Bon moat

Written By: - Date published: 5:19 am, August 4th, 2009 - 40 comments
Categories: bill english, corruption, humour - Tags:

We’ve been puzzling over how Bludger Bill can be spending all the $920 a week he is rorting for living in his family home in Wellington on an allowance meant for out of town ministers.

I mean, $920 is a crap load of money. If a solo mum can eke by on $200 a week less as her total income to support herself and 3 kids and still be vilified as a bludger, how does Bill manage to get rid of $92o on his family home alone, especially as he’s only allowed to count $700 a week max towards the board he apparently pays to his wife, who now owns the place making him a lodger? How does he get rid of the other $220?

Can’t be all incandescent bulbs and small-handed Asian cleaners.

So, we sent one of our intrepid reporters around to have a look. Here’s what they came back with:

bill's place

Ah, that explains it.

40 comments on “Bon moat ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. travellerev 1
    4 August 2009 at 6:34 am

    LOL. He needs it too.

  2. Tim Ellis 2
    4 August 2009 at 6:43 am

    Just when you think Eddie can’t scrape the bottom of the barrell any further he manages to do exactly that.

  3. Sting 3
    4 August 2009 at 6:55 am

    I rent a house that Aunty Helen owns.It has many dark and dusty closets.

    • BLiP 3.1
      4 August 2009 at 7:34 am

      Hi Dad.

      Glad to hear about your new digs and that you’re feeling right at home. Did you know its been okay since July 1986?

      X X

      • Sting 3.1.1
        4 August 2009 at 8:00 am

        I remember that terrible day in 86. Watching the news that evening my dad said it was the start of the downfall of western society as we know it.
        Anal Pink Blacks is only a matter of time.

  4. ConorJoe 4
    4 August 2009 at 7:14 am

    What? Murray the party Taniwha? All that for $220 a week? What about the kaumatua to bless the moat each morning?

  5. the sprout 5
    4 August 2009 at 7:19 am

    It never fails to amaze me how rightwing MPs manage to spend more on the same goods and services than ordinary people.
    $1000 per week for accommodation is ridiculous.
    No wonder they see the Public Service as ripping-off and over-charging the tax payer – clearly a case of projection.

    • So Bored 5.1
      4 August 2009 at 7:25 am

      Yes, the right amaze me too. If Labour or similar spend cash it is labelled “tax payers money”. Well get this Tim and crew, this too is “taxpayers money”. You poor cretins are allowing your mates to spend “your money”. What sad individuals you are.

    • Tim Ellis 5.2
      4 August 2009 at 7:38 am

      Except we don’t know how much left-wing ministers have been spending on ministerial accommodation, or how much it has been rorted, because Labour never released the information. It is clear that a number of Labour Ministers owned rental properties in Wellington. Were they getting taxpayer subsidies to live in their own homes?

      • BLiP 5.2.1
        4 August 2009 at 7:40 am

        Probably. They are just as bad as National Inc. Be interesting to see how many waited until Aunty Helen left before changing the legal status of their trust so as to further rort the system. Seems like it might just be Blinglish at this stage.

        • Tim Ellis 5.2.1.1
          4 August 2009 at 8:04 am

          It doesn’t seem like that at all to me BLiP. If this were an isolated incident then Labour would be screaming from the roof-tops on this. Instead they are being very, very silent despite it being the major political story of the week. Either Mr Goff has made a decision after the last series of blunders to keep his head down for a while, or he is worried that Labour has been doing the same thing too.

          According the the registry of pecuniary interests a number of Labour Ministers owned rental property in Wellington. Were they living in this property and not claiming ministerial subsidies, claiming them, or renting out their own homes while they took a subsidy to live somewhere else?

          It would be nice to see some clarity on this.

          I think the rules need to be set down and made public, and we need to know how much of a problem it has been.

  6. Irascible 6
    4 August 2009 at 7:29 am

    Sorry to see that Timmy is humourless. It must be difficult being a sad sack tory with so much time available to comment so extensively on every blog site despite being “employed”.

    • So Bored 6.1
      4 August 2009 at 7:45 am

      Poor sods, no sense of humour, We should all go on the dole so that Tim and all the righties can feel really aggrieved as we plunder “their money”.

      • Tim Ellis 6.1.1
        4 August 2009 at 8:06 am

        So Bored, I wouldn’t feel aggrieved if you lost your job and had to go on the dole. I would like to think that if you were in that difficult position that you would be able to bounce back into a job pretty quickly. I would hope that if you did lose your job and you were in a difficult financial position, that the government could help you to get back on your feet.

        Unlike Mr Goff, I don’t believe that if you are very wealthy you should get the dole though.

    • BLiP 6.2
      4 August 2009 at 7:45 am

      Well, if the rumours are true and he is getting paid per word by Crosby/Textor he’s doing alright. Very productive wee soul.

    • The Voice of Reason 6.3
      4 August 2009 at 8:02 am

      Certainly, Tim (or Mr Ellis, as his friends call him) is not as unintentionally hilarious as some on the right, but he does occasionally make sense and I’m deeply concerned that his devotion to blogging during daylight hours will eventually come to the attention of his employers at the bank.

      In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m going to make a one-off offer. One free representation at the disciplinary hearing of your choice, Tim. Just email the Standard when we finally get a reader from the banking industry and they pot you to the man and I’m there for you, dude.

    • travellerev 6.4
      4 August 2009 at 10:14 am

      That’s what he’s employed to do, I think.

  7. ghostwhowalks 7
    4 August 2009 at 8:07 am

    Heres the wording of a new Billboard

    $50 pw tax cuts – Cancelled

    taxpayers pay me $900 pw rent — approved

  8. Mark M 8
    4 August 2009 at 8:34 am

    Good to see that you unionists are staring to realise that some conditions of employment contracts are over the top.
    Even though the employees are legally entitled to them they should be stripped from them.

    Im sure a lot of hard up employers will be very thank full for the change in attitudes unions are now showing

    • Marty G 8.1
      4 August 2009 at 8:50 am

      I saw some idiot say the same thing in ‘your views’ yesterday.

      These are not contractual rights. You do not sign an employment contract when you become an MP. These entitlements are conferred by Parliament

  9. Deciduous 9
    4 August 2009 at 8:53 am

    $700 a week ‘board’ aye? The extra $220 is for ‘gentlemans relish’?

  10. burt 10
    4 August 2009 at 9:23 am

    Remember the outrage here on the standard when the whale put pictures of MP’s houses up on his blog. That was real real bad when he did it – but I guess it’s funny when it is done here.

    • Bright Red 10.1
      4 August 2009 at 12:11 pm

      This image has featured on One News and TV3 news at least two nights in the last three… and the picture is done entirely in humour, not to identify the residence. It’s different from hunting out a picture of where someone lives and putting it up to try to bully them like Whale did.

      I hear he got beaten up in Christchurch, btw. What a tough guy.

      • burt 10.1.1
        4 August 2009 at 12:56 pm

        Did Mallard get him or was it actually someone not previously promoted for using their fists to settle a dispute?

  11. toad 11
    4 August 2009 at 9:24 am

    From Stuff:

    McCully claimed $12,865 for his new apartment, plus another $6000 for his one-bedroomed property. He also owns a holiday home in Whangarei through a family trust.

    Now, this one’s strange. Anyone know if McCully moved from the smaller apartment to the larger one during the period concerned? Tim Ellis, maybe you as an “insider” can help with that info?

    Surely McCully can’t be claiming for both at the same time.

    • Tim Ellis 11.1
      4 August 2009 at 12:26 pm

      I’m afraid I’m not an insider toad, so I can’t help there.

    • felix 11.2
      4 August 2009 at 12:49 pm

      Yeah Timmeh’s just a “lowly auditor working in a bank” who has so little auditing to do that he can spend all day on the blogs, every day of the week.

      He assures us he has no party affiliations, just a keen interest in defending everything the Nats do and a very, very relaxed employer.

      Strangely he wasn’t anywhere to be seen on the weekend of the National Party Conference, but apart from that it’s been 7 days a week on the blogs for a while now for poor wee Timmeh.

      Have to admire his dedication to the cause (defending political parties to which he’s in no way affiliated) but his productivity levels at work must be in severe decline which is very concerning.

      Perhaps I should phrase my concerns in his own style:

      The question must be asked; is Mr Ellis working at nights to cover his workload? If so, when does he sleep? Is there a meth habit we aren’t being told about?

      And now that we’ve established the presence of a drug problem, can anything Mr Ellis writes be taken seriously at all?

  12. Deciduous 12
    4 August 2009 at 9:34 am

    Toad, you continue to make very little sense, please advise what you really mean.

  13. Ianmac 13
    4 August 2009 at 11:21 am

    Youse jokers are too tuff. You realise that having 6 kids in private schools is expensive and the $45 million for those private schools is not enouff to keep them in the manner…..

  14. Deborah 14
    4 August 2009 at 11:57 am

    Very funny, Eddie, but I hope that’s not actually the Englishes’ home. Even if their father is at fault, the children are not, at all, and they don’t need their home being identified for whoever wants to drive past and gawk at them.

    • Bright Red 14.1
      4 August 2009 at 12:08 pm

      The house has been on both tv news for the last couple of nights, don’t think eddie can be criticised for taking a screen grab from one of them… plus, that’s pretty funny

  15. Deborah 15
    4 August 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I take that back then, and apologise to Eddie (one of the perils, or perhaps joys, of living overseas is that I don’t get to see NZ tv news).

  16. The Voice of Reason 16
    4 August 2009 at 12:21 pm

    I’m a big fan of the suggestion in Britain that their MP’s be housed in the Olympics village once the games are over. Perhaps we have a suitable site in Welly that we could use for the purpose? Soames Island has the biggest moat in NZ, so that might be a goer.

    And of course there is always Mt Crawford jail. Double bunk Bill and Sir Bludger and save the taxpayer a mint.

  17. So Bored 17
    4 August 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Hey thats “my” tax money going on shipping containers. Understand they meet scratch as accomodation in some third world countries, should be suitable for entertaining their dignatories from underdeveloped world, atleast giving them a good laugh at us.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.