Time’s up on international travel perk
Having worked in Parliament, and seen how shitty most of an MPs job is, I’ve always been pretty moderate on the issue of MPs expenses – supporting transparency, but not a major overhaul.
However I think that the international travel perk has now had its day, and is so toxic for an MP to use it, they should move to abolish it. I’ll come to that later. Lots of articles to quote first.
The Herald yesterday reported the Speaker:
Speaker Lockwood Smith went on the front foot yesterday over MPs’ international travel perks, saying the subsidies are a well-established part of an MP’s salary package and that he feels partly responsible for the opprobrium attached to them at present.
“They have been deducted from their salaries. If it wasn’t for this, their salaries would be higher.”
I’m glad to see Lockwood making that point, as it is often overlooked. In fact I think I was the first to cover the fact, back in June, that the 2003 determination actually deducted $5,800 off each MPs salary – representing the average private benefit of the international travel perk. The 2003 determination wasn’t in fact even online – so I got a copy sent to me and uploaded it.
Dr Smith believes the perks, and others, should be itemised in the MPs’ pay decisions.
He said he had asked the Remuneration Authority to present its decisions on MPs’ salaries differently to explain how the travel perks fit in but it did not do so in its latest one.
“I have written to them again because I think it is helpful because it does help people to see.
In fact they have not detailed this since 2003, and I’ve also previously said it would be beneficial for them to do so.
Dr Smith said he did not believe that the public or even most MPs realised that the travel subsidy had been counted when calculating MPs’ pay and he wanted to make sure the facts were know.
The travel subsidy was a “subtle way” of recognising and rewarding experience.
MPs generally get paid the same, so it is the one thing that rewards an MP purely on the basis of longevity. However to counter that, longer serving MPs are more likely to be Ministers or Select Committee Chairs.
Regardless of the original rationale for it, I think Parliament should move to abolish the perk. This will mean an increase in salaries – but it also means costs are more certain.
In a related issue Trevor Mallard (wisely) has blogged he is heading to London using the perk to meet some undisclosed people to chat to on education policy, and to watch some rugby.
This sums up quite well the case for and against subsidised travel. I personally do think that MPs using international travel to discuss policies and programmes is worthwhile. Most new policies will come from overseas experience, rather than getting dreamed up fresh in a department.
On the other hand, we don’t know how much of the trip is policy, and how much is rugby. It is pretty easy to arrange to meet some mates for a chat, to justify a trip. Not saying this is the case here – but that the problem is no-one really approves the trips – it is a “right” that sits with that MP.
So here is what I would do.
- Abolish eligibility for subsidised international travel for MPs from 1 July 2010
- Increase funding for each parliamentary party by up to say $5,000 an MP, allowing MPs to apply to the party leadership for a partial or full international travel subsidy. As it will come out of a limited budget for the party (what you do not spend on travel you can spend on communications, staff etc) the leadership will want to be sure there is genuine parliamentary and/or political value from the travel.
- Have the Remuneration Authority recalculate MPs salaries, without the deduction for subsidised international travel.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:16 am
1 July 2010. Which will mean an allmighty rush between now and then. Will there be enough plane seats around ?
November 12th, 2009 at 9:27 am
These are all very fine words, but I do not think that NZ, especially in its present state, can afford to have 120 MPs all swanning about in planes, all pretending to be on vitally important business.
Travel perks are just a small part of the overall problem.
The country just does not need the extravagance of a gargantuan government. The huge overbearing out of control entity it has become. Working NZ families struggling with grocery bills and insurance and car costs and education bills sure as hell cannot afford it.
Each week, every working family is being forced to contribute a major part of their hard earned income to an overblown over reaching interfering regulating entity they really do not want.
Cut politician’s salaries, cut their allowances, but more importantly, cut their numbers. Bring government down to a size where it can be more easily controlled by the people. At the moment, the government is controlling the people, and that is not the way it is meant to be. Not in a civilized country anyway.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Lockwood Smith is living, breathing proof that we must have term limits, his sense of entitlement, self importance and arrogance is breathtaking.
Lockwood is so out of touch it is embarrassing for the man, in many ways you cannot blame him given that he has spent the last twenty five years divorced from the real world.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Not so sure I agree with this DPF, would rather their salaries were upped by the allowances, finish and Klaar.
By giving the party the power to authorise you entrench the party power.
Already with the list MP’s the party is king but not the electorate via their MP who they can dismiss.
We’ve already seen what the party ignoring the electorate over anti smacking.
More power to the people (not in a communist way
I like the idea you mooted about cheques being online for scrutiny
November 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
With supporters like Big Bruv , who needs enemies?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:05 am
DPF a couple of points – on the balance, I will catch up with some expat Kiwis both on Sunday soon after I arrive and on the following Saturday before the AB England Test. Marian Hobbs who has a senior role in the Schooling Improvement project in Birmingham and I will have a meal together during the week and I’m sure we will talk both about her work and other things.
But during what I used to regard as “normal work time” I will be focussed on meeting with academics, policy wonks and practitioners who I hope can help me both develop policy for the future and make choices around which of Anne Tolley’s policies are worth supporting, which I should focus on trying to improve and which should just be opposed. International evidence isn’t the total answer but it can be useful and it is often the bits that are not written down that are the most useful.
On your travel solution the one question I think we need to keep asking is the relative balance between MPs budgets and leaders’ offices. Probably mainly because of the setting up of the Prime Minister’s office and the Hunn report, and then MMP I’ve watched a big change in the balance of the control of spending in Parliament from individual MPs to party leaders or their staff. And remember I’ve worked as a staffer. I suppose I’m old fashioned but I value the old fashioned role of the back bencher and would hate to see budgets being used to control the Warings, Minogues or Munros using National party examples. I think transparency can in itself bring about accountability.
[DPF: I share disquiet over the increasing power of the Leader, but look it is inevitable under MMP. That boat has sailed. Ministers get their travel approved by the PM, so MPs getting int travel approved by Leader not a biggie, and to some degree already happens]
November 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am
On a related note, a small snippet which offers an insight into how leadership and accountability operate in our political system.
A comment by Phil Goff that Trevor advised him of his trip on Tuesday.
This did make me wonder about how Phil can manage his party and its strategy when senior people are buggering off without warning and giving 3 days notice. Presumably Trev had to seek leave of the Speaker to be absent from sittings of the House and any Committees that he sits on so how does this work?
If the whole issue had not blown up now, would Phil have found out Trev was swanning around the world in bizclass comfort at about the same time as he called him up and got the answerphone message “I’m currently out of the country … leave a message”
Are MP’s totally self-managing?
The other thing that caught my eye was this morning’s abysmally shallow Herald editorial which stated that because there is nevetr a shortage of people willing to stand for Parliament, it doesn’t really matter if their remuneration gets cut as it won’t make much difference.
It is a shame that the authors of such trash don’t have to identify themselves. While I know there has been no shortage of candidates, there are some strong quality arguments around the remuneration issue. Cutting the salary of MPs would still make it an attractive career option for people who could not hope to earn that much even in their wildest dreams.(Sue Bradford, ex Trade Unionists, dental nurses, teachers, and junior lecturers in political science and economic history are examples)
Keep cutting to the point where it becomes unattractive for even those and you end up with an exclusive club of people with independant means and a few for whom the minimum wage, unemployment or sickness benefit becomes their aspirational goals. Now who in their right mind would want a bunch of Phil Ure’s in our Parliament.
IMVHO, Parliamentary Remuneration should make it attractive for successful people to stand and Ministerial Remuneration should have a very significant margin above that. I think it is also a bad look for our PM to be constantly excusing his own “independant means” and the stupidity of him paying for his spouse to go to Apec, State visits to Japan and other international forums where the whole diplomacy thing is a dance requiring input of both FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTRY.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Good comments RedBaiter.
I love the way that these perks have been relabelled as part of their salary. As if the MPs are paying with their own money. No doubt this was a convenient way at some point in the past to raise salaries and dampen the public outcry. Can any Kiwiblog historians shine some light on this?
Funniest comment of the day from Trevor Mallard. Labour MP Trevor Mallard has outed himself for using his taxpayer-funded travel perk to jet to London to watch the All Blacks play at Twickenham. Mr Mallard left last night on the “work trip” to see contacts related to his education portfolio, which he openly admitted had been deliberately timed to to coincide with the test match. Mr Mallard said:
“You can’t put good policy development on hold because you’ve got an economic problem.”
If only we could put your ‘good policy’ crap on hold, Trev.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10608731
November 12th, 2009 at 10:33 am
re my 10:21 Scratch 3 days notice and substitute 24 hours
November 12th, 2009 at 10:37 am
What ‘good policy’ will Trougher Trev discover by having a meeting with a useless lump like Marian Hobbs?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“Marian Hobbs …… and I will have a meal together”
Yeah, Hobbs, Ex Communist, one time HART enthusiast, and with a shadow hanging over her own head on expense claims while an MP. That will be time well spent.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Bet that meal won’t come out of the “per diem” and consist of fish and chips.
Stick it on the bill Trev! (all purely in the interests of research of course – cue Tui’s advert)
November 12th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Not a fan of your solution, DPF. It increases the costs. Not only do MPs get a $5800 pay raise, they get the international travel on top of that!
Pay raise in lieu of travel (which was in lieu of a pay raise some time ago) – sure. Pay raise in addition to travel – stuff off. Parliamentary parties are already funded for parliamentary travel; private travel can be a private expense.
That said, if Lockwood’s concern is that long-serving MPs will be insufficiently remunerated, I don’t have too much of a problem with re-jigging the salaries a little. Make the base salaries for all positions somewhat lower, with a 5% uplift for each full term served (up to say 20% for 4+ terms in Parliament). Keep the overall costs the same, but share the spoils around differently.
[DPF: The total package should be around the same. The $5,800 deduction is now six years old so probably more than that. And with the party funding I said up to $5,000 per MP. What I would do is count up the number and cost of work related trips done by MPs using the perks, divide by total number of MPs and use that as the figure]
November 12th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Redbaiter said “Yeah, Hobbs, Ex Communist, one time HART enthusiast, and with a shadow hanging over her own head on expense claims while an MP. That will be time well spent.”
Redbaiter 1; Trevor Mallard Nil
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Hon Trevor Mallard,
While you’re here, why don’t you cut and paste the itinerary of your trip and details of the academics, policy wonks and practitioners you’ll be meeting?
Then the taxpayers can judge the validity of your claim that the trip will help you “..develop policy for the future and make choices around which of Anne Tolley’s policies are worth supporting, which I should focus on trying to improve and which should just be opposed.”
Dinner with Marian Hobbs (ex-MP) doesn’t really cut it.
Your sincerely
NZ Taxpayers
November 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
When you travel overseas to attend a conference only the expenses directly related to attendance at said conference are tax deductible. Perhaps the MP’s could dock their salaries for time spent overseas not directly related to parliamentary activities.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Can’t agree DPF.
MPs, like any other lot are going to include “troughers” like Carter but overall, given the workload of many and the relatively small amounts we are discussing the only change should be individual trips of sitting MPs (including costs and travel details) should be posted upon bookings being made so that anyone interested can access the figures and comment accordingly.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:59 am
1) Abolish eligibility for subsidised international travel for MPs from 1 July 2010
- Agreed
2) Increase funding for each parliamentary party by up to say $5,000 an MP, allowing MPs to apply to the party leadership for a partial or full international travel subsidy. As it will come out of a limited budget for the party (what you do not spend on travel you can spend on communications, staff etc) the leadership will want to be sure there is genuine parliamentary and/or political value from the travel.
- $5k is pretty low, my read is the amount should be based on rank, from so $5k back bencher to $15k leader & it’s individual accounts & it’s cumulative. There is an arguement retiring ministers will have a jaunt at the end, but that happens already & hell we ask a fair bit of them.
3) Have the Remuneration Authority recalculate MPs salaries, without the deduction for subsidised international travel.
- Presumably you’d be including Retirement benefits in this.
I think there are benefits to International travel & the money we are talking about is not large, but it is very symbolic in a time of budgetary restraint, maybe it had to happen, but it sure seems a few have ruined it for alot.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am
OR,
20 MPs in total
Pay them $1M each per annum and they pay their own way on all travel, own accomodation etc etc.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am
In a bit of a reply to Trevor Mallard and a go at the majority of travel, but it all seems to be a waste of time and money.
I know in Auckland and Manukau the city councillors are off on planes all over the place. It is not necessary to have so much travel? Waste of space most of them
What is produced at the end of it, no one reads, nothing is produced, and no good done
Have people never heard of
1. Phones
2. Email
3. Video Conferencing
What will happen to the yearly speakers jaunt all over the world?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@Nigel, The great contradiction using ranking is that the higher ranked ones are likely to:
a) be the busiest and therefore least able to take advantage or:
b) the most likely to be travelling on genuine Parliamentary business.
I think we also should be careful not to conflate ministerial travel with Parliamentary perks.
I for one would not like to write rules around Tim Groser’s need to travel (for example)
November 12th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Public interest international travel for MPs should be treated like the professional development international travel for senior doctors.
It should be an individual annual allotment the planned use of which is subject to approval by the Speaker (sufficient public interest) along with any apportionment between the public interest and personal rest and recreation. The details of each trip would be publicly available. MPs should be able to accumulate it over the term but not between terms.
I agree with DPF the entitlement to current and post retirement discounting holiday airfares should go. It’s poor policy. There is no public interest in MPs holidaying at taxpayer expense. The $6k + $4k for partners docking of MPs salaries should be returned to them.
However Trevor Mallard is right.
It would be folly in the extreme to adopt any scheme of international travel where it is pooled and distributed by Party Leaders.
Frankly there is no analogy with the need for Ministers to get approval from the Prime Minster to be out of the Country. They are members of the Executive travelling on Government business. There presence or absence from New Zealand could impact on Government business. Ministers are expected to be in Parliament voting in accord with Cabinet decisions (or Cabinet decisions within their portfolio responsibilities or where they have been consulted for Ministers from Parties supporting a minority Party led Government).
MPs who are not members of the Executive are in a different boat. It’s vital that individual MPs travel to look at public policy issues and make contacts. They should not be treated like children and have ability to travel distributed politically within their Party – as DPF’s proposal would most certainly result.
MPs out of favour with the Leader would be denied travel; the up-and-comers (who are not a threat to the current Leader) would be rewarded – potential future Leaders wouldn’t travel. Those MP’s challenging policy orthodoxy in their Party would not travel. Those MPs that the Leader/Party hierarchy want to get rid of would not travel. Wrongly, Leaders would reward politically and on long service not on need. Why would they not; that is how everything else done communally in politics is done.
I cannot see the value (except for Party Leader command and control) for centralising international travel in the hands of Party Leaders.
The Speaker should approve it because it is actually in the interests of the entire Parliament that our MPs see public policy first hand and make contacts. New MPs in particular should actually be travelling most – they have most to learn and from their ranks come our future political leaders.
As for MMP – red herring – the current entitlement isn’t pooled and most of the money the current Leaders have at their disposal was provided over and above the individual Parliamentary Service allocations for each MPs. Nothing about MMP says that international travel should be pooled at all.
[DPF: I'm open to the Speaker approving, instead of party leaders,but I think in reality it would change little. The reality of MMP politics is you need permission from the party leadership to do most things. The leadership/caucus already decide who goes on IPU trips and Speakers trips.]
November 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am
geez Trevor – you just dont get it do you??? – Its not your travel or your desperate attempt to make it appear acceptable by owning up. FFS its part of your remuneration package and you are all using it legally, and bugger the economy and the belt tightening the rest of us are forced to do
It your fucken finger pointing at everyone else troughing that makes you so pathetic
November 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“Public interest international travel for MPs should be treated like the professional development international travel for senior doctors.”
Good grief. A scam at least as monumental as the troughing of MPs, possibly even more so.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Cut the number of MPS, cut their travel, cut their salary, impose term limits (two terms only) and remove all lifetime benefits, another disgusting scam.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Graeme Edgeler:
What you fail to take into account is that in Trevor Mallard’s case his post retirement holiday airfare travel discount (abeit capped) is probably worth at least $150k to $200k assuming he is active and lives to the average life expectancy. Even more if the cost of airfares rise dramatically. There is no public accountability on the use of this entitlement – no public interest in it at all.
Setting aside how a public interest international travel entitlement scheme might work, make no mistake it is a significant financial loss to him personally should he and his senior collegues support a wind up of the current scheme.
Credit is due to Trevor Mallard for discussing the issue rationally. Most senior MPs will keep their mouth shut and stay away from this issue hoping it dies down. His views as a senior MP as to how a pooled travel entitlement scheme would empower Leaders against back bench MPs are worth noting. He raises a significant issue. Just look at how the Speakers trips are allocated i.e. politically.
MPs should have a right to a private life and that should be paid for by them. The is no public interest in their holidaying. They is why they should not be paid in kind for this. They also have a duty to travel internationally to see public policy first hand and make contacts. There is a public interest in this.
Though it pains me to say it Trevor should get credit for posting on this.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Please Red, do us all a favour and have that discussion with your anaesthetist just before you go under the gas.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Hey Punchy,
Why don’t you pick up the phone, use a webcam or write an email if you want to talk policy wank with other socialist scumbags? Your lot throw stats around willy nilly, just dredge some of those up as support for any policies you like.
Why don’t you pay for your own trip if you want to watch the all blacks or have a meal with your fellow crooked troughers? Surely you can afford it on your fat salary? We can all see that you are eating a little too well and I bet you wont be sharing
You are a redneck MP in a broke arse backwater so international travel is a bit of a luxury for a visionless opposition MP don’t you think? Or do you feel that your little trip is more important than families being able to afford to eat? Sick people getting treatment?
Get a proper job and give someone with a bit of initiative, backbone and moral fibre a crack. Stop wasting other peoples money sucking on the tit and acting like you a) give a shit about anyone else or b) have anything to offer other than tired, regurgitated shite from the UK labour party.
Stick them on my tab DPF.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@Chris Diack 11:25
How does this differ from a Chief Executive’s absolute power to accept of reject travel proposals from staff members. Isn’t that what leadership is all about? or are you saying that Phil can’t be trusted?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Why are taxpayers funding this at all?
If I go on a business trip, I claim back from my employer. My employer needs to ensure there is sufficient value in the trip to cover the expenses.
If a politician goes on a business trip, they should claim back from their party (Or government if it was government business). If their employer (Government / Party) does not see sufficient value in it, they can pay themselves.
Like the real world, politicians and political parties need to get out of my pocket. I will donate to the parties I believe in and agree with. I do not want to fund overseas trips for politicians I disagree with to go watch the rugby.
No thank you.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I’m not failing to take that into account. I want it scrapped.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I am sure trevor organised the trip to London to coincide with then world cup and he admits it. But I say good on him for doing this trip in this atmosphere of “prudence” over these trips. I think the “perk” should remain but for business/study related travel as the PRIMARY purpose.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
David and Pascal:
What you misunderstand is that MPs are not employees of their Party or Leader.
They are representatives. In terms of votes they all exercise the same vote and are equal. If you want to know what snouting would be created by allowing political leaders to award travel look at how current Speakers trips are allocated.
Our Perk defending bantam Speaker is wrong in principle to look at the recognition of seniority. The recognition of seniority (as others have observed) is going into the Ministry or getting a significant role like the Speakership. In a small Parliament the odds are that most MP’s in the two old Parties will have a fair chance of achieving this if they have any talent or skill. If they aren’t capable why would they receive more money for this simply because of being a long term non performer?
It would be a different matter if the Executive and its hangers on did not constitute one third of the Parliament at anyone time. Contrast this with the UK House of Commons where it is 100 out of 650 are part of the Executive. Few UK MPs ever see the Cabinet room and most never serve in the Executive. Its highly unlikely that a UK MP spends a decade in the Ministry.
Graeme Edgeler:
If you want it gone then it’s a little unfair to claim that say Trevor Mallard would be getting both an increase in salary and travel. The holiday discount on airfares entitlement would be gone. It would be replaced with a travel entitlement linked to public interest for the overseas travel therefore narrower in scope than the current scheme. Currently he can mix both rest and recreation with some element of looking at public policy and making or renewing contacts. Any rest and recreation as part of such travel in the in the future would be privately funded.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
# Countess (17) 4 3 Says:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
With supporters like Big Bruv , who needs enemies?
So you think it is fine for National party MP’s to help themselves to vast amounts of our money out of some fucked up sense of entitlement?
I bet you would be screaming blue murder if Margaret Wilson had made these comments.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I would happily pay 100% of Mallard’s first class fare myself as long as it was one-way and I knew that the dreadful little prick wasn’t going to come back.
Better still, I’d shout the indolent and odious oik Ure on the same basis, although in the case of the latter, I would hope he wouldn’t be lost to this forum. In fact, I’d even shout a seat for his photo of Kelsey, although he might have to give it a bit of a cleanup before taking it out in public (the picture as well).
November 12th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’m pretty sure I never mentioned Trevor Mallard.
At present, parties get money they can spend on travel for parliamentary purposes. MPs also get discounts on travel for whatever purpose they like. I’m suggesting keeping the former, and giving MPs a pay raise to make up for getting rid of the latter. DPF (and you?) are suggesting keeping the former, getting rid of the latter, giving MPs a pay raise to make up for the latter and giving parties more funds for the former, even though the pay raise has already made up for removing the perk.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Marian Hobbs who has a senior role in the Schooling Improvement project in Birmingham and I will have a meal together during the week and I’m sure we will talk both about her work and other things.
..WTF !!?? Hobbs has a what role where ??..what a rort…..and I suppose the rugby game is a coincidence with your junket..
mallard you are parasite trougher…
But during what I used to regard as “normal work time” I will be focussed on meeting with academics, policy wonks and practitioners
..why cant you use email and tele conferencing for this ???….do us all a favour mallard and stay over there .
November 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Bearing in mind that the country isn’t exactly flush at the moment, can I take it that you’ll be travelling economy class Trevor?
G
November 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Mallard is a true parasite with the gall to come here to defend his junket. In the company of other NZ politicians he continues to plumb new depths.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Three points
To David. Phil delegates the approval system for travel. That is why he wasn’t aware.
2nd There are no additional expenses hotel bills per diems etc
3rd Marian Hobbs was a very successful Principal at Avonside, was appointed to Wellington Girls and while we don’t always agree is a real education leader, recognised internationally, and to criticise her for being part of an anti racist group of which I was also a member of tells me something about the trolls that live under DPFs bridge.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Mallard calls Farrar a friend of racists.
Mallard troughs during RWC.
Goff supports Mallard.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
We’re called taxpayers Trevor, the people you answer to.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Mallard is trying to tar n feather people opposing his troughing junket as racist motherfuckers.
Mallard attempts a Hone.
Might work.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
@Chris Diack 2:03pm
Thank you. This is a point I have been trying to tease out in this discussion. We tend to think of political parties as the public service equivalent of companies because that is our ready frame of reference.
So if I understand what you are saying:-
To Trevor Mallard (purely as an example you realise) Phil is not the leader in the traditional sense, setter of rules and arbiter of behaviour? Phil is only the Chairman of a rather large and unwieldy Committee which has some loose rules that members are expected to follow? (I can believe that as he only rules at the pleasure of the members) If they don’t there is not much Phil or anyone else can do about it?
Phil does not exercise leadership in the sense of being a mentor and trainer of the next generation of Labour political leaders or the selector of those likely to become spokespeople or (possibly) Cabinet Ministers and are thus worthy of extra input for the Party’s future good? Phil would (given the chance) bestow favour on a chosen coitere of loyal followers in a misbeguided effort to retain and prop up his own position regardless of the worth or value of the Party’s philosophy and its continuity of purpose?
Boy Chris you sure are one certain cynic – or have I got this wrong?
November 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
“..the indolent and odious oik Ure..”
i quite like that..
it has a certain ring to it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
A new portmanteau for the troughing duo “Malawira”
November 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Turn it up punching blouse, you can use all the excuses in the world but the fact is that your an arrogant fat fuck living it large at the expense of others. Others being us, the general public. You know the ones who you regularly steal from to further your own agenda?
As I, and others, have asked previously perhaps you could explain exactly what Cultural Learnings of United Kingdoms for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of New Zealand you will be undertaking that would not be possible using modern telecommunications methods? Or are you one of these luddites that struggles with texting and dictates his posts through a “Media Liaison Officer” (or whatever your troughing assistant is called)?
November 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Who is that clip clopping over our bridge?
November 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“to criticise her for being part of an anti racist group”
Oh yeah sure.
In spite of the fact it was organised led and promoted by global communists, HART was all about racism.
Pull the other one Trev, its got bells on it.
Likewise Hobb’s pretense to care for ‘educating’ kids. Like most on the left, all she wants to do is figure out a way to indoctrinate them even more intensely than they are already.
Education will become a reality again in NZ only after it is freed from the death grip of the left.
..and that day is coming Trev.
We’re after you mate.
Just so you know it.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Leave Malawira alone, he has some packing to do for his troughing trip to watch the rugby on your dime.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
heh..ya days are numbered mallard..ya stale and smelly like the rest of the laiarbour line up.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
With all due respect to Doctor Smith — boo fucking hoo.
And could folks like Messers Mallard, Hide and Harawira exercise some damn judgement and wrap their heads around the idea that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.