Regard Auckland II: WTF?
50 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Seriously, were there any substantive amendments put up that would have genuinely improved the bill and the Opposition had the slightest interest in passing?
Yes, there were actually. The points about council employee maternity leave being endangered weren't trivial, even if they were airily dismissed. And a number of the Labour MPs spoke really well about what was being done.
And we're done with the idea that Labour has said two different things about the haste of the process, then? C'mon Craig -- putting another side to the argument is one thing, but that was just making stuff up.
-
FWIW, I think the commentariat has said too much about the Auckland/Albert shemozzle ending National's "honeymoon" (ie: they've decided that's the case) and rather too little about something equally significant -- that it has energised and given a sense of purpose to the Labour caucus.
It's remarkable to think that it's only about three weeks ago that the Labour MPs were still looking like a rabble, and fretting about the by-election, but now they have some real issues and actually seem to be enjoying themselves.
They'd best be coming to terms with Opposition politics of course, because it's still odds-on that they'll have six years of it.
-
Six? Really? I think the wheels will come off far sooner than that.
-
Six? Really? I think the wheels will come off far sooner than that.
I'll believe that if and when the polls start turning.
-
And we're done with the idea that Labour has said two different things about the haste of the process, then? C'mon Craig -- putting another side to the argument is one thing, but that was just making stuff up.
Meanwhile on their own bloody blog, its "destabilising" the appointments haven't been made already, yet it was "anti-democratic" it was set up under urgency?
Imagine what finger I'm holding up, and have a good day because I appreciate being called a liar about as much as you do.
-
Meanwhile on their own bloody blog, its "destabilising" the appointments haven't been made already, yet it was "anti-democratic" it was set up under urgency?
I think the point is that it's destabilising that the government is charging ahead without anyone really being sure what what the hell's going on. Quote from that blog post:
Notwithstanding the community opposition to the anti-democratic aspects of the Government’s super city model, there is mounting concern about the uncertainty generated by the Government’s handling of the transition. And this only days after the enabling legislation was bulldozed through under urgency. This draconian law strips local councils of their powers (check out s 31 of the Local Government Auckland Reorganization Act) and gives them to the new transition agency. As a result, some development projects around town are grinding to a halt.
In Waitakere alone, question marks hang over two big projects, the New Lynn railway and urban redevelopment, and the Westgate mall expansion. Banks and private sector partners are nervous about continuing. They don’t know whether they should be negotiating with the Council, or with the transition agency, and whether the new super city will want to continue with the projects. Tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of private sector jobs could be at risk.
The Government could fix the problem by getting the transition agency to work closely with Councils to decide which projects get the go-ahead. First though, appoint your transition agency.
ie: They should first appoint their transition agency and then actually consult with the bodies affected so they know what the hell's going on. The comments from Bhatnagar, a very faithful soldier, are quite telling. He was reduced to saying he hoped they wouldn't take their new rules too seriously.
Imagine what finger I'm holding up, and have a good day because I appreciate being called a liar about as much as you do.
Woah. There's no need for that. I apologise if you took it as me calling you a liar, but you seemed to be agreeing with Garner that they'd been demanding that the process be accelerated, and I don't see any evidence of that. I was taking issue with your argument.
Also, I did watch some of the filibuster coverage, and as far as I could see it wasn't as you depicted it.
-
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?
This is a somewhat neblous area, but generally the Local Government looks to things like;
- natural and manmade boundaries
- school zones
- areas of homogenous housing values / stock
- historical features / stories
- cultural viewpoints gleaned from 'common knowledge' i.e. the 'its knowledge bro' approach
- statistical mesh areas
- real estate ads (fabulous house in South Remuera! or West Epsom!)
- shopping centres / townshipsand other things I can't think of but probably are there - to define communities of interest.
Running your eye over a map, you can generally pick out communities of interest, mostly because they suggest themselves to you, but the real problem lies in boundaries - easy with manmade / natura onesl, difficult with streets - i.e. is that street part of West Epsom or simply Sandringham?
I don't think the 'I don't want to be associated with those people over there' problem really rears its head, mostly because these areas are distinct from each other, and form their own community of interest.
However, groups of communities are generally 'lumped' together in a geographical manner in order to make up a ward e.g. Mt Albert, Kingsland, Owairaka, Sandringham, Balmoral, Morningside, St Lukes, Epsom south, Mt Eden, Eden Tce, Upper Symonds St are all distinct communities, but together form Eden Albert Ward.
Doing things by 'number of electors' is a clean process, but can lead into anomalies i.e. the Mt Albert Electorate includes Mt Albert, Owairaka, and Point Chevalier - but as Russell noted, are there signs up in Point Chevalier?
-
sigh - where's that edit key?
"natural ones"
& nebulous.
-
There is a LOT of sense in aligning the ward boundaries with the local board boundaries. In fact it would be stupid to do anything else. So people should submit demanding 30 councillors - each elected from a ward. And also 30 local boards.
How many people are on each community board at the moment - around 5? That could be the number we end up with on each local board, but perhaps the chairperson of the local board is also a councillor on the main Auckland Council. Sure that would be a lot of work for them, but it would mean that each councillor would be very tied in with their local community and it would give the local boards some real power.
Regarding whether ward/local board boundaries should match up with electorate boundaries, I think the changeability of electorate boundaries means that could be a bit messy. However, on the other hand if each ward area has one councillor then to ensure equality shouldn't they also have a similar population?
-
the chairperson of the local board is also a councillor on the main Auckland Council. Sure that would be a lot of work for them, but it would mean that each councillor would be very tied in with their local community and it would give the local boards some real power.
Yes please this Miss Kaye.
-
Meanwhile, in Mount Albert, people are putting stuff they no longer want by the roadside.
-
While Auckland University students struggle to get their heads around the whole democracy thing.
-
Craig? are you ok? I fail to see what that link has to do with anything, aside from the fact that it is filled with paranoid bigotry. Well it was a link to the Herald. Did you have any particular article in mind?
-
Craig? are you ok? I fail to see what that link has to do with anything, aside from the fact that it is filled with paranoid bigotry.
Steve: A simple 'think you munged the link' would have done the job, because if the 'paranoid bigotry' crack was aimed in my direction with was kind of random.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573458
-
That's better Craigo, :-)
The "aside from the fact that it is filled with paranoid bigotry."is just an ear worm picked up from a Comedy Channel promo, the one after "We're on Orange alert, which means something is going to happen somewhere in someway at sometime"
But anypoo, did you like the image? I just popped over the road and took it. -
Ah, my Sky-deprived little mind is enlightened. Sort of.
-
Personally I think it would be cool if Public Address focussed less on the Nat/Act/Lab political nuances of what is happening and more on the soical cost and obscene tilt toward the purposes of big business that this represents.
Has nobody said it out loud? This is Rodney paying back his BRT and EMA sponsors, and it will disenfranchise one third of the population of New Zealand while in the process padding the pockets of a few old rich white men.
Now where has that theme cropped up before? Oh yes, a certain unelected Prez of the USA who screwed his country into the gutter all the while pandering to Big Oil.
But - o the irony - little Rodney doesn't even have to get the top job to do his sordid little deal.
I note the lack of governance experience among the named stormtroopers on the transition board and the addition of a Supercity lobbyist to the Local Government Commission, there to report back to the Natpolitik if there's even the mere hint of free thought.
I think when the borders and boundaries are confirmed I'll up stakes and move slightly north or south of the new Supercity.
Oh, and Tui billboard of the year? "we don't know if it will mean people's rates go up". Good on ya mate. -
Has nobody said it out loud? This is Rodney paying back his BRT and EMA sponsors, and it will disenfranchise one third of the population of New Zealand while in the process padding the pockets of a few old rich white men.<.quote>
You haven't been paying attention, Mark -- yes, its been said over and over again. And if you're a fan of the ever vile Penny Blight (and Owen McShane), Rodney Hide and John Key are jaclbooted fascists. Nay, out and out NACT-ional Socialist Nazis . Top that!
<quote>I note the lack of governance experience among the named stormtroopers on the transition board...
And you did. Godwin, theatre, good night and good luck.
-
Has nobody said it out loud? This is Rodney paying back his BRT and EMA sponsors, and it will disenfranchise one third of the population of New Zealand while in the process padding the pockets of a few old rich white men.
You haven't been paying attention, Mark -- yes, its been said over and over again. And if you're a fan of the ever vile Penny Blight (and Owen McShane), Rodney Hide and John Key are jaclbooted fascists. Nay, out and out NACT-ional Socialist Nazis . Top that!
I note the lack of governance experience among the named stormtroopers on the transition board...
And you did. Godwin, theatre, good night and good luck.
-
I thought it was a Star Wars reference.. :)
-
By the way, anyone think Melissa Lee is going to get an apology any time soon after http://www.nzonair.govt.nz/news.php&news_id=164:
21 May 2009
Report on allegations surrounding the production of Asia Downunder 2008
A report conducted by NZ On Air into funding of Asia Downunder has found that the agency was not misled, and that there is no evidence public funding was misused.
Media reports over the past week have alleged that National Party list MP Melissa Lee deceived NZ On Air in October 2008, by not disclosing she was standing for Parliament when applying for funding for the 2009 series of Asia Downunder.
Later reports also alleged that Ms Lee was improperly involved in editorial decisions in the 2008 series of Asia Downunder, and that public funds were used to make an election video.
NZ On Air has investigated all of these allegations. Its investigation included:
• Reviewing correspondence resulting from Ms Lee’s announcement that she intended to stand as a candidate in the 2008 election• Reviewing reports and correspondence relating to the application for funding for the 2009 series
• Making enquiries of TVNZ (the broadcaster of Asia Downunder) and the Overseeing Producer of the series at the time that Ms Lee was a political candidate
• Examining Asia Vision Limited’s production call sheets, production and budget reports and associated paperwork for the 2008 series of ADU and making enquiries of the production company
• Examining the promotional video on YouTube
• The conclusions of the investigation are that:
NZ On Air is satisfied that Ms Lee did not have editorial control for Asia Downunder programmes dealing with political matters, and that the systems put in place were robust, managed well by TVNZ and the Overseeing Producer, and willingly complied with by Ms Lee.
NZ On Air was not misled at any stage about Ms Lee’s intentions to stand for Parliament.
NZ On Air is satisfied that public funds intended for production of Asia Downunder were not misused.
No further allegations have surfaced. At this stage NZ On Air has found no evidence of misappropriation of public funds and no further action will be taken.
Click here to see the full report of this investigation.
-
By the way, anyone think Melissa Lee is going to get an apology any time soon after http://www.nzonair.govt.nz/news.php&news_id=164:
I imagine most will understand the difference between what's inappropriate and what's illegal. Either way, TV3's shareholders will probably be laughing all the way to the bank - especially when the joke's on TVNZ.
-
I imagine most will understand the difference between what's inappropriate and what's illegal.
Um, so I guess the answer is "no".
Either way, TV3's shareholders will probably be laughing all the way to the bank - especially when the joke's on TVNZ.
Yeah, I'm sure Three's shareholder will be ROTFLMAO as the station's supposed flagship current affairs show loses a little more credibility....
-
Michael Laws endorses Lee; poor women, she didn't deserve that.
And is this a statement about Michael's own career:
So Lee may not win Mt Albert. But she's entertaining. She is feisty. She looks good. And she has a personality primed for political incorrectness. And none of these things is bad.
-
Gee, I don't think Jacinda Ardern deserves the creepy attentions of the eye-linered one either.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.