Time for tory charity?

Written By: - Date published: 5:41 am, August 10th, 2009 - 22 comments
Categories: humour, national/act government - Tags:

Following the success of TV3’s ‘Big Night In’ Telethon which raised over $2 million for KidsCan, I was thinking there are others that could benefit from some charity.

You know, the recession is biting and even people who have been used to living well are now having to couple with dramatic cuts to their incomes.

beggar bill

Consider poor Bill English. How’s he going to meet his mortgage now that he’s drawing only half of the out of town allowance he’s not entitled to? (actually, does he have a mortgage? If not, why does he need the money?)

Then there’s Roger Douglas. After spending a life-time devoted to minimising government spending and the taxation it necessitaites, he faces losing the right to travel to London with his wife to see his grown son on the taxpayer’s dime. How else is the poor kid going to see daddy?

So, I propose we have a Telethon for politicians recently stripped of perks. They could give us tours of their ‘primary residences’ (Bill will be allowed to have a guide with him in Dipton). Paula Bennett could host a segment where she reads out people’s names and gives them 30 minutes to donate $100 or she will start reading out private facts about them (like this). Roger Douglas and David Garrett could host a show presenting the two faces of ACT. Douglas regales us with tales of how he pursued a liberal social agenda like homosexual law reform along with his neoliberal economic agenda in the 80s, while Garrett threatens to beat up gays.

We could call it ‘Tory Charity’.

22 comments on “Time for tory charity? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sting 1
    10 August 2009 at 7:48 am

    When are the charlatan woman Minster of Police and other useless government nitwits going to get charitable and stop the wholesale slaughter of Maori kids? Maybe TV Wee could do a telethon for infanticide and Mike McRoberts can interview Banjo Kahui who will be armed with a hammer. This country is a cess – pit of obscene violence and culturally sensitive – pc gutless parasitic gravy train idiots wank on about a parental smack and a raincoat. Get real you fuckwits! Show some balls you pathetic scum.

  2. ConorJoe 2
    10 August 2009 at 7:57 am

    I don’t think anything can follow the class act of Sting in full throat. Sorry Marty G.

    • the sprout 2.1
      10 August 2009 at 8:10 am

      hmm… yeah. kind of stopped my intended sarcastic comment about the PM’s expenses account in its tracks.

      great graphic Marty.

      • SHG 2.1.1
        10 August 2009 at 12:38 pm

        I presume authorisation was received from artist Murray Webb to reproduce his painting of Bill English here? I’m all for a good photoshop, but ripping off a painting that’s only a couple of months old, by a guy who paints them for a living, is a bit rough.

  3. ieuan 3
    10 August 2009 at 8:27 am

    You guys heard of ‘Chris Carter’ and the appalling amount of tax payers money that he has been spending on his expenses or are you just going to blindly support the Labour party and only attack English & Douglas?

    When are you going to wake up to the fact that ALL politicians, regardless of which party they are from, have their noses in the trough and don’t give a damn.

  4. Olwyn 4
    10 August 2009 at 8:52 am

    The money Chris Carter spent was directly related to his job: as minister of education, he needed to travel to sell the notion of getting educated in NZ. Quite different from both the Douglas & English situations, in which the gain involved was unambiguously personal.

    • ieuan 4.1
      10 August 2009 at 9:11 am

      And why should the tax payer pay for his partner to go on these trips?

      • Eddie 4.1.1
        10 August 2009 at 9:32 am

        If that question is to be asked, it goes to all MPs, not just Carter.

        In summary: there’s no question that Carter did anything wrong by making these trips, all for work, not personal gain. He took his partner sometimes but MPs take their partners all the time, Carter did nothing different. In contrast, English has been doing something highly unusual, claiming out of town allowance for living at his family home in Wellington- you can see why he has been singled out. Question: why would Carter be singled out?

        • Tim Ellis 4.1.1.1
          10 August 2009 at 3:41 pm

          Maybe Mr Carter was singled out because his expenses were more than anybody else’s, and he took his partner on more trips than anybody else, and he was warned by his colleagues to reduce his travel expenditure.

    • Mark M 4.2
      10 August 2009 at 9:33 am

      No
      the issue is his spending since joining the opposition.
      He refuses to comment on this

    • darryl 4.3
      10 August 2009 at 11:30 am

      The money in question is actually from the first six months of this year – not last year when he was minister of education. I can’t see how a member can justify these large travel expenses when he is not even a part of the current government. Just as I can’t see how an member needs their house subsidised when they already earn way more then the average bloke. The same average bloke who is being asked to give up his tax cut and tighten his belt for the sake of the country.

      You can’t attack Bill English and Roger Douglas and in the same time defend Chris Carter. The bullshit is spread equally.

      • Armchair Critic 4.3.1
        10 August 2009 at 12:12 pm

        darryl – Roger Douglas’s trip to the UK was mostly (90%?) publicly funded and solely for his own, private benefit.
        Bill English’s claiming a taxpayer funded allowance for renting a property for himself and his family when he has an interest in the trust that owns the property is for his own benefit. If you think this is okay, try doing it yourself and see what IRD say.
        Chris Carter’s expenses are high, but no evidence has been presented that the expenses are not as part of his role as an MP and opposition spokesperson, i.e. they are work related.
        In simple terms, the fuss about English and Douglas is about quantity and quality of the expenditure, whereas with Carter it is about quantity only, thus far. The bs is not yet spread equally.

        • darryl 4.3.1.1
          10 August 2009 at 6:02 pm

          “If you think this is okay, try doing it yourself and see what IRD say.”

          I don’t think it is OK. Which is why I said so in my post.

          “Chris Carter’s expenses are high, but no evidence has been presented that the expenses are not as part of his role as an MP and opposition spokesperson”

          That is because Chris Carter is refusing to present any explanation for this years’ expenses to all those asking other then to say “I worked hard last year”. If there is no issue, then there should be no issue with some transparency.

  5. lukas 5
    10 August 2009 at 9:06 am

    ieuan, people are only picking on Chris Carter because he is gay… haven’t you seen the news?

  6. Ianmac 6
    10 August 2009 at 9:42 am

    Great image of Bill!
    I don’t mind MP’s being well paid but it seems miserable to twist the means to gain more dough. Yet it seems that somewhere over 75% of NZers would steal if they knew that they could get away with it. (I know an elderly lady who resented her bank having little chains on the provided pens.)
    And Monty Python must have given Paula the idea. Didn’t think she had a sense of humour.

  7. Daveski 7
    10 August 2009 at 9:47 am

    Challenge for you marty.

    Show me the Hansard reports of Labour’s attacks on National. Thought so.

    This is not your typical they did it too deflection. It’s the reason why the issue hasn’t sprouted legs. To try and beat this up as a “Tory” issue when Labour has had its nose equally in the trough shows what a weak line of attack this is.

    I do agree that English has a problem regarding perception. Different issue entirely. In any case, English still appears to be playing within the laws – if so, the laws/guidelines have to change.

  8. Deciduous 8
    11 August 2009 at 5:24 am

    Boooooooring.

    So is the emmissions non story. Its quite indicative of a party bereft of ideas that the same old handwringing topics get rolled out again and again.

    But I guess if you are saddled with Goff and King (never more than an SMS away from the apron strings of Dear Leader) till 2011 theres not many options.