Hard News: Local Heroes?
212 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
so a question - does one have to quit parliament if elected to a local body post?
I ask because for years the MP for Dunedin North (Ethel McMillan) was also on the city council
-
a huge proportion of the Labour caucus are enthusiastic proponents of social engineering and telling Kiwis how to live their lives
Ah, yes, allowing gay people to enter into civil unions, protecting children from physical abuse... when will the madness of social engineers end?
-
does one have to quit parliament if elected to a local body post?
No.
There's even an express provision in the Electoral Act that an MP who is absent because they've been appointed as an Ambassador somewhere and isn't in the country doesn't lose his or her seat.
Become a public servant, however...
... protecting children from physical abuse... when will the madness of social engineers end?
The major problem a lot of people had with the social engineering wasn't that legislation was passed to protect children from physical abuse, it was the sales pitch that implied that 75%+ of parents were child abusers.
John Banks' amazing attempts to rebrand himself as a campaigner for social justice bear witness to that.
Given his outspokenness against various attempts to basically criminalise vagrancy is Auckland City, I'm not sure John Banks being seen as a campaigner for social justice is all that amazing.
-
Prudence should, naturally, be part of the rhetoric. But as a branding strategy, it ignores what's about to happen in Auckland, where, for all his whoopsies, Len Brown seems on track to win, and to bring with him a council that looks more like South and West Auckland than Auckland City.
I don't know if there's really such a straight line correlation though -- I know a guy who campaigned against Ann Hartley when she lost Northcote, but thinks she's actually been a pretty good NS City Councillor councillor and would vote for her if she stood again.
so a question - does one have to quit parliament if elected to a local body post?
Well, IIRC Jim Anderton has said he doesn't have to and he won't if he wins the Christchurch Mayoralty. Apparently, it would just be unreasonable to put the poor taxpayer through the expense and bother of a by-election. Or some bullshit like that.
-
Link to Danyl's comments?
-
Link to Danyl's comments?
Duh.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/mood-swing/
I've also added it to the post.
-
Given his outspokenness against various attempts to basically criminalise vagrancy is Auckland City, I'm not sure John Banks being seen as a campaigner for social justice is all that amazing.
Really? Let's go back, say, two years:
Auckland City mayor John Banks is standing by a councillor who has asked officials to look at how homeless people can be removed from the central city, saying the problem has to be faced.
Community Services Committee chairman Paul Goldsmith says it is unacceptable for vagrants to be seen on the city's streets, and Aucklanders have had enough of what he calls the blight on the city.
Mr Goldsmith says he has asked council officers to investigate how homeless people can be removed from the central city area.
He is not ruling out the possibility of arresting vagrants, and says the council is determined to improve the situation.
-
I suspect I probably don't mind a sitting MP also being a city councillor for a short period of time - a year basically. Councillor is a part time position and lots of people do it while also doing another job.
Longer term I'd have an issue with it as I think there's conflicts between local and central government that you shouldn't be sitting on both sides of.
A sitting MP also being a mayor of a major city though? That's a joke, who thinks they can put themselves forward to do two full time (plus more if they do it properly) jobs?
-
..enthusiastic proponents of social engineering and telling Kiwis how to live their lives
To paraphrase Ted Olson from this thread who said:
Most people define 'Judicial Activism' as Judicial decisions they don't like.
Most people define 'social engineering' as parliament making laws they don't like.
-
Whoever is responsible for these things should see about making Phil Goff intelligible. I've had the repeated experience of hearing him speak in the media and wondering exactly what he has said. On pressing-the-flesh duty, he seems distracted and unengaged.
And all too often, when you do understand what he's saying you wish you didn't -- his 'Nationhood' speech was not only appalling but tin-eared and strategically inept. Dare I say this, but is Goff Labour's Bill English back in 2002 -- frightfully nice chap, and all that, but not really ready for the top table while leading a party that insists on losing its shit on a daily basis?
-
The major problem a lot of people had with the social engineering wasn't that legislation was passed to protect children from physical abuse, it was the sales pitch that implied that 75%+ of parents were child abusers.
Perhaps people could take a look at our child abuse statistics and, I don't know, harden the fuck up? Just an idea. But I'm fully cognizant of the fact that many people need to find a bad name for "protecting the rights of people who are not them". And so we're stuck with "social engineering" and "telling Kiwis how to live their lives". Jesus wept.
-
Become a public servant, however...
I find it weird
- surely an MP is the ultimate Public Servant
- serving (ostensibly) at the wish of the people... -
But as a branding strategy, it ignores what's about to happen in Auckland
I believe Danyl lives in Wellington. I would imagine he is like most non-Auckland based New Zealanders who fail to grasp just how dominant Auckland is in this country, economically and politically. It is not an accident that since Norman Kirk, only one person - Jim Bolger - has won a general election as leader of a major party and not been from Auckland. The local is national in this town.
-
Perhaps people could take a look at our child abuse statistics and, I don't know, harden the fuck up? Just an idea.
Yeah. A lot of the opposition did boil down to "My feelings are hurt!"
-
Most people define 'social engineering' as parliament making laws they don't like.
Yeah. Labour were voted out partly because the public was 'sick of the nanny state' and now they're angry the government won't lower the blood alcohol limit for drink driving. Go figure.
And so we're stuck with "social engineering" and "telling Kiwis how to live their lives". Jesus wept.
Labour and their supporters can either go on relitigating these debates, almost certainly lose them all again, and definitely get a lot of potential voters pissed off at them again - or they can draw a line under them and say 'we're just not going to go there anymore. People didn't like it. We listened. So our focus will be on the economy'.
-
The local is national in this town.
Were you wanting to sound that arrogant, or did it just come out wrong?
-
we need consistent decisive leadership
-
Yeah. Labour were voted out partly because the public was 'sick of the nanny state' and now they're angry the government won't lower the blood alcohol limit.
Well, in theory, that's a popular stance:
Almost two-thirds of New Zealanders support lowering the drink-driving limit, a survey has revealed.
-
the high point for Phil Goff's Labour Party was the by-election that secured a replacement for the previous party leader.
Yes, and Mr Shearer is certainly developing well, going on what little we see of him. I think last time I saw him was on Backbenches.
-
And so we're stuck with "social engineering"
What I regard as examples of social engineering are the motivations of some home schoolers (shutting off children from the temptations of the world and raising them as replicants of their parents) and doctrinaire schools such as Middleton Grange.
-
Labour and their supporters can either go on relitigating these debates, almost certainly lose them all again, and definitely get a lot of potential voters pissed off at them again - or they can draw a line under them and say 'we're just not going to go there anymore. People didn't like it. We listened. So our focus will be on the economy'.
I'd go the other way - governments should accept that they're going to do unpopular things, and that they're not likely to get elected four terms in a row.
I'd much rather they make a bit of a difference in the world rather than sit on their hands to be national-lite so they can get elected.
These will be the changes that we will look back on 20 years later with great pride - much like nuclear free nz, legalisation of homosexuality etc etc are looked back on now.
-
And mood swing or not, the party needs to develop a long-term message around unemployment, flush out stories about real people, and depict the current government as complacent. Or, better yet, relaxed.
David Cunliffe could do worse than to borrow the "It's the economy, stupid!" mantra.
@Danyl: I wonder if "nanny state" and "social engineering" are really code-words to farm culture war pigs?
-
I have been noting with interest the coverage of various government social initiatives since the election. A wonderful example was provided by the recent proposal to ban smoking in prisons. This proposal was not 'framed' in the media as any kind of "over the top public health measure", "nanny state" or the much beloved "pc gone mad". I don't think that any of those descriptions would be accurate ones, but I am fairly sure that such a proposal under a Labour-led government would have been framed in exactly those ways.
-
I'd go the other way - governments should accept that they're going to do unpopular things, and that they're not likely to get elected four terms in a row.
I'd much rather they make a bit of a difference in the world rather than sit on their hands to be national-lite so they can get elected.
The section 59 amendment closed a loophole that allowed a couple of assault cases a year to be dismissed. Worth doing? Sure. But equivalent to homosexual law reform? Worth losing power over and having Paula Bennett and Judith Collins as government Ministers?
And how did their policy to ban incandescent bulbs work out? It made them a bit more unpopular and the new government reversed it as soon as they took power. Way to change the world.
I have been noting with interest the coverage of various government social initiatives since the election. A wonderful example was provided by the recent proposal to ban smoking in prisons. This proposal was not 'framed' in the media as any kind of "over the top public health measure", "nanny state" or the much beloved "pc gone mad". I don't think that any of those descriptions would be accurate ones, but I am fairly sure that such a proposal under a Labour-led government would have been framed in exactly those ways.
My phrase for this is Natatonia: n. Serene, coma-like stupor shown by National Party members and supporters towards government policies they protested against vigorously while their party was in opposition. One who strongly opposed the Electoral Finance Act as anti-democratic but supported the actual dismantlement of democracy in Canterbury, or attacked Labour’s perceived pro-Maori bias but endorses Whanau Ora and the proposed Foreshore settlement is in a state of Natatonia.
-
The section 59 amendment closed a loophole that allowed a couple of assault cases a year to be dismissed. Worth doing? Sure. But equivalent to homosexual law reform? Worth losing power and having Paula Bennett and Judith Collins as government Ministers?
Well, when you put it that way - no. But I don't agree with the assumption that only popular laws should be introduced.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.