A helpful repayment schedule
With 81% of the public wanting Labour to pay back their pledge card costs, John Key has helpfully worked out a way for Labour MPs to do this.
On the basis that without the over-spending, Ministers may not have got to keep their higher salaries, Key calculates that $2,000 per banckbench MP and 17% of the difference between Ministerial and MP salaries will see it all repaid. His schedule is:
PM $22,813 x 1
DPM $15,150 x 1
Cabinet Ministers $17,066 x 17
Other Ministers $11,319 x 6
MPs $2,000 x 25
Total $446,000
Key generously doesn’t propose penalty interest for use of the money and even states allowing repayments over twelve months would be fine. And if the total Labour illegal spend turns out to be over $800,000 then repayment could pro-rata up and spread over two years. Very fair.
September 3rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Clark might also like to explain why there are as many Ministers as there are ordinary MPs. What a rort!
September 3rd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
It is quite affordabale for people on 100K+ incomes to pay this money back even if it is 800K – just double the figures. Now watch the Labour Party esecially Cullen make snarling comments about John Key’s wealth.
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:09 pm
YOu know – I hope they DON’T pay it back. They shouldn’t be able to be able to do that to get off teh hook – they should be prosecuted.
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
That a typo? Or do cabinet ministers get paid more than the DPM?
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
“..they should be prosecuted.”
Well yes..except that the police will decide that it’s “not in the public interest”.
Again.
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Two queries:
1. Shouldn’t Cullen as DPM pay more or do he and Clark pay as Cabinet Ministers as well. Both are in it right up to their eyeballs.
2. Is Winston included in the Cabinet allocation – that will really piss him off – will he sue?
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
The gap between DPM and DLO is less than between Cab Minister and backbench MP.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I would rather John Key spent time on stumping for a programme that addresses the issue of what New Zealand will be like post the Labour Government.
He got on top of Cullen last time but Cullen is unlikely to be there next time and the latitude for painless tax cuts is unlikely to be there either. It is time of National to abandon the ‘oppose but don’t propose’ playbook for Opposition – being less corrupt or less incompetent than Labour isn’t enough. New Zealand will not prosper with two big parties both vying to be conservative status quo parties. Matthew Hooton is right National has to do things a bit differently – change the dynamic.
Can John Key shape a programme for the mild reform of our hopeless welfare state can National earn sufficient seats to govern in concert with the other minor parties? Can the Maori party sign up to this programme for reform (which includes say devolution of services). ACT would probably support a Brash led government but who else: Peter Dunn (+ one other UF MP maybe).
Has National talked to all the minor parties some of whose votes will be needed to form a Government. If National has insufficient relationships now to speak directly and in confidence to the minor parties in order to know whether they would support retrospective legislation, then they are unlikely to build relationships of sufficient mutual trust and confidence to hold a government together. National seems to have lost the interpersonal skills and required MMP curtsies – to me it appears sometimes to trample around like bull elephant expecting Government because “it’s our turn.” It appears that over the Auditor General’s Report, the Nats address the minor parties via the media and use public speculation as to which way they might vote in order to smoke em out. Why not pick up the phone and ask? Do the rounds and the work – Labour does that’s why they govern.
Has John Key spent extended time at Hone Waititi Marae without cameras and journos and without press release. He is capable of this sort of expansiveness – it would be a better use of his time than calculating repayment schedules. Have National MP’s been tasked to build relationships with the other Maori MPs – have they investigated what is working in Maoridom in consultation and a look-see with the Maori Party MPs and therefore gained a idea of what a National led Government could do more of consistent with its own philosophy and policy.
In the face of Labour’s sordidness and lack of decency – speak of them in sorrow and get aspirational. What has National to offer to the swinging voter who wants home ownership for their kids, a education system that provides basic competency and parental choice, more affordable selfhelp in healthcare and feels overtaxed/rated. They would also like National to be able to ‘play nicely with others.’ They are no longer taking Labour’s call why should they take National’s.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
I would rather John Key spent time on stumping for a programme that addresses the issue of what New Zealand will be like post the Labour Government.
He got on top of Cullen last time but Cullen is unlikely to be there next time and the latitude for painless tax cuts is unlikely to be there either. It is time of National to abandon the ‘oppose but don’t propose’ playbook for Opposition – being less corrupt or less incompetent than Labour isn’t enough. New Zealand will not prosper with two big parties both vying to be conservative status quo parties. Matthew Hooton is right National has to do things a bit differently – change the dynamic.
Can John Key shape a programme for the mild reform of our hopeless welfare state can National earn sufficient seats to govern in concert with the other minor parties? Can the Maori party sign up to this programme for reform (which includes say devolution of services). ACT would probably support a Brash led government but who else: Peter Dunn (+ one other UF MP maybe).
Has National talked to all the minor parties some of whose votes will be needed to form a Government. If National has insufficient relationships now to speak directly and in confidence to the minor parties in order to know whether they would support retrospective legislation, then they are unlikely to build relationships of sufficient mutual trust and confidence to hold a government together. National seems to have lost the interpersonal skills and required MMP curtsies – to me it appears sometimes to trample around like bull elephant expecting Government because “it’s our turn.” It appears that over the Auditor General’s Report, the Nats address the minor parties via the media and use public speculation as to which way they might vote in order to smoke em out. Why not pick up the phone and ask? Do the rounds and the work – Labour does that’s why they govern.
Has John Key spent extended time at Hone Waititi Marae without cameras and journos and without press release. He is capable of this sort of expansiveness – it would be a better use of his time than calculating repayment schedules. Have National MP’s been tasked to build relationships with the other Maori MPs – have they investigated what is working in Maoridom in consultation and a look-see with the Maori Party MPs and therefore gained a idea of what a National led Government could do more of consistent with its own philosophy and policy.
In the face of Labour’s sordidness and lack of decency – speak of them in sorrow and get aspirational. What has National to offer to the swinging voter who wants home ownership for their kids, a education system that provides basic competency and parental choice, more affordable selfhelp in healthcare and feels overtaxed/rated. They would also like National to be able to ‘play nicely with others.’ They are no longer taking Labour’s call why should they take National’s.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
81% support repayment *IF* the law was broken. And I’m pretty sure it’s the law being broken part that Labour actually gives a shit about. The 800K is small potatoes.
But I’m not surprised that people who have backers that can just peel off a cool million in support, or afford to bring this kind of case against the government, find this an appealing form of pressure. They probably really think they can intimidate Labour just with the money.
I doubt it. It would no more bother Labour than it would bother National – both parties have a lot of money they can draw upon. No individual is going to suffer serious losses here. It could end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot more, though.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
The total this party owes is about the same amount that I owe to pay our farm off. Only one difference I intend to pay my debt. Innocentlll it boils down to what is right or wrong, mate most people don’t have to have a detailed explanation, we can figue it out.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
side show bob
Actually your mortgage is a personal undertaking by you to repay the debt and coupled with the granting of a lesser type of ownership interest in the land to the mortgagee.
This isn’t the case with the alleged illegal spend of the Parliamentary Services Commission which is the statutorily created corporate body that actually administers and spends the money of which Margaret Wilson is technically the Responsible Minister.
Right and wrong do matter in politics and the solution is invariably political and not legal.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
The Mayor of New Zealand has just been voted the 20th most powerful woman on the planet (I suspect Mrs Peter Clark was 91st) surely she could guarnatee a loan from Kiwibank to pay back what Labour owes.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I see Keys is once again trollling out the “stolen election” phrase. I admit, Labour did the wrong thing. They should have taken a leaf out of National’s book and *not* signed off on supporters’ advertising, even if the CEO declared it as in breach of the electoral act.
Here’s another timeline for you:
1. Brash meets EBs “more than once” in the month leading up to their pamphlete campaign.
2. EB leaflets (there were actually four pamphelte campiagns) release without National party sign-off.
3. CEO refers them to police as they were clearly aimed to get the party vote out on behalf of National.
4. National lose an election.
5. Party returns, no sign of EB spend in National’s return.
We know Dr. Brash thinks the election rules are “crystal clear”. What do you think his advice to the EBs was over this?
Could it have been, we will go way over our spending limit if we do the right thing here?
Could it have been, the fine is only $3000 if you get caught out?
September 4th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Where Noddy has it wrong is that the CEO never referred the EB pamphlets to the Police for consideration of being part of National’s campaign. The referall was for minor breaches of address details.
As much as Noddy hates it, the fact is National in no way broke the law (and were incapable of breaking the law) in regards to what the Brethren did, while Labour trampled all over the law.
I am amazed that Noddy is so devoid of moral integrity he sees no difference between the EB who sought the advice of the CEO to ensure their activities complied with the law, and the actions of Labour who ignored the CEDO’s advice and lied to him.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:33 am
“The referall was for minor breaches of address details.”
Not so…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=264&ObjectID=10352080
“Police are determining whether a prosecution will be laid after the Chief Electoral Officer found the pamphlets encouraged people to vote for National.”
If the CEO was correct those pamphletes should have been signed off by National and Don Brash certainly had plenty of opportunity to make that clear to the EBs.
Does the fact that the police failed to prosecute indicate they are in the pockets of the EBs?
What I see is some moral pontification by those who are in no position to be throwing it around.
The NZ voter would be far better served if National joined forces with the other parties in parliament, admit that they too have stinky stuff on their shoes and cameup with a solution.
At the moment they want to disadvantage everyone accept National.
By the way, if National *had* won the last election you sure would not have heard me talking about “stolen” elections.
National, in 2005, spent up big time as did Labour, NZers had a fair, robust and open election (as usual). Maintaining the integrity of the systemn is, in the end, far more important then who wins or loses on the day. Seems to me that National are doing everything in their power to undermine faith in the system.
September 4th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Noddy – of course one would not hear about stolen elections if National had won. That is because Labour blantantly broke the electoral law and lied to the CEO and National did not.
September 4th, 2006 at 11:23 am
DPF, on the evidence I have presented i does seem National are guilty of breaking the law by subterfuge, letting a 3rd party take the rap. I notice you no longer refute this evidence.
To me they are at least as bad as each other. National is adding hypocracy and undermining our democratic institutions to their crimes.
September 4th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Noddy you are of course no neutral observer but one of the most partisan people about, so your conclusions are your own.
Let me say I would have absolutely no problem if the EB had been prosecuted. Likewise I would have no problems if senior National officials had to testify in court to every meeting with the Brethren.
The truth is somewhat boring. Like many groups, they wanted to change the Govt. Not because they are linked to National. There has been no relationship such as between unions and labour. They just did not like the Govt and wanted to change it.
They told National they wanted to campaign, and National’s advice was “Great – go for it, but make sure you comply with the law”.
If you think this is illegal what National did, you should work for Richard Nixon.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Noddy,
You are resembling more and more each day the famous Dutch boy of legend, who held back the flood waters.
Unfortunately, the dyke that you are defending has more holes in its integrity than you have fingers.
I doubt any of your detractors have changed their opinion, they have probably just retired to a safe distance, waiting for the inevitable to happen.
As a swing voter who has voted left, right and middle at times, my opinion is that, whilst the EB thing worked for Labour before the election, few are buying it now.
The use by date is long past, people do not think that the Pledge card issue & the EB one are equal and opposite. People are bored with the harping on about the EBs, but they are not yet bored with Pledge gate, or Taito Gate, and suddenly interest is renewed in all the other sleazy & tacky incidents of the last 7 years.
The problem with the teflon approach is that nothing has been resolved, and, when the teflon wears off, suddenly everything has to be addressed all at the same time.
Whether it will be this incident that is the final straw, or one in the future, it will still happen eventually. The past performance of this govornment says that there will be more incidents of illegality & sleaze, because there would have to be a complete change in performance for the party to make no more stuff ups.
It only takes a few negative poll results to form a trend, then a slide becomes self perpetuating. The problem is that, under MMP, the ideal of not wasting your vote has gained such status that many people fear backing anyone other than the winner. When a party begins to slide, you get a load of marginal voters shifting to whoever looks like a winner.
Had Labour dealt with stuff at the time, fully and properly, then they would be sitting in a good position still (though they would have rated slightly lower in the polls consistently). They are now faced with a likely crash, and the longer it is put off, the worse the wreck is going to be.
This is opinion, but time will tell.