Well, I know what I’m doing new years eve…
What the?
Occaisionally I do a check on the ol Technorati to see who’s been linking here and to see if anyone’s actually discussing anything I’ve said. So I was quite surprised when I found this post over at Progressive Essays.
Now I have to say, I am stunned and quite frankly offended at the gross assumption made by this person.
I get an email one day from someone saying “hey, I’ve just got into the blogging thing, what do you think of my blog, have you got any tips?”. So I had a quick look and emailed back something along the lines of “not bad, keep at it, be yourself etc”, and chucked a link on my blog. I’ve had a couple of looks at the site since, and to be honest, haven’t been terribly inspired by what I saw there and haven’t been back in a while.
So I was rather surprised to see this unsubstantiated post claiming that I support fascist ideology. Especially given the fact that I’m involved in anti-fascist activism. But oh well.
I could go into a detailed analysis about why I am not a national socialist, but to be honest I cannot be fucked. I’m in Hobart, the sun is shinning and I’m better off outside having a life. As for the lovely person behind Progressive Essays. I suggest you spend a little bit more time on your ‘experiment’ before you come to conclusions about how people’s politics and ethics extend into the way they structure their blog. You have missed the point.
But good on you for noting that I don’t split my blogroll into left and right. The reason for this? I don’t believe in the concepts.
My message to ‘Assorted Ratbags’? Fuck off, get a life, grow up and have a nice day.
Follow up on Mr Hide
I received a letter in response today from the Speaker in regards to my queries about how the Parliamentary expenditure rules apply to the spunky new car that Rodney Hide has gotten himself. Her reply is as follows:
7 December 2005Dear …
I refer to your email from 1 December 2005 asking “…is using the parliamentary crest without the permission of the Speaker a breach of parliamentary spending rules?”
Current requirements are that if members of Parliament use their member’s support allocation or parliamentary party leader’s office funding to advertise their services or activities on parliamentary business, that advertising material must display the parliamentary crest and include contact details.
Advertising is defined as advertisements or information relating to the member’s or parliamentary political party’s activities when engaged on parliamentary business and includes, among other things, signage, such as that displayed on electorate offices, billboards, and member’s vehicles.
On occasions, members pay the costs of advertising that meets the definition of parliamentary business personally. Current practice is that members may use the parliamentary crest in their correspondence, communication or advertising without seeking the express permission of the Speaker, provided that the correspondence, communication or advertising relates to parliamentary business.
If you wish to obtain information on this matter in the future, please contact the Office of the General Manager, Parliamentary Service, 04 471-9435.
Hon Margaret Wilson MP
SPEAKER
So, it seems that what he did was legit in regards to the rules. But I would argue that the rules are a bit iffy. I think it’s a bit dodgy that people cannot tell by that Crest if parliamentary money has gone towards their thing (whatever it may be). So I ask how is the public able to hold politicians accountable for the appropriate spending of their money?
Hmm, what do other people think? Is this worth caring about?
The truth please Mr Hide
I see Mr Hide has a new vehicle and he has gone and confused the masses by putting a Parliamentary Crest on it. Now, hmmm…
The Parliamentary Crest (PC) is a registered image. It is registered to the Crown it can only be used for Parliamentary resources. So it can be used on letterheads and security badges and visitor stickers and all sorts of things like that. What it means is that the Speaker of the House has approved parliamentary money to be spent on whatever article or item the crest is attached to. And there are very strict rules as to how the crest is allowwed to be used which Rodney has alluded to.
One of the functions of the PC is to indicate to the public that something that has come from a political party has been funded by money from the taxpayer. This is a very important function of this logo, particularly in an election year when political party spending is under a lot of political and legal scrutiny.
So for Mr Hide to use this logo and claim that it’s just because it looks cool raises a number of questions for me.
a) What the hell definition of cool is he using?
b) Is he lying?
c) Is using the PC without the permission of the Speaker a breach of parliamentary spending rules?
Firstly, lets look at Rodney’s justification:
I stuck the crest on because it looks cool, I am the MP for Epsom, and I’m proud of it!
Besides, to even begin to fit within the rules the crest would have to be comparable in size and prominence to the ACT logo on the car’s front.
I am going to ignore the point that the crest looks cool, because it obviously isn’t.. But he is right, the crest would have to be comparable in size to the ACT logo. I’m not sure I agree with him on that point. According to these images the crest on the back and the logo on the front appear to be the same size, which complies with the rules.
Secondly, I asked is he lying. The reason I do this is because I can’t see for the life of me why someone would chose to confuse the public and put a crest on something that hasn’t used taxpayer funds to purchase. The deep cynic in me is wondering if Mr Hide did pay for it with taxpayer funds and then realising how hypocrytical that is, decided to pay for it himself so he didn’t have the proverbial egg-face thing going on.
Thirdly, and more seriously I ask if it is legit to use the PC without the authority of the Speaker. As a (former) member of the NZ tax paying public, I expect that when I see a PC, I know that taxpayer funds have been spent on an item that is deemed appropriate by the administrators of the rules of the Parliamentary Service. If any member of the public, be they a Member of Parliament or not, uses the PC without permission to do so, I would think that is getting close to a fraudulent act. It is certainly impersonating an authority which must be against some rule somewhere.
I am going to write to both Mr Hide and The Speaker for clarification of this issue, and I will post their responses on here when I receive them.
Finally, I would like to congratulate Mr Hide for chosing such a responsible vehicle to drive. I understand it is a highly economical, fuel-efficient car and it’s from a NZ company (their website doesn’t clarify if it’s made here or not) so I would like to commend Mr Hide for supporting good business!