don't use someone else's death to make your point.
I've poked and poked at this idea, because it can't possibly be that simple and there must be a whole bunch of exceptions, but it stands up pretty well.
I think the only possible exception would be a public safety campaign, where someone's death really is the ultimate demonstration of a "xyz behaviour is dangerous" message.
For personal points, though, it's probably a pretty consistent rule.
It's the need to have first complained to the Herald before going to the Press Council that makes me hesitate. Orsman is senior editorial staff.
I gather the consulate official who contacted the Herald is quite shocked by the nature of the subsequent correction. So that’s a great look.
I'm tempted to complain on the Consulate's behalf. Pursuit of a political vendetta that drags in a sovereign nation's diplomatic mission? That's pretty despicable, even by what pass for Orsman's journalistic standards.
government is supportive of the CRL, at the least.
The sure have a funny way of showing it. When they insist on occupancy targets for rail before they'll commit to funding something that's going to be needed to allow additional train services before they're prepared to even start its construction, they conveniently don't mention that on a vehicle-occupancy basis Auckland's motorways are so far from congested that we should have stopped laying tarmac in the 1960s.
If National are "supportive" of the CRL, they shouldn't have a problem with committing a future government to spending money on the project. The actions and words around funding the CRL vs funding the Roads of (increasingly) Dubious Significance are far more convincing than any side conversations with "senior officials".
Are you saying that LB has no influence on meaningful change in urban planning policy and legislature? I actually though that pressure was coming from the central government on ACC to free up land and construct affordable housing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Brown absolutely “has influence on meaningful change in urban planning policy”, but only within the realm of Auckland Council and even then only as one voice and one vote at the table. He has no fiat powers of policy-setting, he can only achieve change through persuasion of other councillors to his perspective. Councillors don’t answer to him, either, they answer to the voters in their wards, and that means that the councillors are quite open to being swayed by hysterical beat-up bullshit like we saw being spread across the pages of Granny during the draft Unitary Plan process. So whatever you might think, Brown cannot hammer his fist on the table and get his way. Not just will not, not just should not, cannot.
As for the government’s pressure, you’re confusing opening up land with affordable housing. The two are not the same. The government has no interest in the council’s intent to use intensification as a way to improve affordability, and has said as much; their perspective is that the only solution to housing affordability issues is to open up more greenfields land and sprawl, baby, sprawl. This negates any influence Brown might have on policy at the national level, too, because what he believes is directly opposite to what the numpties on the Treasury benches believe; same issue with the Core Rail Link.
The evidence is building that sprawl runs counter to affordable housing, because even if the housing might be cheaper the far greater transport costs imposed consume all the money saved on the mortgage and then some. The isolation and automobile-reliance also destroys social fabric and general health and well-being. So when you speak in the same breath of “free[ing] up land and construct[ing] affordable housing” you are speaking of two incompatible policy settings.
Kerre must be utterly furious, then, that the Prime Minister refuses to front on National Radio. How dare he cower in fear of being asked sensible questions by proper interviewers!
And how exactly does Len Brown address this? He doesn’t and he can’t.
Those last two words speak a lot to the irrationality of your position. Brown is a mid-size fish in a very, very large pool, one where the biggest fish are parochial buffoons like Joyce, English and Brownlee. His ability to actually influence the factors that are making Auckland housing wildly affordable is very, very limited, especially since he's got a council heavily composed of people who are thoroughly in the thrall of the "we've got our leafy suburbs, you new entrants can fuck off to the edges of suburbia" crowd. He can try and get the council to support intensification, which is really the only thing the council can do to meaningfully improve affordability (knocking $30k in consent costs off the price of a new build is rapidly becoming an invisible rounding error), but he's one voice and one vote. The macro policies, around jobs, foreign ownership, tax incentives, they're all out of his hands.
So you think Brown is worthless because he's not doing anything to address housing affordability (amongst other things), then you come out and explicitly recognise that he can't do anything about housing affordability in any meaningful way because he's a regional politician in a country where nearly all the power rests with central government and the current occupants of the national capitol are morons who wouldn't know good housing policy if it got dropped on their heads by a witch on her way to a date with a falling domicile.
He was booed at the Auckland Nines and was asked not to attend a community military tattoo this weekend.
No fact checking, just continuing to present the disgruntled Sharon Stewarts views as the truth.
Which bit is inaccurate? That he was booed at the Nines? Or that Sharon Stewart asked him not to come to the Howick Military Tattoo? I thought both were grounded in fact, if a little over-egged in her description.
He and the other four are basically deadweight on council.
Which is particularly sad when you consider that Denise Krum, from Tamaki, is newly-elected in place of the very long-serving Richard Northey. She won, as best I could see (as a resident of the ward), on the back of the most expenditure on billboards and concerted use of her school board connections to leaflet-drop the ward. That she'd been the councillor for barely long enough to work out where to sit before signing up behind Brewer and Quax to call for Brown to resign was not at all a good beginning. I haven't heard a peep out of her since, though, unlike her rowdy new compatriot from Howick.
I had a look to say what Whaleoil readers ... thought about this.
Well, I'm not sure one could describe quite what appears as the majority of the comments on WO as the result of "thought", but I'll let it slide.
Your sacrifice is noted and appreciated.