Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to James Green,
I’d guess Auckland’s density is going to increase, and that needs to not happen in an ad-hoc fashion.
Well, we hope. But the current government are pretty anti the MUL, and if they successfully get it ditched then increasing density is going to be difficult because the Council will be obliged to release urban fringe land for development.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
they’d have to find a whole series of judges up the chain who would ignore about 15 fundamental flaws
Flaws in what? The charges? Nobody said that the prosecution would be a slam-dunk.
If you mean flaws in the process of getting Assange before a court, forget it. They just don't care. The place to argue that how you were put before the court is illegal comes after you're acquitted or charges are dropped. Until then, provided that the Executive can answer to a habeus corpus writ, it's irrelevant. And if you're found guilty, well, by definition your detention was lawful because you had committed a crime. As I said above, arrest-without-warrant is kidnapping that gets authorised post fact. If you're found not guilty, then you can go and try for the unlawful detention lawsuit. -
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Oh, and the other factor militating against money going into Auckland's public transport is that this is a National government. National've fucked up any number of transport projects in Auckland (skimped on the Harbour Bridge, canned Robbie's Rail, bisected the inner city with motorways, pushed the councils to pull up the tram tracks because cars were the way of the future...), so why ruin a perfect record?
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I just would have thought that the only argument you’d need for investment in Auckland’s public transport system is that it has tended to suck for several decades, and the century of the car is the one that we just had, that won’t fly fifty years from now
You'd have thought so, yes. Unfortunately our Minister of Clutching-the-Purse-Strings firmly believes that people will continue to prefer personal cars no matter what happens to petrol prices. He's said as much in the House. He thinks the time to reconsider will be when petrol gets to $5/L or thereabouts, judging by his responses to questions from the Greens, and even that reconsideration will be pretty minimal. Certainly no recognition that by the time petrol is $5/L it'll be too late to reconsider and the entire country will be fucked.
the tremendous amount that needs to be spent on roads, bridges etc if the population doubles during that time
They have no problem with that. In fact, the more roads and bridges the better, provided they're not expected to carry trains too. However, Auckland actually doesn't need all that much new roading infrastructure. We've got most of what we need, even accounting for another 600k residents, other than roads in new subdivisions. What we really need is huge investment in rail, pushing it out to the south-east and -west and starting to investigate how to get it across the harbour in around 2030-2040.
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to richard goldie,
trains trains trains that’s all we hear- they have a place for sure, but I don’t like the fact that they are seen as a cure all.
Richard, nice to have you commenting.
It's less that trains are "seen as a cure all" than that they're going to be largely immune to fluctuating petroleum prices (unlike buses in the medium-term) and they can move a lot of people.
Buses will remain the predominant mode of public transport forever, and I don't think any of the rail advocates have considered otherwise, but a lot of what's needed to improve bus services requires minimal capital outlay. Ignoring AMETI, which will require capital works to build a separated bus-way, much of the rest of what's needed can be done simply by exercise of political will (not bowing to the moneyed classes of the Eastern Bays) and opening more bus lanes. We have plenty of buses. We have plenty of bus shelters that can be moved if they're not required in their current locations. We have absolutely no shortage of road on which the buses can be driven. Reworking services has no capital cost, except for re-printing the signs that go at bus shelters, and will do wonders for the usability of the bus system.By contrast, expanding rail services is not so easy. You're hearing "trains, trains, trains" because expansion requires capital outlay. Lots of it. The tunnel is essential if services are to grow to meet future demand. A line to the airport makes a lot of sense, particularly given the unavoidably-convoluted path that non-express buses must follow from Mangere, Puhinui and the airport in order to get to the CBD. Long-term, rail to the south-east will improve the lot of those suburbs, and if it's built with freight capacity as well it could ease the truck load on the roads around East Tamaki.
However, none of this is possible without money. It's bad enough that Joyce took away our funding for electric trains and now, ever so generously, is letting us borrow so they can be bought. But adding insult to injury is the public begging being forced upon Auckland's management to get money for an essential infrastructure project that'll expand the capacity of the existing rail network as well as making future network expansion feasible.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Simon Grigg,
Scarily, that's entirely possible. Ordinarily, extradition requires that the act have been a crime at both ends, and if Assange were in NZ he'd be safe because there's no analog to the crimes the US allege he committed.
However, the UK-US extradition treaty allows for extradition when a crime in the US was not a crime in the UK and the act in question was not committed in the US. Theoretically Assange is safe because his WikiLeaks activities were committed outside the UK (and thus are outside the purview of the UK legal system), but I wouldn't count on that holding water and there's also retrospective law change to fix that wee "problem". -
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to FletcherB,
The point would be getting him before a US judge so that he can face trial. Hopefully, in the process, stopping future leaks by making an example. Especially if the example includes "We'll get you, no matter where you are."
If legal extradition is unlikely to work (I don't know the ins and outs of the US-Sweden extradition treaty), the only way the US can prosecute Assange is either for him to slip up and travel through the US (not going to happen), or get him to US soil by extra-legal means.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Your faith in the sanctity of the British establishment is touching. When I said I really can’t see the Brits making more than a perfunctory fuss I was meaning the official reaction from Whitehall in terms of diplomatic protest.
<voice tone="bored" character="British Prime Minister">Mister President, I must complain most vociferously about your kidnapping of a foreign national from British soil. It's really not on, and we demand a public apology. If you don't apologise, well, we'll be very upset with you. <voice tone="perky">So, how was your holiday? Any chance of a catch-up at Camp David next time I'm over your side of the pond? Never been there, terribly curious."</voice>And as Simon said, once they've got him the US care not a fig for what the rest of the world thinks of their methods. That's thoroughly established, especially when the Republican star is ascendant.
-
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Keir Leslie,
It’s not like the US is lacking in people with the requisite skills and capabilities to have Assange miraculously appear on the doorstep of the office of a US Marshall with no evidence as to how he arrived.
I really strongly doubt that this is true, at least as long as Assange is in another country's justice system.
Unless he's out on bail. In, say, the UK.
If he's incarcerated, no, I don't think there's much risk of Assange pulling a reverse Dorothy and winding up in Kansas. At present, however, he's bailed to a big house in the country, and I really can't see the Brits making more than a perfunctory fuss. -
Hard News: Media 2011, in reply to Simon Grigg,
Once he’s in front of said judge, how he got there is immaterial.
I’m not so sure. 18 months ago, yes, but given the fact that an election season is on its way in early 2012 and the level of intellectual and legal (rather than political or popular) support that wikleaks has in the US, it could turn into the very shitfight that Obama and the Republicans don’t need in the next year or so.
Rendition to date has been largely authorised by the executive and to the best of my knowledge has ceased since Obama took office – or am I wrong on that?
By “immaterial” I mean “The judge won’t examine it.” After all, arrest-without-warrant is effectively kidnapping that gets legitimised post-fact. Procedural arguments about the legality of that “kidnapping” can’t take place until it’s been determined that, actually, there was no case to answer.
That doesn’t mean that there won’t be the most epic of shit-fights, of course, but it does mean that getting Assange in front of a judge would simply be the beginning of a very nasty, protracted battle between the Judiciary and the Executive, probably with the Legislature weighing in for good measure, and with the only resolution being for Obama to grant Assange a pardon or order Justice to drop all charges; at which point the Republicans would doubtless commence impeachment proceedings for treason.As far as the cessation of rendition, who knows? We’re told it’s stopped, but CIA hasn’t exactly got an illustrious history of following orders and keeping the Legislature in the loop. And they’re not the only body who could carry out such a task. I’m sure plenty of Xe operatives are itching to help Assange have a nasty “accident”.