I rarely read either Stuff or the Herald now. They are either so fluffy it’s a waste of time or so brazenly biased (Auckland local bodies vs Bernard Orsman) as to not be worth the irritation engendered. I used to be of the view I refuse to pay for such nonsense…..now I’ve evolved to the point where I simply refuse to even read it.
I read and listen (and watch) RNZ. I read and donate money to Scoop. I subscribe to Bernard Hickey’s “Hive News”. I put some money into The Spinoff War for Auckland. I’ve occasionally donated money to Public Address when you’ve asked. I’m happy to pay for media that’s actually doing a credible job and doing it with some semblance of intellectual integrity.
That doesn’t include Stuff or the Herald most days…..with special exceptions for Matt Nippert and a few others. But I’ll have to catch those links on Twitter or elsewhere. I don't see them on the Herald unless they are encountered somewhere other than the Herald.
I own a few houses. I have no idea what might have occurred in them in the past. In one case, there is a lockup under the house with no windows, lined with plastic sheeting. The previous owner was a builder who ran out of money.
To remove all doubt about what may have occurred in the past I wanted these houses tested for meth. It's a prudent precaution to determine both risk and possibly liability. I'm not worried about low readings due to (possible) use. But I wasn't going to be all "she'll be right" and ignore the possibility of contamination. I simply did not know. I wanted to know.
I've seen this sort of thing before. The top guy does something apparently crazy and takes the fall for it......but he was actually working to an agenda. It's worth looking at what happened next for the individual concerned. What was the reward for doing something apparently crazy, but which had some obvious beneficiaries?
Me, too. The new flag is a better beach towel than the old one. The UJ is worse than the fern. I’m no Key fan (as anyone who knows me will attest), but I do actually try to take every issue on its merits….which still ends up lopsided against Key and National because their values often simply do not align with mine, but on THIS occasion, I prefer the fern to the jack.
Correct. First Past the Post is the problem. Just as it recently gave 100% of the seats on the AECT to C&R, it allowed many Council members to be elected with barely a 1/3rd of the votes cast….in both 2010 and 2013.
I looked at this at the time. http://goo.gl/m4pWhX and again 2013.
I posted about it pretty much everywhere I could think of, including here, but there wasn’t much interest the fact that well over 50% of votes cast didn’t elect anyone at all (over 62% in 2010).
Are you in Auckland, Steve?
Brewer isn't running again, last I heard.
I'd be interested in campaigning for a change to STV for Auckland Council.
The last two elections saw more than 50% of the votes cast elect no one at all.
2010 result analysis: http://goo.gl/m4pWhX
2013 result analysis: http://goo.gl/RiO8OJ
The last election saw two wards not vote as not one person stood against the incumbents.
I'll vote to change the flag. The proposed one is basically the same as the current one, except the Union Jack is swapped out and replaced by the black and white fern.
I'm for it.
Did I hear the news right yesterday? Dick Quax did his prunes at the Council meeting and walked out because he couldn’t add a NIMBY-driven zoning item to the agenda?
Quax was elected by acclamation last time. That’s a disgrace. I’ll run against him next year just to force the vote if no one else does.