Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
I doubt people are asking for high-rise ghettos like previous councils allowed on Nelson St.
Those are slums, but very 'affordable' I hear. I was referring more to higher quality apartments to draw in wealthier people (including baby boomers) to the inner city.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
At that point the politically appointed commission will do whatever the biggest National party donor wants.
National Party donors are always trumped by the polls, especially in cases like this that directly affect people (voters) in places like Auckland Central which National considers the new jewel in its new crown. You don't seriously think the Key government's policy programme is one that the donor community would have written for it?
-
Isn't the port the ket to this and many other issues? Move the port's used-car and container operations to Marsden Point (and Tauranga) and you free up a whole lot of land for all sorts of housing and other development (including very significant open spaces).
And what is the economic, political or regulatory care against 50-100 story (high quality) apartments in the CBD? Or better use of Upper Queen Street and K Road (that Russell wrote about in his excellent Metro piece)? It seems to me vast intensification is possible in these areas (and in the 100m radius around train stations throughout the region) that would create mini-Portlands and mini-Manhattens for people who want them, reduce congestion and make the CBD and transport node areas safer, without causing disruption to suburbs.
It seems to me that even doubling the capacity on suburban sites really does't do much in comparison. If the population of Westmere were to, say, double, even that doesn't really represent "intensification" of the sort that would transform the city in the way people say they want.
At the very least, those who advocate intensification need to carry the existing residents of the areas planned for intensification. Its like the economic reforms of the early 1990s: it's really no use telling people what's good for them and that you know best. As Clark and Key have taught us, part of the effectiveness of a policy is how it is received and accepted by the public, rather than how it reads in a university or think tank environment.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to John Palethorpe,
You have greater confidence than I do in the integrity of the Key government sticking to a policy position.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to John Palethorpe,
They seem to be relying on a National MP in a Government which has specifically asked for greater intensity suddenly changing their mind because of a small but vocal opposition.
The government will do what the polls in Auckland Central, Epsom, Mt Albert, Mt Roskill and Tamaki (have I missed any?) tell it to do. If I were a supporter or opponent of intensification (and I don't really care about the issue one way or the other) I would be commissioning every polling company I could to start researching this point.
-
OnPoint: Yeah nah, but what *do* we…, in reply to Sacha,
Demographic change may disagree on that – depending how many of our new citizens defer to hereditary authority.
True. But I think (guess) that many new citizens are attracted to things like political stability, the Common Law, the Westminster system etc and may not be so keen on a change to a republic, especially with an elected president, if they perceive any risk to those things as a result. Note, that perception of risk doesn't have to be well founded.
-
OnPoint: Yeah nah, but what *do* we…, in reply to linger,
The polls. Also, I thought there would be a bigger and better campaign creating momentum for change. But you reminding me of that analysis I did means I am slightly more confident there could be an upset win for the fern than yesterday (although the polls are usually pretty accurate).
-
We will have to change the flag if we become a republic
There's no necessary link between these issues. An example is Fiji: still has the Union Jack on its flag despite being a republic. Others have mentioned Hawaii.
I also doubt the republic will happen in my lifetime. The stars just don't align on these things very often. Look at Australia and its republic. It came close in 1999 - with a pro-campaign led by Malcolm Turnbull. Now he is PM, he is ruling the issue out. On Friday, when asked at a business lunch I was at about the NZ flag change, he was uncomfortable even being asked about that. I think we'll head to the 22nd century with current flag and King George.
-
Rob, how would it be possible for Key to bluff the media into thinking they were not writing about a policy if in fact they were?
Your theory relies on (1) journalists outside the gallery apparently writing meaningful amounts about a policy but (2) the journos in the gallery not being aware of this, (3) Key gambling on their ignorance by saying something they would be able to check by looking at their own newspapers or websites and (4) Key's false comments apparently then decreasing the amount of coverage the policy gets by deterring gallery journalists (who weren't writing about the policy) from writing it about it in future.
Or are you saying the gallery journalists were writing about the policy but Key's comments are designed to make them forget this and then stop writing about it?
I think the more plausible thing is that, for a $1b+ policy announced in a State of the Nation speech, reversing 25 years of policy, the education thing didn't get much coverage and Key was gloating about this.
-
Polity: On tour with The Boss, in reply to giovanni tiso,
It's a joke Gio. Perhaps not a brilliant one. But it makes use of analogy.