Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
It's not rational, but I don't like it when teams adopt an "official" nickname.
Adopt? Agree.
I've no problem with the Hurricanes, or the Chiefs - it's official, but that's how it's always been. But the Wellington Lions can just bug off.
-
I wonder what's worse: a defense secretary who puts Old Testament quotes on progress updates on an invasion of a Muslim country or a defense secretary who thinks this will add to his president's knowledge and expertise.
Weren't those new testament quotes?
-
I popped over to see what Mr. Farrar had to say on the subject...
And no discussion of the revelations regarding Ms Lee that were aired on Campbell Live last night.
If by "discussion" you exclude a debate between DPF and former broadcasting minister Trevor Mallard on the appropriateness and legality of the matter, then I suppose this might be accurate...
-
Nope ... back to thinking you're wrong.
Damnit! Must check numbers...
-
Oh wait ... I see what you're saying now.
-
He says that those on $30k get $620/week, those on $50k get $860/week, and those on $100k get $1460/week.
I'm pretty sure it's not "/week".
-
It did actually travel around the world quickly and relatively effectively, unlike the bird flu bug.
That might be because the H5N1 virus that broke out a few year's back never actually managed the whole human-to-human transmission thing.
-
Oh, wow. So a National victory would make A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE ...
Has anyone else worked this out? It seems germane.
Until I read The Standard I totally thought you were being sarcastic.
-
So, does Te Ururoa Flavell think that he is showing solidarity with fellow champions of ethnic self-determination with his stunt?
You opposed the meaninglessness of Earth Hour but find great utility in a motion of the New Zealand House of Representatives? Interesting.
You don't think that the House passing a motion condemning something or calling for something to be done ("won't somebody think of the children?") can be used to salve their consciences, instead of taking action that might actually do something ?
Does he think it's okay for the LTTE to free their people by using their corpses as PR props?
That's a charge many would lay against Palestine...
That said, if Jim Anderton really wants to raise this matter in the House, he has a simple option that will completely avoid the need to get permission from everyone:
1. Put his motion on notice.
2. Arrange someone (Grant Robertson?) to ask him an oral question about it. It doesn't even waste one of Labour's questions, but becomes an additional one for the day.I don't know that it has ever been done. But it's so obvious, I'm kinda at a loss to know why...