Regard Auckland II: WTF?
-
With yanked announcements, unfortunate blurts, a filibuster and a confused and controversial transition plan, where are we at now in the most super of cities?
50 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
The new Auckland is still in Wellington. We just live in the houses.
-
For sprinting fascism conducted with indecent haste, they're sure taking their time about it.
-
Rodney Hide.....don't let him back into town.
-
For sprinting fascism conducted with indecent haste, they're sure taking their time about it.
So it's not a conspiracy, it's just another fuckup.
-
Many citizens cognititive processes are catching up at last with the reality of the government carving up Auckland in real time. These are genuine right wingers, the joke is officially over.
Banks was unconsciously referring to an already written script with yesterdays comments on staff levels. Thousands of families are really in for it if the estimated 3000 staff do get the boot.
The weekend legislation allows basically the overthrow of previously elected local authorities. Working for the clampdown alright.
-
Joe:
So it's not a conspiracy, it's just another fuckup.
Alec:
Many citizens cognititive processes are catching up at last with the reality of the government carving up Auckland in real time. These are genuine right wingers, the joke is officially over.
Dirty Harry meets the Keystone Cops.
-
It is a shambles and I think John Key is catching on to that fact. With the majority of people in his own electorate being strongly against the government's proposed Super-City structure I think Key has finally realised that Rodney's lead needs shortening.
-
I went to Nikki Kaye and John Carters meeting this morning.
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.
Also John Carter said many times that nothing beyond the fact that there will be a unitary body running Auckland is committed to yet.
There were about 12 of us at the meeting, including some who would be recognised in the community.
Interested to hear about any of the other meetings that seem to be the consultation we have.
-
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.
-
the Auckland electorates could be the basis for the community boards
That's been objected to because it would create "rivalry" between council and MP. I dont't really understand this, because in my world if an MP is input, good or bad, then that should be heard. But in the world where the functional of the council is to steamroller whatever ACT want through, then obviously any extraneous opinions are bad and need to be suppressed.
Competitive cities like Singapore, Shanghai and Rangoon don't have all this pesky democracy, after all...
-
They are also fortunate enough not to have Rodney Hide wreaking his mayhem upon them.
-
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.
-
So it's not a conspiracy, it's just another fuckup.
Stick with the conspiracy -- because I really don't know what would satisfy some people at this point, apart from Rodney Hide and John Banks getting run over by the same bus.
-
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.
Well put, and wholely agreed
-
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.
Serious question: What do you define as a 'community of interest' because if it boils down to 'I don't want to be associated with that clot of dole scum' I've got my doubts. A (more or less) equal number of electors at least has the advantage of being relatively clean. Or am I totally missing something?
-
Stick with the conspiracy -- because I really don't know what would satisfy some people at this point, apart from Rodney Hide and John Banks getting run over by the same bus.
Stop it Craig. You're getting me excited.
-
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.
and
That's been objected to because it would create "rivalry" between council and MP. I dont't really understand this, because in my world if an MP is input, good or bad, then that should be heard.
And I object to it because it's a really, really bad idea.
After each census the electorate boundaries are redrawn.
One of the North Shore Local Boards might cease to exist, and its Albany offices would need to be used by the new Eastern Bays Local Board, created because that part of the city is growing faster.
As the boundaries were redrawn, people living in parts of Kaipara might suddenly find they're Auckland City ratepayers, and are no longer entitled to borrow books free from the Dargaville library. Some might find that the water that Auckland City was providing them is now the responsibilty of Kaipara, and a bunch of new pipes are needed...
Those living in areas with a large population of Maori roll-enrolled voters - ignored in the drawing of general electorate boundaries - find they've got far less representation than those who live in other areas. Alternatively, those on the Maori roll have a different local board, and the right to walk one's dog without a leash before 8am in one park or another depends upon your electoral enrolment choice.
Council ward and national electorate boundaries need to be drawn on the basis of population, and are redrawn regularly to maintain, well, democracy. Local Board and Council boundaries should only ever rarely be re-drawn - it doesn't matter if the central Auckland local board serves half - or twice - the population of the Waiheke board, the work it does is based on the physical area for which it has responsibility, not the people who live there.
-
If wards are multimember, they can be of widely different sizes (unlike single-member electorates), although to maintain fairness the number of voters to a councillor should be fairly similar.
The unfairness in the proposed council system comes from electing multiple councillors to a ward using FPP, which means that a ward with 3 councillors and a CitRat majority will elect 3 CitRats. STV might be better, but really there are two options that deliver proportionality:
- MMP, where half the councillors are from wards and the rest on a party list, as for parliament.
- an adjusted regional list system, where councillors are elected in wards from a party list. Any distortions are then adjusted for by replacing councillors to achieve proportionality. -
For sprinting fascism conducted with indecent haste, they're sure taking their time about it.
I laughed out loud at Duncan Garner last night saying "Labour is demanding to know why the process is taking so long".
I think they're actually demanding something else altogether -- like, say, the opposite -- but whatever ...
-
I laughed out loud at Duncan Garner last night saying "Labour is demanding to know why the process is taking so long".
I think they're actually demanding something else altogether -- like, say, the opposite -- but whatever ...
For once, Russell, I'd actually cut Duncan a bit of slack, because in the wonderful world of knee-jerk opposition politics you can demand to know why the process is taking so long, and decry the indecent haste of it all because there's no shot you can afford not to take. And if its kinda sorta utterly incoherent, its all forgotten in a couple of hours anyway. You hope.
-
Surely a half-decent form of region-wide planning would see that the wards were drawn up in such a way as to represent intended town hubs etc?
-
And before the cat calls of partisan hack start, can I say that's exactly the problem National in opposition took years to get over. Signal to noise ratio was seriously FUBAR, because when you oppose everything for the sake of it you're going to trip. Fact of life.
-
For once, Russell, I'd actually cut Duncan a bit of slack, because in the wonderful world of knee-jerk opposition politics you can demand to know why the process is taking so long, anddecry the indecent haste of it all because there's no shot you can afford not to take.
I'm not aware that they have though. Perhaps you know something I don't. OTOH, they did spend the weekend trying to slow the thing down while the government was shoving everything through under urgency.
Even the postponed announcement was evidence of haste in itself. Rodney Hide shouldn't even have said he was making the announcement until he had his appointments signed off by Cabinet.
And now they've rushed through the bill that sets up the ATA, it contains provisions that even Aaron Bhatnagar is complaining about.
It's ridiculous, frankly.
-
I'm not aware that they have though
-
OTOH, they did spend the weekend trying to slow the thing down while the government was shoving everything through under urgency.
Yes, and as I said to Sofie and Steve a couple of days back -- like the filibuster over the ERA -- it was all great fun (if you like that kind of thing) but what was actually achieved? Seriously, were there any substantive amendments put up that would have genuinely improved the bill and the Opposition had the slightest interest in passing?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.