The 2017 Election Thread

[Banditbandit]

Oh, and why does it have to be a NZ aircraft again? Don't the others work when she is in them?

Security issues dungbat ... yeah - I know - low risk - but not a complete lack of risk ...

Also the PM needs to contactable al the time - that can only be guaranteed if they fly on the specified aircraft .


(dungbat is not a spelling mistake - or a typo ...)

[husaberg]

I fairly sure a short Google search could turn up half a dozen private NZ operators with an appropriate charter aircraft fit for purpose, but hey, as you said, she's got a vagina.
Oh, and why does it have to be a NZ aircraft again? Don't the others work when she is in them?

Imagine if she had chartered a flight there would be an outcry, she asked the officials they said its not an issue as the plane that took the original party a 757 had to leave the island anyway. Its all in the story and expaination.
As i said the plane has to be staffed and paid for, if its used or not. the plane had to leave the island anyway after delivering the original NZ contingent.
If she had not gone to the leaders conference ithere would have been an outcry anyway so its a lose lose situation.
How often have you seen a NZ PM use another nations airline?

Weighing up the logistics around travel I asked officials to check what the extra costs I would be imposing on the crown would be if I were to travel separately," Ardern said.
"They assured me that because of the 757 not being able to remain on Nauru anyway, but having to leave the island so other planes could come in and depart - and also the fact that if it wasn't flying there it would be taking up an hour somewhere else anyway, then on balance I decided it was worth me travelling.The original plan was to send the plane to the Marshall Islands an hour's flight away to get it off Nauru."
Ardern noted that the incident was somewhat unique while her daughter was so young and she didn't anticipate it happening again.
"This is a unique set of circumstances, I don't anticipate being in the situation again."
She is intending to take Neve with her on a trip to New York this month for the United Nations General Assembly meeting".

[jasonu]

Imagine if she had chartered a flight there would be an out cry she asked the officials they said its not an issue as the plane that took the original party a 757 had to leave the island anyway.
AS i said the plane has to be staffed and paid for if its used or not.
If she had not gone to the leaders conference ithere would have been an outcry anyway so its a lose lose situation.
How often have you seen a NZ PM use another nations airline?

Yeah it may be staffed weather it is being used or not but that $80k worth of jet fuel would still be in the tanks had she gone with the rest of them. If it was a national mp you would be screaming blue murder.

[husaberg]

Yeah it may be staffed weather it is being used or not but that $80k worth of jet fuel would still be in the tanks had she gone with the rest of them. If it was a national mp you would be screaming blue murder.

$80k was plucked out of thin air the closest cost i can come up with is $48K but as its already in the budget for the year their is no actual additional cost
The plane had to leave the island regardless the island, is not Hawaii dude.
so its only one return flight to NZ mius the return trip to the marshall islands it didnt need to make.
No doubt there are actuall costs to landing in the marshalls and the fuel price would be higher their and there would be storage and ground crew costs accommodation that they wouldnt get in NZ as well. so its likely amounts to further savings for the tax payer.
Even if it was the actual cost and then it was doubled it is still not the cost for one of Trumps golf games. one day of security for Trumps wife living in New York because his child wants to finish his school term, let alone one of his affairs.
Unlike trumps expenses its all one off stuff.
I remember when john Key made the air force fly him at a cost of $10K so he could get pictured fore 5-10 minutes being at the Hamilton V8s and then attend a gala.

[jasonu]

1) I, for one - and I suspect there are others, are happy to pay it .. we are not all greedy self-serving cunts like you seem to be. Greed was never what New Zealand was about - until the rich pricks took over ..

2) The baby DID NOT travel with her - that is the fucking point - the baby is too young to get the required vaccines ... so she stayed home with Gaylord ... Jacinda traveled separately so she spent as short a time as possible away from the baby ..

3) Sheesh you can be dumb sometimes ..

1) You mean the 36.9% of registered voters that actually voted for labour.

2) Fair enough, I got that wrong.

3) Have you been talking to my wife?

[husaberg]

This is not the slagging off trump thread.

Every thread in the world is a potential slagging off Trump thread, he gives us so much ammunition, its hardly a coincidence hes in bed with the NRA (when its not with prostitutes and porn stars)

[Voltaire]

Complete waste of taxpayers money that could be spent on useful things like Flag Referendums and ($32K) for ex US presidents to go on speaking tours.

[jasonu]

$80k was plucked out of thin air the closest cost i can come up with is $48K but as its already in the budget for the year their is no actual additional cost
The plane had to leave the island regardless the island, is not Hawaii dude.
so its only one return flight to NZ mius the return trip to the marshall islands it didnt need to make.
No doubt there are actuall costs to landing in the marshalls and the fuel price would be higher their and there would be storage and ground crew costs accommodation that they wouldnt get in NZ as well. so its likely amounts to further savings for the tax payer.
Even if it was the actual cost and then it was doubled it is still not the cost for one of Trumps golf games. one day of security for Trumps wife living in New York because his child wants to finish his school term, let alone one of his affairs.
Unlike trumps expenses its all one off stuff.

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?

[husaberg]

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?

No grass hopper it means it cant be construed as "an additional cost"
If you look at the current Governements spending on Travel compared to Nationals you will see they are well under the previous budget. 2 million per year or about 1 1/2 years of limo rides for the nationals opposition leader. (Who remembers his name?)

The Government's $1.49m spend compares to Nationals $2.02m spent in the same period of 2017, $2.25m spent in the same quarter in 2016, and $2.33m in the same period of 2015.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...or-same-period

[jasonu]

No grass hopper it means it cant be construed as "an additional cost"
If you look at the current Governements spending on Travel compared to Nationals you will see they are well under the previous budget. 1/2 million per year or about 1 1/2 years of limorides for the national opposition leader.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...or-same-period

If the budget has enough innit to squander $80k on a pointless private plane ride then the budget needs looking at.

[husaberg]

If the budget has enough innit to squander $80k on a pointless private plane ride then the budget needs looking at.

You answer ignores reality, if they are spending significantly less than the previous government you would think you would acknowledge that but you ignore it.

The Government's $1.49m spend compares to Nationals $2.02m spent in the same period of 2017, $2.25m spent in the same quarter in 2016, and $2.33m in the same period of 2015.

As i pointed out it wasnt 80K either.
As they are significantly under budget anyway its not an additional cost at all now is it.
But instead why are you not hammering national for them spending 2 million dollars more per year tyhat Labour or Jon Keys 26 million flag referendum trhat no want wanted.

[Voltaire]

The plan was to fill up the plane with refugees and Clark was going to write the screenplay Jachindlers List.

[pritch]

If something is 'already in the budget' does that mean that money HAS to be spent and if it isn't does it expires or goes bad?

In practice sadly yes. Government departments don't like unspent budgeted funds as generally that means the following years budget could be cut. The unspent portion being regarded as evidence the previously budgeted amount was too great.

In reply to someone else: Use of a charter flight or an airline has to be paid in real money. Use of the air force does not. At worst it might require a transfer between government departments which is a lesser matter. The fuel cost will probably be written off as training. Basically the whole trip was free.

[Woodman]

In practice sadly yes. Government departments don't like unspent budgeted funds as generally that means the following years budget could be cut. The unspent portion being regarded as evidence the previously budgeted amount was too great.

In reply to someone else: Use of a charter flight or an airline has to be paid in real money. Use of the air force does not. At worst it might require a transfer between government departments which is a lesser matter. The fuel cost will probably be written off as training. Basically the whole trip was free.

Ooooh look everyone, reality.

[jasonu]

Basically the whole trip was free.

Where does one apply???