Discussion:
Labour just practicing Captalists?
(too old to reply)
John Bowes
2020-09-03 23:08:00 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a

Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000 from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a Nigerian scam next :)
Rich80105
2020-09-04 00:27:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000 from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.

Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.

I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
John Bowes
2020-09-04 02:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000 from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
Three times what Labour pays in rent is only fair in weak minded fucking imbeciles like you Rich!
Post by Rich80105
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Ain't no slur dumbo is pure fact! Stinks to high heaven of corruption in the Labour party going back to 1993. Why slur Bishop? he's nowhere near as desperate as Ardern should be.....

Labour are once again being investigated for dodgy dealing.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099629/electoral-commission-looks-into-mp-ginny-andersens-office-subletting-deal
Tony
2020-09-05 04:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
John Bowes
2020-09-05 13:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Wonder if he can provide a cite for his claim.
James Christophers
2020-09-05 22:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and failure to 'think through'.

Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We, the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics (moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics are, essentially, irreconcilable.

One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that he's even received a knighthood for it.
Tony
2020-09-05 22:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
James Christophers
2020-09-05 23:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Not really since the irony you speak of has always been embodied in the imponderable "What is legal and what is ethical" conundrum. Recognising this, I merely sketched in my own view of it as it applies/occurs in politics.
Post by Tony
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
Tony
2020-09-06 00:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Not really since the irony you speak of has always been embodied in the
imponderable "What is legal and what is ethical" conundrum. Recognising this,
I merely sketched in my own view of it as it applies/occurs in politics.
Shrug.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
Rich80105
2020-09-06 01:05:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:02:30 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Not really since the irony you speak of has always been embodied in the
imponderable "What is legal and what is ethical" conundrum. Recognising this,
I merely sketched in my own view of it as it applies/occurs in politics.
Shrug.
Indeed, that is another characteristic of National and its supporters
- no other opinion is ever worth considering than your own - "Right",
Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
I didn't pull you up on this before Tony, but you are yet again
misquoting me - it does seem to be a habit of yours. I have
previously said that the prevailing attitude of National was that it
was OK to do something illegal provided there was insufficient
evidence to convict; such a view is supported in part by the view of
James above - that and dirty tricks became the defining characteristic
of the Key years, and I suspect was one of the reasons he had to go.
In peddling such slurs as this current one against a Labour MP you
appear to still support that National characteristic . . .
Tony
2020-09-06 01:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:02:30 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Not really since the irony you speak of has always been embodied in the
imponderable "What is legal and what is ethical" conundrum. Recognising this,
I merely sketched in my own view of it as it applies/occurs in politics.
Shrug.
Indeed, that is another characteristic of National and its supporters
- no other opinion is ever worth considering than your own - "Right",
Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
I didn't pull you up on this before Tony, but you are yet again
misquoting me - it does seem to be a habit of yours. I have
previously said that the prevailing attitude of National was that it
was OK to do something illegal provided there was insufficient
evidence to convict; such a view is supported in part by the view of
James above - that and dirty tricks became the defining characteristic
of the Key years, and I suspect was one of the reasons he had to go.
In peddling such slurs as this current one against a Labour MP you
appear to still support that National characteristic . . .
Nonsense, all untrue.
What I wrote is accurate.
And unlike you I have not been abusive.
Rich80105
2020-09-05 23:59:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?

The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Tony
2020-09-06 00:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
Rich80105
2020-09-06 00:57:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.

Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Tony
2020-09-06 01:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Rich80105
2020-09-06 01:42:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person. You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
Tony
2020-09-06 02:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage
Neither of which exist in this thread, at least not from me - you on the other
hand are outraged by what I have reminded you of and you appear to have really
overreacted .
Post by Rich80105
does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Off topic and quite irrelevant, apart from being very silly.
Post by Rich80105
You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
I have not committed a slur, and I don't have an opponenet since I am not
standing for election. Do stop typing in a rage.
James Christophers
2020-09-06 02:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the challenge he has set himself.



You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
Post by Rich80105
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
Tony
2020-09-06 02:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions,
themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the
legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an
inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the
very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the
challenge he has set himself.
Not at all. It indicates that your "interruption" was irrelevant.
Post by James Christophers
You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
Post by Rich80105
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
Rich80105
2020-09-06 03:14:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 21:39:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of
ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions,
themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the
legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an
inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the
very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the
challenge he has set himself.
Not at all. It indicates that your "interruption" was irrelevant.
Post by James Christophers
You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
Post by Rich80105
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
So to be clear, Tony, you have already confirmed that the arrangement
is legal, do you also confirm that there has been nothng unethical in
the arrtangement either?
Tony
2020-09-06 04:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 21:39:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll
be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor
drafting
and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of
ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions,
themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once
troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the
legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an
inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the
very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the
challenge he has set himself.
Not at all. It indicates that your "interruption" was irrelevant.
Post by James Christophers
You have not denied or offered any evidence that it
Post by Rich80105
is not just an unwaranted slur against a political opponent shortly
before an election.
So to be clear, Tony, you have already confirmed that the arrangement
is legal, do you also confirm that there has been nothng unethical in
the arrtangement either?
Whether it is legal or not is and never has been the issue.
I suggest a very slow and methodical reading of this thread, you may need help.
James Christophers
2020-09-06 03:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting
and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of
ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions,
themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once
troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position, hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the
legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an
inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the
very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the
challenge he has set himself.
Not at all. It indicates that your "interruption" was irrelevant.
I previously wrote, '...when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics are, essentially, irreconcilable'? This fact lies at the heart of the tension between legality and ethics in politics, thus explaining the irony implicit in your original remark.

Ergo, it could not be more relevant.
Tony
2020-09-06 03:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 20:09:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 19:01:08 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:50:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum
and
gets
$6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll
be
running
a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the
behaviour
is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so
there
can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and
intent,
even
though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting
and
failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its
offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say -
flexible.
We,
the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of
ethics
(moral principles) in line with our own opinions and
preconceptions,
themselves
no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics
are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once
troubled by
ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience
that
he's even received a knighthood for it.
You missed the point of my remark, I suspect.
Rich has always complained that National and John Key took the position
that
if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position,
hence my
ironic response to him.
No I am not, you liar.
Consider an MP owning the building in which he sets up an electorate
office - would it be fair to pay another MP - perhaps a "List MP for
-- electorate" to be able to rent an office but not pay the MP that
owns the building with the lectorate office in it?
The rules allow for parliamentary Services to pay for electorate
offices - I don't know all the details, as of course not all parties
have them, but fairness suggests that the law should be and is
impartial in this case. Labour have not prejudiced good ethics; you
may ask yourself whether Chris Bishop, who knows how offices are
financed, has good ethics in running this 'dirty tricks' slur . . .
Irrelevant, nothing to do with my point which I repeat is "Rich has always
complained that National and John Key took the position that if
it was legal then it was fine. He is now taking the same position...."
And you are, clearly.
No I am not taking the National position that anything is OK unless it
is proved to be illegal through a court conviction; I am saying that I
agree with the Taxpayer providing an "electorate office" for each MP.
Do you believe that it is unethical for successive governments to pay
for such offices? Just what unethical conduct are you concerned
about, Tony, and who are you accusing of such conduct?
Off topic, do try to stay on song.
What I wrote is correct and you are indeed doing what you deplored by National
(allegedly).
Your bluster and faux outrage does indicate that you cannot identify
any wrongdoing or unethical behaviour (however you define that) from
any Labour person.
Nor has Tony yet given any countervailing reponse to my contribution to the
legalities/ethics discourse other than to "shrug" it off. This signifies an
inability to convincingly pursue and expand his own line of thinking on the
very topic in which he has intervened. IOW, he finds he is unequal to the the
challenge he has set himself.
Not at all. It indicates that your "interruption" was irrelevant.
I previously wrote, '...when it comes to politics in general, the law and
ethics are, essentially, irreconcilable'? This fact lies at the heart of the
tension between legality and ethics in politics, thus explaining the irony
implicit in your original remark.
Ergo, it could not be more relevant.
Without question an interruption for reasons that I well understand and you
would if you were honest. Nothing to do with this thread.
John Bowes
2020-09-06 05:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
All are equal under the law, or so we are told. Good law is written so there can be no misinterpretation or misapplication of its substance and intent, even though such errors can and do occur., this mostly due to poor drafting and failure to 'think through'.
Ethics? Since pragmatism has everything to do with politics and its offshoots, 'ethics' as you call it, is always - shall we say - flexible. We, the governed, tend, therefore, to interpret the application or lack of ethics (moral principles) in line with our own opinions and preconceptions, themselves no less flexible. So when it comes to politics in general, the law and ethics are, essentially, irreconcilable.
One might observe, for instance, that John Key, was never once troubled by ethics. In fact, so pathologically untroubled is his moral conscience that he's even received a knighthood for it.
Funny how you imitate Rich in finding abhorrent in others what you practice yourself Keith :)

However the thread isn't about National but about a government that has the stench of corruption that is even stronger than when Key was PM!
Rich80105
2020-09-05 23:53:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Tony
2020-09-06 00:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Irrelevant as pointed out later in the thread.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
John Bowes
2020-09-06 05:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Rich80105
2020-09-06 09:24:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
John Bowes
2020-09-06 22:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
But not as the donation it becomes when Parliamentary services pays them what Labour has falsely declared as the rent they pay for the office!
Rich80105
2020-09-06 22:48:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
But not as the donation it becomes when Parliamentary services pays them what Labour has falsely declared as the rent they pay for the office!
What a nasty lying weasel you are John Bowes. You know you have no
evidence of that statement.

From the original articles given it is apparent that Labour have an
historic fixed price tenancy with the new building owners - in effect
the space is being sub-leased to an MP, with a fair current rental
being paid by Parliamentary Services, who have said that they have no
problems with the arrangements, which are common in other areas.
John Bowes
2020-09-07 03:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
But not as the donation it becomes when Parliamentary services pays them what Labour has falsely declared as the rent they pay for the office!
What a nasty lying weasel you are John Bowes. You know you have no
evidence of that statement.
Try reading the cites Rich. If you're having trouble comprehending them get some four year old to expalin it to you!
Post by Rich80105
From the original articles given it is apparent that Labour have an
historic fixed price tenancy with the new building owners - in effect
the space is being sub-leased to an MP, with a fair current rental
being paid by Parliamentary Services, who have said that they have no
problems with the arrangements, which are common in other areas.
It's even more apparent to people with comprehension skills that Labour are once again rorting the system to their own profit! It's not a fair rental when a neighbouring property is charging $18,000 rent! You can bullshit and bluster as much as you like (yet again) but the fact is Labour are fiddling the system!
Crash
2020-09-06 22:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
John Bowes:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement

It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-09-06 23:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.

As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
appears to seldom read more than headlines . . . :

" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”

“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.

“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.

‘A very good deal’

Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.

“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.

“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.

Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.

The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————

So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.

It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Crash
2020-09-07 00:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however.
Are you accusing Chris Bishop of being the source of the accounting
documents that Coughlan saw?
Post by Rich80105
The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
What unethical behaviour? The Labour party receives rent payments
from Parliamentary services. The question is whether this income
constitutes a political donation.
Post by Rich80105
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
Not worthy of a response but personal abuse noted.
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Indeed. If those offices are rented from the National party by
Parliamentary Services then the same principle applies - is this
income a political donation?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-09-07 04:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however.
Are you accusing Chris Bishop of being the source of the accounting
documents that Coughlan saw?
Of course not, but it relates to his electorate, and he has been
remarkeably silent on a situation that he surely is aware of -
Parliamentary Services said that they have received similar enquiries
in the past. The problem for a party that is known for having arranged
similar ''dirty tricks" in the past using links between media
"reporters," bloggers and the Leader's office, is that it is easy to
see silly accusations as potentially being from similar operations
now. This isn't at the extreme illegal end of such behaviour, but
plausible deniability is well ingrained in National MPs and whoever
sent the material to the "reporter" presumably targetted someone who
would not ask too many questions before publication. I can't see
Coughlan wanting to disclose sources for what must be a bit of an
embarrassing demonstration of how little verification is made of such
accusations.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
What unethical behaviour? The Labour party receives rent payments
from Parliamentary services. The question is whether this income
constitutes a political donation.
I do not see it being a political donation any more than say MP
salaries. Why would you think an entitlement could be regarded as a
donation? That issue was not raised in the original article, which
implied that Parliamentary Services were being overcharged - a bit of
thought would have seen that as a silly suggestion - if a party owns a
building that they wish to use as an electorate office, should they
receive no money fromParliamentary Services?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
Not worthy of a response but personal abuse noted.
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Indeed. If those offices are rented from the National party by
Parliamentary Services then the same principle applies - is this
income a political donation?
James Christophers
2020-09-07 01:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Rich80105
2020-09-07 04:20:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............

The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Tony
2020-09-07 04:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Rich80105
2020-09-07 10:08:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
John Bowes
2020-09-07 11:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Nope that's what the left are much better at Rich.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
BULLSHIT!
Tony
2020-09-07 20:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Rich80105
2020-09-07 21:51:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
John Bowes
2020-09-09 00:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate
or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental.
The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but
the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their
coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
If your worried about another fucking idiot using your posting name Rich. buy your bridge and get over it. DON'T hijack anothers post to push your own deranged agenda! Get back on topic; Which is Labour showing what many consider a disgusting side of capitalism where excessive profits are pocketed by corrupt pricks!
Tony
2020-09-09 02:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll
be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate
or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed
rental.
The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but
the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their
coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
If someone does that I do not become enraged.
There is only one poster here that I believe posts under several nyms and who I
believe has posted pretending to be another poster.
I can't be bothered with such infantile nonsense, best to ignore them.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
Rich80105
2020-09-09 03:35:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:45:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum
and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll
be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour
is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate
or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed
rental.
The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears
to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in
fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but
the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their
coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
If someone does that I do not become enraged.
There is only one poster here that I believe posts under several nyms and who I
believe has posted pretending to be another poster.
I can't be bothered with such infantile nonsense, best to ignore them.
Yet you are the poster that raised the issue of fake posts. . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
John Bowes
2020-09-09 04:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:45:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum
and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll
be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour
is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building
had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect
Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had
offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate
or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed
rental.
The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears
to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in
fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but
the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for
starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their
coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake. Why do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
If someone does that I do not become enraged.
There is only one poster here that I believe posts under several nyms and who I
believe has posted pretending to be another poster.
I can't be bothered with such infantile nonsense, best to ignore them.
Yet you are the poster that raised the issue of fake posts. . . .
BULLSHIT! Just because your hero Keith fits that description is no reason to slur Tony. Rich you may even be the one posting as you considering how often your posting style changes from not being able to spell the to actally having no spelling mistakes! It's highly likely that the person using your nym is just one of your personality's fighting back at the shit and slurs you post!
George
2020-09-09 20:11:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 21:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Post by John Bowes
BULLSHIT! Just because your hero Keith fits that description is no
reason to slur Tony. Rich you may even be the one posting as you
considering how often your posting style changes from not being able
to spell the to actally having no spelling mistakes! It's highly
likely that the person using your nym is just one of your
personality's fighting back at the shit and slurs you post!
snipped for brevity

By his spelling mistakes shall we know him.
ROTFL
Not the brightest candle in the pack that lad...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-09-09 22:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 21:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Post by John Bowes
BULLSHIT! Just because your hero Keith fits that description is no
reason to slur Tony. Rich you may even be the one posting as you
considering how often your posting style changes from not being able
to spell the to actally having no spelling mistakes! It's highly
likely that the person using your nym is just one of your
personality's fighting back at the shit and slurs you post!
snipped for brevity
By his spelling mistakes shall we know him.
ROTFL
Not the brightest candle in the pack that lad...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hell if he was a candle it'd be wickless whereas he's just witless :)
Tony
2020-09-09 04:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:45:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:29:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:54:44 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum
and
gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal!
They'll
be
running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is
legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour
is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building
had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect
Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had
offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a
candidate
or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary
Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed
rental.
The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this
appears
to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in
fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however,
but
the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although
the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters
and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their
coffers
undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Two things Rich.
1. Capitalism is not characterised by unethical behaviour, any more than
socialism is. And you cannot provide evidence of either.
Thank you for agreeing with me - I was disagreeing with those that
appear to believe capitalism goes hand in hand with unethical
behaviour.
Post by Tony
2. You are replying to a post that your pal James did not write.
Your technical skills need honing.
I was posting to nz.general - threads and posts can be read by anyone
that bothers to download them, You do have a strange idea of ownership
of threads . . .
No I do not. You are deliberately twistging what I wrote.
You replied to a fake post, and one that you should have known was fake.
Why
do
that?
I know that there is a deranged individual that has faked posts from
me by using my posting name; I identify those when I see them, but I
do not regularly check headers for posts by others. If the same scum
has posted using your name or that of another poster I may not have
identified it.
If someone does that I do not become enraged.
There is only one poster here that I believe posts under several nyms and who I
believe has posted pretending to be another poster.
I can't be bothered with such infantile nonsense, best to ignore them.
Yet you are the poster that raised the issue of fake posts. . . .
Jeez you really are an imbecile.
You answered a fake post and now you are blaming me for trying to give you a
heads up.
Go away you pathetic piece of garbage, go away and play your worthless
political games.
A wasted life is the only reward for those that are unable to extract
themselves from politics.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
John Bowes
2020-09-07 11:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:03:59 +1200, James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not - the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
You should not talk about me like that, I am very sensitive.......
I expect that your modest blush is most becoming............
The thread has itself largely ignored the Subject of the thread -
where the OP appears to be speculating that capitalism is essentially
characterised by unethical behaviour; most of us know that it does not
need to be that way ..........
Funny how so many of your posts seem to indicate that's exactly how you feel about it Rich. But guess Labour good, National bad is all your any good for. typical of fucking imbeciles everywhere :)
John Bowes
2020-09-07 03:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:49:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:02:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement?rm=a
Seems Labour pays the firefighters Union $1500 rent per annum and gets $6000
from Parliamentary services. Yet they claim it's legal! They'll be running a
Nigerian scam next :)
Parliamentary Services have confirmed that the arrangement is legal.
That's OK then, provided it's legal the integrity of the behaviour is
irrelevant. Right?
Not necessarily as you know. In this case Labour sold a building
subject to a lease - they may have received more for the building had
the lease been less favourable to the tenant. In effect Parliamentary
Services are sub-leasing from the party at market rates as agreed by
them. Other parties will have office space paid for by parliamentary
services on the same basis. Both National and Labour have had offices
in that electorate for many years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
It is similar to situations where a building owned by a candidate or a
policital party is used for an eletorae office - a fair rent is
assessed independently and that is paid by Parliamentary Services.
Apparently the Labour Party used to own the building and sold it
subject to the ability to rent the office space at a fixed rental. The
benefit of that commercial arrangement is separate from the fair
rental paid by Parliamentary Services.
I agree it could have been arranged a little better; this appears to
be an attempted slur by a desperate Chris Bishop. Bishop has in fact
been fairly good at pressing the flesh - he keeps a close eye on
community events and makes sure he is seen, and has probably had
reasonable staff to look after walk-in queries and people having
problems. He hasn't achieved much for his electorate however, but the
visibility is I suspect enough to see him re-elected, although the
party vote is likely to take a hit.
Trouble is rich. Labour isn't leasing it at market rates for starters and the profit they make from parliamentary services goes into their coffers undeclared which is NOT legal!
Of course all the money is declared - how else did the Nat-bots find
out about it?
From the various Stuff articles exposing this issue, cited by the OP
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300099218/ginny-andersen-undeclared-donations-and-the-mysterious-1993-property-transaction
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300098040/taxpayer-foots-bill-for-labour-electorate-funds-in-decadesold-subletting-arrangement
It was Stuff journo Thomas Coughlan that exposed the issue- which is
whether the rental profits constitute a donation to the Labour Party
that needs to be declared. Rich are you accusing Thomas Coughlan of
being a 'Nat-bot'?
No I am not -
BULLSHIT!
Post by Rich80105
the timing and content of the articles suggest very
strongly that this is a deliberate "leak" by a Nat-bot however. The
only unethical behaviour it has shown is that ''dirty tricks" are not
a matter that has been left in the past.
BULLSHIT!
Post by Rich80105
As in so many of such "information drops" the damage is intended to be
in the headline - it takes a different persepctive when the body of
the message is read, but at least one dim-bulb poster to this group
" . . .Andersen decided to comment, saying that “the rental
arrangement was signed off by Parliamentary Services and is within the
rules.”
“The rent is very cheap and represents value for money for taxpayers,
leasing electorate offices from private landlords usually costs tens
of thousands of dollars a year.
“This is a long-standing arrangement, dating back decades, that
Parliamentary Services are aware of and saves taxpayers,” she said.
‘A very good deal’
Andersen was backed up by Parliamentary Service who said the rent
represented “a very good deal”.
“Parliamentary Service pay office lease costs on behalf of members
from their funding entitlements. These entitlements are set and
governed by the Speakers Directions.
“The arrangement you mention has been brought to our attention before.
We can confirm that the rent paid for the member’s office is
substantially below market value and represents a very good deal for
the taxpayer,” said a Parliamentary Service spokesman.
Hutt South Labour Electorate Committee (LEC) accounts show the amount
the NZPFU charges in rent is well below what Parliamentary Service is
paying Labour for the rooms.
The local Labour Party was the original owner of the building and has
been leasing rooms in it ever since it was sold to the NZPFU in 1993.
It appears the party has a longstanding agreement with the NZPFU,
dating back to when Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard was the local
MP."
————————
So instead of a "rort," the arrangement is "substantially below market
value and represents a very good deal for the taxpayer" according to
Parliamentary Services.
But still an undeclared donating to Labour! If they were honest they'd only accept what they're paying for rent. NOT inflating the amount by 400% !
Post by Rich80105
It would be of interest to know the cost of electorate offices of
Chris Bishop, the electorate MP . . . .
No it wouldn't Rich. It's Labour at the centre of another dirty little scam that is only at heart another rort of the system!
Loading...