or "fetish" or some form of OCD (not that there's anything wrong with either of these, if they're consensual)
Christchurch isn’t the only city in this situation – though at least it has a good excuse – Dunedin’s seen rates increases way above inflation for the past decade, often close to 10% mostly because of the council’s unability to stop spending, the stadium debacle has committed us to at least a few more years of the same, it’s still losing millions a year just to subsidise rugby tickets – Kaipara’s in a bad state too, again because of a council that couldn’t stop spending.
When I lived in California the state (and I think cities) were legally required to bring in a balanced budget, and citizens were required to vote for any increases, this put continual pressure on the politicians to at least consider the possibility of moderation (mind you there were severe downsides to this too).
I think it’s easy for a politician to want to look good doling out the goodies, kind of human nature, no one gets elected to these positions with the goal of not doing things. We need to praise those who show restraint and are realistic in the face of adversity a bit more.
I visit a few times a year at the moment, usually to/from Shenzhen - I like to stay in Kowloon - specifically the Jordan area, not so touristy, great street food, (relatively) cheap tiny hotels.
The subways are great, safe, cheap - to save money only take the airport train to it's first stop (Tsing Yi) and change to the subway
I don't do much touristy stuff but if you want to - visit the Kowloon Walled City Park, take the ferry across to downtown, ride the escalators to the top (in the afternoon when they go up) and walk down
Really you're not supposed to vote if you've been overseas for more than 3 years - in fact you're allowed to if you come back for a visit every 3 years - when I moved to the US in the mid 80s it was as if NZ fell off the face of the map - I voted in the SF consulate to oust Muldoon, then they closed the consulate down
I didn't vote for 20 years (anywhere, not even in California for dog catcher or school board) even though I came back to visit every few years, I couldn't have made an informed decision anyway (besides as a lefty voter in NZ's most right wing electorate, under FPP my vote was useless, roll on MMP)
Things are certainly different now, I'd argue that thanks to the 'net things have changed and one could keep up to date with what's going on (so long as there are still actual journalists doing real cutting political reporting)
So with compulsory voting, you force the non-voters to attend the ballot and at least go through the motions of expressing a preference.
What is this meant to achieve? How is it different from declaring that the non-voters voted in the same proportion as the voters, and hence we have an imaginary 100% turnout.
It’s not removing disengagement, it’s just renaming it.
I think it depends - how many of those who don't vote don't vote because they really don't want to as opposed to those who just had something better to that day, but would have expressed a genuine preference should they have found themselves in a voting booth?
There are some New Zealanders who are under a real obligation to vote - my wife, who recently took NZ citizenship (after over 40 years), swore an oath to "fulfil her duties as a New Zealand citizen" which explicitly included voting
Fantastic result. I hope some political parties were taking notes.
I think that they have, it’s probably why Campbel is under fire
Kym: I'm all or paying for content - but what I wont do is pay two of you, twice, for content that is 95% the same - that's a waste of my money.
When you make an exclusive contract with a studio you are contracting away my choice, and I don't get a cut of the money you make, instead you get to (potentially) charge me more - there's something wrong here, after all it's my choice that is being bartered away without my say so, not yours.
You are trying to claim market share by creating small monopolies and then trying to leverage them, something that is illegal in New Zealand - that's far from "one of the most competitive marketplaces in the world" - it's more of a 1900s robber baron world view.
So I'm in the market for a digital provider, right now, I am your target market - I wont be choosing you so long as your company behaves this way, I wont be choosing Sky for much the same reason - honestly my only real choices for providers are off shore. Or, as someone who has 10 years of cable and SVOD engineering under my belt, maybe I should just roll my own ....
If you want to compete with the offshore sites provide the same service and the same price.
Seems to me that anyone pushing for a Fox News right slanted news sort of media world for NZ is probably making a commercial mistake - because you know that if they do, and labour and the Greens get back in, and they eventually will, they will retaliate not by making a competing lefty channel but by making a real independent public television network, probably merging it with Radio NZ - that's going to mean more, tax payer funded, competition for for-profit TV which wont be good for them in the long run
To be fair our politicians seem to on school holidays at the moment, it's probably hard to do political stories without politicians
I’ve also been surprised at the number of entirely reasonable people who have said today that would stop watching 3 News if Campbell Live was axed. From the days of Ralston and Nightline on, 3 News always felt like the underdog and I think a lot of loyal people are feeling betrayed.
I'm probably one of them, I only ever watch the TV3 news because CL is on after it