Just heard the radio news with Nicky Wagner saying it was good that Labour weren't pursuing a judicial recount for Chch Central and that now she could get on with earthquake rebuilding work for Chch - jeez ya mean she's just been sitting on her hands till now - any excuse, eh!?
Can anyone point to a time when National were anything but ice cold, bold faced, .......shifty.... oh I give up, the list is too long. I have no faith in them caring about anything other than themselves, and their lobby.
This entry has a good list of what Labour have done regarding attempts to improve our constitution, compared with what National have done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
Interesting notes re. Grey and his dictatorship period, and that he personally appointed each provincial Councillor...for life.
Just been listening in to RNZ... If Mayor Parker goes for the nuclear option and has his opponents ECanned, it looks like it's truly on now.
Yes, First Citizen John Key the First and the inner sanctum to the rescue.
We need to be saved from the perils of being free citizen's living in a democracy (at both local and central govt level).
The NZ economy is more than likely to, this year, begin sinking in a titantic fashion and the poor and the free press need to be confined to the lower decks - despite Citizen Bill English's commission on poverty. - so as not to distrub those travelling in first class who will in six months from now spend their tax cuts buyng power generation.
Clever ploy of geting the tax cuts back - don't you/they think.
I’m not the only one to suspect that a political proxy war is fomenting in Christchurch, and to a lesser degree the Ports of Auckland dispute.
Speaking of PoA, the MUNZ appears to have learned from Telecom’s contracting out to Visionstream, and refusing to let it happen to them.
"Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee could not be reached for comment yesterday, but has previously argued the high uptake of the red-zone offers was proof of their popularity. "
So, compulsory purchases are popular, because their uptake is high? Fantastic logic there, G.
Mr Parker now threatening a dictatorship to save Mr Marryatt's pittance? Curioser and curioser
Where to start?
Where to start?
Um, if nepotism was all the go at The Press the EQC would have been all over it in their Powerpoint presentation?
I think I get what you mean. I find that PP really low level, more about working the job. As for the Press, I don't know if they have nepotism there.
I find that PP really low level
Breathtakingly petty, though if the Chch City Council is any indication that kind of siege mentality is standard procedure in present-day corporatised bureaucracies. Employment of unqualified relatives by EQC management, and lucrative contracts for people from outside the region with no particularly relevant skills, were two festering issues uncovered by The Press.
Thanks Joe, I see.
Re corporatised councils.
Why were they made to function like this? Who monitors outcomes? Who benefits - against what criteria?
I find this interesting, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=85&objectid=10779299 in so much as a CRI finds this data, but what happens next? And what is value?
Silly question I know, but what is value adjudged to be by council and Govt. i.e. the Crown. As far as I can see, value is not adjudged to be what's good for who they call in that PP, The Public, it's some other opaque thing that we can't get to know about.
Until I know for example what a "liveable city" (Auckland council) means, how can I evaluate it's progress?
Another good example by The Press regarding the us and them approach from CCC,
"It's their land up there the rocks are sitting on, not mine. No-one can get on with their lives. Why are they leaving us hanging?"
It's the simple questions that are the best.
that presentation is not a good sign for EQC's internal culture.
The presentation is astounding in its negative application of caricatures. Just what relationships will this improve? Hang your head in shame Debbie Barber, whoever you are.
As someone formerly in the the game for many years, I find it mindbending that a comms "expert" and her managers think this will help anything other than send the policy-making EQC staff further into their bunker while the frontliners cop the fall-out.
BTW I am very satisfied with my EQC experience so far (emergency repairs and heating), so much so I emailed the brass to tell them so, But their self-satisfied, Wellington-centric, patch-protecting bullshit must stop. There is a a lot of grumpiness with bureaucracy in all its foul forms in Christchurch.
Not just Christchurch, we here whisper quietly to ourselves that we are badly served by unintelligent though crafty nabobs who feather their nests with the sham thin coated veneer of public goodwill. Least we attract their opprobrium, their malevolent gaze ;-)
Clean and safe, how hard is it?
Being terminally nosey I googled Debbie Barber, GM communications at EQC. I found her blog. Here is an entry, which may give an insight why EQC comms are so awful and the attitude to the media they take. I am hot on this because a very frustrating part of many bothers the populace encounter every day are due to inadequate and incompetent attempts at communication from EQC. In other words : tell us what is happening, really, not the PR sanitised version.
In the days when daily journalism was a profession you could be proud to belong to a good reporter was regarded as someone who had a nose for news. They could sniff out a good story at one hundred paces.
Whatever they're sniffing now is as foul as a hairy trucker's armpit, as smelly as a piece of roquefort found in an ancient Languedoc cellar or as stinky as the breath of a rat dining on the recently discarded remains of a fast food restaurant's fat fryer.
Reporting, for a start is now a misnomer. They don't report any more - they make up the news and broadcast to the nation as "fact".
Two particularly galling examples in the past week could not pass without comment.
The first when the recent royal nuptials were compared in historical moment to man landing on the moon and the bride's sister's derriere was a story all in itself.
The second was the coverage of the death of Osama Bin Laden.
We were originally told he was a coward who hid behind his wife's skirts and then that story changed to her standing in front of him fully armed to neither of them being armed or showing aggression.
A so-called reporter rooted through the pantry and medicine shelf. In all seriousness he told us about the jar of vaseline, the eye drops and an unidentified product he personally took to a pharmacist who identified it as nasal spray.
Then there was a story about whether photos of what's left of his bullet-blasted face should be published to prove he is actually dead.
I seriously worry for the world when this is what we are being served up as news.
It's as plain as the nose on your face that something's rotten in the state of journalism.
Posted 5th May 2011 by Debbie Barber
tell us what is happening, really, not the PR sanitised version
Some PR folk really don't like journalists much.
It's only words...
Here is an entry, which may give an insight why EQC comms are so...
I especially liked her blog entry from October 1 stating that "The satorial standard among men in Wellington has gone through the roof in the last couple of days."
I'm guessing there was no rash of Buddhist 'sudden enlightenment' (satori) on the Capital's streets, but that some of the visible men may be dressing better (sartorially)...
and there are some doozies: in the EQC PDF
What we have been getting
• Playing the ball not the man *
• Dirty tactics
• Reliance on rumour and leaks
• Not questioning the self-interest of informants
• Allowing leakers to be protected by anonymity
• Using emotive lanugage like beleaguered and bungled and nepotism
* I thought that was what they wanted?
But hey, as she says, "it's only words..."
It's only words...
Not everybody finds spelling easy. But how many seconds does it take to run a spell check? (FWIW I wish sub-editors would routinely run their headlines through one)
No! Leave their glorious headlines alone! (They fixed this one, but the original headline is still in the url.)
Good lord! To be fair, that was not a spelling mistake. It was typographical harassment. ;-)
Edit: It could be argued that the more colourful original headline is more accurate.
CCC cares about Criticism
Criticism will be fixed. Only $80,000.00