There are two kinds of 'seats' under discussion here. There are electorate seats, used to elect people to parliament, and ward seats used to elect people to Community Boards / Council.
Electorate seats are primarily population driven i.e. each parliamentarian has to represent a certain number of electors, while ward seats are primarily 'communities of interest' driven i.e. local government members represent communities and their interests (which makes sense).
Electorate seat boundaries change as the population waxes and wanes in any given area. They are more prone to being changed in response to population movements.
Ward seats have also a population consideration in that each local government rep advocates for a certain number of people, but the main driver of boundaries is along communities of interest lines. These lines change less frequently. The Local Government Commission looks after ward boundaries, and pays close attention to the boundaries of communities of interest.
The raison d'etre of local government are communities so it makes sense to use that as a basis for ward seats using communities of interest, and not a 'equal number of electors'' basis.
It was put to them that the Auckland electorates could be the basis for the community boards, that these could also be the electoral wards for the councillors for the supercity council, that this would help develop able local body politicians, that the Mayor could be selected from among the council, and would then be more effective.
These ideas were regarded as new by them, and they wanted anyone that said anything there to make a submission, to make these ideas less new I guess.
Disingenuous. It's not a new idea to them - there are plenty of policy wonks in the sea of government (well, actually a small team) who have developed variations of this idea based on a theme - ward based elections i.e. no at large, Mayor elected from ranks - which has been discussed at cabinet level I'm sure.
I don't dare go down the whisky-snob path because of how much my gin-snobbery is costing me. But if you want to ruin your life, make yourself two g&ts (your existing method meets with approval) - one with Gordon's, and one with South. Drink some of the South first.
If this doesn't make the Gordon's taste like second-hand lighter fluid, you're probably okay and you don't need to worry about gin snobbery.
Choose a hot summers day to carry out this rigorous test. Make sure you taste carefully then taste some more to confirm impressions. Get some friends over to assist with the measuring and pouring of the tonic water. Remember to have some music on as well. Kinda Motown meets R'n'B diva supremes style. And throw in a disco ball while you're at it too.
This test is robust and will give you the results you are looking for.
It perhaps did seem that way after the huge shitfight that it turned out to be, but I don't think that was apparent in advance.
I guess someone should have suggested (it wasn't done) that we think back to the Homosexual Law Reform Bill days - I wasn't out then, but from my understanding the shitfight that happened was worth every ounce of freedom... I guess in a way I would prefer to engage in the greater effort for equal civil rights, rather than reach a compromise.
Civil unions had the virtue of having been party policy for several years, so there could be no accusation of springing a surprise. And CUs had majority support in nearly every public poll, while marriage didn't (although attitudes were notably age-related on it).
True enough, although I personally would have argued along the lines of equal civil rights in marriage, not gay marriage.
I've said it often enough there's no such thing as gay rights / gay marriage, there's only equal civil rights for LGBTT members of society .
This distinction is lost on members of our community, I've observed, and so we find ourselves bogged down in 'gay rights' (meaning special rights), not equal civil rights for LGBTT citizens - which is much harder to deny.
I understand your wish for equality in the name of te Law but seriously, compromise is sometimes all we can wish for and at least in NZ one must accept that we must compromise for the entire nation.
I would agree with you, but sometimes, Rosa Parks doesn't want to sit at the back of the bus, you know?
And yes, of course, the good folks of Waterview Mt Albert must compromise for the good of the nation... I know that's NOT what you are meaning in this case - I'm sure you would mean that they shouldn't compromise in this case... ;)
Sofie there's legal equality, which we don't have, and there's social equality, which we also don't have. Some of the social inequality is reinforced by the legal inequality. The option to marry is a huge part of that. Adoption rights are another part.
Paul, CUs will be equal to marriage when we have the choice of them. While we're barred from marriage they remain unequal. I get your point about legal rights being conferred by either, but that's only part of the picture.
Thanks Mrs Skin for saying what I wanted to say, and in a much better way than I could have done so.
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
I don't believe she [Helen Clark] would have been willing to die in a ditch over same-sex marriage -- or risk a shit fight inside the party -- but I just wish she'd tried.
Amen to that. I remember thinking when the CU Bill was passed that for all the meetings, emails, energy, time, money, letters to the editor etc, we should have actually gone with the simple change to the marriage act (with consequential amendments in other acts). Doing so would have been far far simpler, easier, and miles more equal for the fags at the back of the marriage bus for the same amount of energy/shite expended over the CUB.
I know that some inside the Labour Party were sacred of attracting opprobrium about equal civil rights in marriage laws, and go figure, thought Civil Unions would attract less.
So here I am and I'm still unequal to my siblings. They can get married, or have a Civil Union, but I can't chose between those options - I'm restricted to having a Civil Union. HOW EQUAL IS THAT?
Putting on my Community Board Chair sunhat...
The buzzing will certainly continue at...
Super-City; a good idea or not?, an event hosted by the Eden Albert Community Board on Tuesday 19th May, 6.30pm at Owairaka District School Hall, 113 Richardson Road.
It should be interesting given that Rodney Hide is releasing the names of the men appointed to the Transistion Agency.
Swapping that sunhat for some private citizen sunnies....
I hear ya, and it's our lot in life to be fated to lead the 'straight', the 'narrow' and the 'moral' out of the darkness (where, goodness, many have (legal) err, interests shall we say) into the good life and light.
And that's a whole other lifetime.
although, on the other hand, an arguement could be made for that his sexuality does actually deny me that choice. Heterosexuality, patricarchy, white men's homophobia, drag queens and all that. But that's another day, and another thread....