That afternoon show with the "panel" seems to suffer from a need to have two crazy wingnuts to balance one reasonable liberal (David Slack on the episode I heard). Maybe they feel they need to move to the right to secure funding under NACT.
I'd rate our media soundness on a scale of 1-10 as:
bFM: 9 (some of Havo's nuttier ideas let it down)
Nat Radio: 5 (probably reasonable for a state owned broadcaster)
TV3: 4 (better than you might expect for a right-wing overseas multinational)
TV1: 1 (believes violence is ok when white males are the perpetrator)
Radio Live, Newstalk ZB: minus infinity
Of course, the "streamlined" structure makes it a simple business for Auckland MegaCouncil, or even the transition authority, to sell Watercare.
And typically, when that happens, senior management get given shares and go from being a salaried employee on good money to a very wealthy part owner of the business.
I wonder who would benefit in that case?
It was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor
The name has an apostrophe. They're just journalists, basically. I'm not sure what the legality is of giving them enhanced access to unpublished information over say, the NZ Herald, or Public Address.
Oops, forgot to revert to my real login...
ARC elects 13 councillors from six constituencies by plurality-at large voting, who then choose a leader.
While not very democratic, this is more so than electing a Lord Mayor through bandwagon voting.
Also, the new council is having various parts of Waikato that weren't in the ARC area appended, in an effort to boost the number of tory-voting rural dwellers in the area (even if they don't want to be in the supercity, they can still be relied on to vote the right way).
It is normal commercial practice.
That says it all, really. Auckland is being treated as if it's a business, with the sole shareholder R. Hide, of Epsom. As opposed to a democratic body for the exercise of the people's will.
The reason there isn't STV, or Maori seats, or a mayor accountable to a decent sized council, not to mention why bits of Waikato and Northland are being annexed into Auckland are simple: it's to make sure the new council is in "business-friendly" hands. Leighton Smith is being disingenuous - there's no chance that Rodney will let a left-winger take over the city. It'll be Banks, or if that doesn't work, Paul Holmes. Or Tony Veitch.
On watching the interview I am of the opinion that Mason is a good honest man and a good father
I think it's an indictment of NZ television that they think its ok to provide a platform for thugs and abusers like this.
trash gets elected,
Isn't it possible there might be a whole heap of, um, legal stuff to sort out?
And both the councils and central government have whole legal services departments to do that.
I disagree with the whole concept of the Junta. It's supposed to be to stop the elected councils from sabotaging the supercity, but if the change process had consensus behind it, that wouldn't be neccesary.
Auckland is reasonably effectively governed already. A lot of peoples pet schemes might not have got built (waterfront stadium, Eastern motorway), but that's usually for the very good reason that the voters didn't want them. The basic jobs of councils are getting done, trash gets elected, permits get processed, a new logo gets produced every three years. There's no real reason to scrap democracy in order to push through rapid change.
Except of course, that democracy won't deliver they outcome Rodney wants. It's a hard task to leverage 5% of ACT voters in Greater Auckland into an ACT controlled council, but Rodney's having a good go at it.
Ok, I take it back, Wayne Walden's in fact Maori.