The inevitable idiotic press release from the Taxpayers’ Onion has been delivered:
And published almost verbatim on the NZ Herald website ... .
The tl;dr - "See! This really was an important story!! It's sparked a serious debate about local politician accountability!!!"
What would have been wrong with a door?
It is a door. Just one with bookshelves on it, that add extra storage space in what appears to be (from the NZ Herald's schematic diagram) a pretty small office and also (from an aesthetic point of view) doesn't break up the line of the bookcase. In other words, exactly the sort of thing you get when you get a designer to, you know, design an office space.
Furthermore, can you imagine the headline if this wasn't a bookshelf entrance? "Why is Len Brown wasting money on a plain door when he could use the space to store books? Does his profligacy know no bounds?"
If only they’d plumbed in a coffee machine this one might have lasted till Easter :)
How about if Len gets advice on how to prepare a leg of lamb for Korean bbq in his hidden $10,000 bathroom? Does that get us past New Year?
I was hoping someone would say that. New Zealanders and their renovations - this could be the most contributed to thread in the history of PAS.
Auckland local body politics + outrage at the Herald + home renovations? I'd say Russell has hit the trifecta here ... .
Labour’s Party-Vote fell by 4938 votes in Robertson’s Wellington Central, compared to a decline of just 2954 votes in Little’s New Plymouth.
The difference being, of course, that the 3000 votes in New Plymouth went to National (which increased its party vote there by 3,457 from 2008-2014), whereas most of the "lost" Wellington Central votes went to the Greens (which increased by a little over 3000 votes, while National's party vote increased by just over 100).
It may not be one member, one vote – rather union solidarity – But it’s not some unelected executive providing a bloc of votes either.
Sure. I know the theory. But I've been in a union long enough to know the reality, too.
I agree with everything you’ve written.
This makes me deeply uncomfortable and causes me to wonder where I've gone wrong :->
We appear to be in some sort of weird dimension where you, I and David Farrar are all saying the same thing. Mark this moment as one for the ages … .
Oh. Now I see. If Little squeaks in it is bad. If one more caucus vote had had gone to Robertson then would have been Ok for Grant to squeak in but not Andrew.
Yes. Because I think Grant is a better person to lead Labour than Andrew Little. So of course any result that delivers him the leadership is "OK"!
But if Grant isn't going to win, then the next-best outcome would have been for whomsoever did win to do so by a strong majority in at least 2 of the 3 voting blocs. To lose quite heavily in 2, but be elected by the 3rd is (IMHO) a bad place to begin with. Especially as I think the way the affiliate vote works in practice is deeply problematic (being in a union myself and having some cynicism about the heirarchical influence involved).
These are just my reckons. Others will have others. But
It's bitcoin or nothing!!
I think the suggestion might rather be that you identify the source of your criticism a little more acutely.
As I happily acknowledge upfront, much of it is personal disappointment that a close friend didn't get the job I think he's made for. But beyond that, if Little was going to win, it should have been in a landslide. A marginal squeak-by on the basis of union executive diktat is the worst possible starting point.
Now, maybe he'll go on to do great things. Maybe he really is the better guy for the job. None of us really knows. Alls I's sayin' is that in terms of all the possible process outcomes that the election could throw up, I think this one is the worst.
And that is what I think. Sorry if it is inconvenient, but sometimes these damn thoughts just have a mind of their own.