MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/They are too busy trying to get their non-partisan message about this wastrel government across.
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >>https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis
as you have done.
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >>https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from >>The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis
as you have done.
Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, a quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher than Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give
or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So on this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure is based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original figures do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would be higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, a >quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher than >Labour.
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >>>https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from >>>The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis
as you have done.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give
or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So on >this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few >cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure is >based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original figures >do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would be >higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more >than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they know the voters have complete
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, a
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >>>https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266) >>>
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from >>>The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis
as you have done.
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher than >Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give >or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So on >this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few >cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would be >higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more >than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimed
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time
to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT), John BowesWhat rubbish.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:12:48?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Your comments confirm that I was comparing like with like - none of
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers >>costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a >>bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they know
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimed
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published:
Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, >>> >ahttps://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266) >>> >>>
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from >>> >>>The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will >>> >> be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis >>> >> as you have done.
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher
than
Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give >>> >or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So >>> >on
this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few >>> >cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure >>> >is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original
figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would >>> >be
higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more >>> >than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for
re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps
government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time
to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
the voters have complete contempt for them!
FFS Rich! Labour haven't acted as MPs since 2017!
these were cabinet ministers. National are indeed the biggest
piggies . . .
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:12:48?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:contempt for them!
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they know the voters have complete
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimed
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, a
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that
is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis
as you have done.
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher than >> >Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give >> >or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So on >> >this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few
cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would be >> >higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more >> >than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for
re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps
government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time
to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
FFS Rich! Labour haven't acted as MPs since 2017!Your comments confirm that I was comparing like with like - none of
He is so desperate that he will write anything in the hope that he hits on something of value, this time he missed.Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Wonder if the imbecile bothered to compare current National figures with those >of Labour when it was in opposition. He's also not bothering to remember what >it cost for Labours theatre when they tiki toured around NZ getting a vote from
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT), John BowesWhat rubbish.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:12:48?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Your comments confirm that I was comparing like with like - none of
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers >> >>costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a >> >>bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they >> >>know
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>> >> wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >> >>>
Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average
$30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour
from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found >> >>> >> good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments
will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that >> >>> >> is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis >> >>> >> as you have done.
months,
a
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher >> >>> >than
Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimedhttps://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is >> >>> >give
or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. >> >>> >So
on
this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a
few
cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours
figure
is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original
figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think
would
be
higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to
more
than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for
re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps
government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time >> >>> to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
the voters have complete contempt for them!
FFS Rich! Labour haven't acted as MPs since 2017!
these were cabinet ministers. National are indeed the biggest
piggies . . .
You are absolutely not comparing apples with apples. You have no idea at all >>of
what the justification for these expenses were. Without that knowledge and >>an
in depthe analysis your conclusions are just quesses.
membership before the unions made Little dear leader. Hypocrisy is strong in >Rich and the left!
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Wonder if the imbecile bothered to compare current National figures with those of Labour when it was in opposition. He's also not bothering to remember what it cost for Labours theatre when they tiki toured around NZ getting a vote from membership before
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
What rubbish.On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:12:48?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Your comments confirm that I was comparing like with like - none of
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers >>costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a >>bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they know
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimed
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >> wrote:Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months,
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published: >>>
https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266)
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from
The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found >>> >> good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will
be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that >>> >> is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis >>> >> as you have done.
a
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher >>> >than
Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give
or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So
on
this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few
cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure
is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original >>> >figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would
be
higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more
than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for
re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps
government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time >>> to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
the voters have complete contempt for them!
FFS Rich! Labour haven't acted as MPs since 2017!
these were cabinet ministers. National are indeed the biggest
piggies . . .
You are absolutely not comparing apples with apples. You have no idea at all of
what the justification for these expenses were. Without that knowledge and an
in depthe analysis your conclusions are just quesses.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 03:22:48 -0700 (PDT), John Bowescontempt for them!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:12:48?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On 19 Sep 2023 02:04:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Typical of pos like you Rich you ignored the fact that cabinet ministers costs don't appear in that total.! Labour MPs doing more work? Don't be a bigger fool than usual Rich! They were hiding from the voters because they know the voters have complete
On 2023-09-17, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:I made the calculations by counting the number that had claimed
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:51:22 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Another point to keep in mind is that these figures are only for 3 months, a
wrote:
MP expenses for the quarter to the end of June have been published:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-expense-disclosure-from-1-april-to-30-june-2023/
For Labour, 37 MPs claimed expenses - total $727,267. (average
$19,656
For National, 33 MPs claimed expenses total $998,781 (average $30,266) >> >>>
I have not seen any questions of National being worse than Labour from >> >>>The Taxpayer Union . . . .
That may well be because the TU have dug into the numbers and found
good reasons for that spending by all parties.
Expenses must be for approved purposes only and all such payments will >> >> be on audited claims.
Unless you can find anything in the details of who claimed what that >> >> is worthy publicising, all you can do is produce a pointless analysis >> >> as you have done.
quarter in accounting terms. This term may by that National was higher than
Labour.
From another aspect. If we look at
https://www.parliament.nz/media/10385/house-seating-plan-as-at-2-august-2023.pdf
I make it that there are 64 Labour MP's and 34 National MP's, this is give
or take 1 for National.
However the labour amounts should be 64/37 =1.73 on a pro rata basis. So on
this basis the average for Labour is $19,656*1.73= $34,000 (within a few >> >cents)
So now the Average for Labour is above National's $30,266. Labours figure is
based on pro rata which is likely to be conservative as the original figures
do not include the Cabinet Ministers expenses, which I would think would be
higher than a normal MP.
Finally, I would expect the Government's MP expenditure to amount to more
than the opposition as the Government is doing slightly more work.
expenses. For both parties, there were MPs that did not claim for
various reasons, including that they had already effectively stopped
acting as an MP for most purposes (and would not be standing for
re-election). I agree that most would expect Government MPs to be
costing more, but the reality is that doing slightly more work keeps
government MPs in Wellington for longer. Opposition MPs have more time
to travel in the electorates they plan to campaign in . . .
Whereas you are just the biggest idiots and have just proved it without a doubt! Why? Because you deliberately ignore what it's costing for cabinet minister and the PMs travel! Typical bias from pos like you Rich!FFS Rich! Labour haven't acted as MPs since 2017!Your comments confirm that I was comparing like with like - none of
these were cabinet ministers. National are indeed the biggest
piggies . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:54:37 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,866 |