistakes. Hell, I’ve made some myself. I think people should take John’s explanation, appreciate his quick response to the feedback and move on.

John A owes me nothing. The only thing I ever argued that he ever owed anyone he did some time ago and with excellent grace.

(For clarity, that is he removed the English children’s home address from the public sphere)

Obviously some have argued subsequently that the actual residential address wasn’t necessary for the argument and pointed out some of the issues around publishing it, so John took the feedback onboard and decided to remove it.

All seems pretty sensible to me, only blown up by the usual right-wing trolls who want to continue to distract from the real issue, and the intemperate response from some on the left who prefer to assume the worst of their comrades rather than give them the benefit of the doubt.

To use an over-the-top example, why would extremists publish the addresses of those with whom they disagreed? Intimidation.

If there is no tax liability as occurs with tax paid benefits – do a form of means tests apply instead (income and assets of the MP/Minister and their partner)?

I am at a loss to see why a Minister has a greater entitlement to help with accommodation when he receives an increase in pay on becoming a Minister. If it has something to do with promotion and salary package then it’s all taxable. If not, why the extra amount – it costs the same to house a person and or their family whatever job they have.

I know this is far too generous, why not stay with the maximum allowance of $24,000 pa for MP’s (use for Ministers also as it seems close to an average Wellington family home rent cost. And tax the amount received as income (reducing it by 38 cents in the dollar – they receive enough pay to contribut towards their own housing costs).

And a definition – if their family/partner is living with them it is the prime family home (so Bill would not qualify). However of course any Wellington based MP has other costs in representing an electorate (complicated with list MP’s – no doubt Roger will be at our tourist resort hotels for ACT party meetings) so should be claiming for their electorate accommodation costs and or “cost of” use of an owned home for this purpose – based on what this home could be rented out for if not used for this purpose (the same $24,000 maximum should apply).

Despite my flippant comments in this post, and as was said above by a wiser commentator, there’s a difference between information being publicly available and publicising it. I’m happy to emulate some of the Right’s tactics in debate but I’d rather not stoop to their nadir – it incites escalation (or, more accurately, “devolution’) from the nutters.

Now that Key has brought back titular honours, hereditary peerages have to be next don’t they?