Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
You can see why a guy working in a coal mine on the West Coast [or an oil rig in Taranaki, or some other extractive industry] might not find [the Green's employment policy] a super reassuring policy, to be honest.
Sure, but you know what? Extractive industries don't actually employ a whole heck of a lot of people in this country. Population of a small town if one includes the downstream employment also (otherwise it's a very small town). And their economic contribution isn't massive either, especially when one considers that "they" don't pay a cent towards all the externalities that their products are heaping upon current and future generations. We get fuck-all in royalties, too ($450m in 2009/2010).
So you'll perhaps pardon those of us who don't consider those industries to be vital to NZ's long-term economic future. They contribute ~1.5% of GDP, from what I can find, bugger-all in corporate taxes (big overseas owners, structured to make as little money as possible), and for all the hype about how well-paid the industry's workers are there are so few of them that they're not even paying overly much in personal income tax.
The dinosaur thinking associated with viewing the extraction of dead dinosaurs from the earth as being of vital economic and employment importance is never going to be swayed to thinking of the Greens as anything other than economic vandals who won't be happy until the entire country is occupied by dreadlocked hippies wearing standard-issue kaftans and smoking standard-issue pot.
-
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to Kumara Republic,
There seems to be an undercurrent of sour grapes when it comes to relations between NZ’s major urban centres and the current lot in the Beehive.
Well, when MP number 2 (and the Minister of Finance) is a sheep farmer from rural Southland who's never actually worked anywhere except the farm and Wellington, and MP number 4 (and the Minister of Everything Else except Christchurch) is a businessman from the 'naki, is it any surprise? The government is dominated by MPs from non-urban electorates, many of whom make money from ownership of farms, so of course they're going to have a provincial mindset that views those dirty city-dwellers with suspicion if not outright disdain. The attitudes towards intensification vs sprawl and better public transport vs more motorways prove that.
-
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to BenWilson,
Furthermore, Auckland holds a third of the population of NZ. As an administrative proportion of NZ, it is bigger than any state of Australia. It administers a gigantic chunk of NZ’s infrastructure. But collective interest in the politics is way lower.
The political interest in local body politics in NZ (Auckland is no exception) is, at least in part, down to the relative impotence of local government in NZ. Their only taxation authority is rates as permitted by central government, their only legislative authority is that permitted by central government, etc etc. They have no absolute power over anything, not even over their own configuration.
When central government can (and very happily will, as demonstrated by the EDFZ) usurp pretty much any and all powers from local government on a whim, why bother getting invested in local stuff? It's just going to get fucked over by the bastards in the Beehive whenever they don't like how things are going, as we have seen with the current government and its relationships with Canterbury and Auckland. -
Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to Russell Brown,
As both a backbencher and Minister of the Environment, Amy Adams may have derived substantial benefit from the eCan takeover and what followed.
If that’s the case and she didn’t comprehensively declare any conflicts of interest, she must resign, reckons Rob Salmond.
As I said on Facebook, Adams being the minister who announced the continuation of the "ECan Democracy-Free Zone" (with the additional fluffy bits about the irrigation scheme's continued stability) absolutely stinks of a conflict of interest. There are associate ministers of portfolios precisely so that a conflicted minister can recuse themselves and avoid actual or perceived conflicts with decisions that are made.
If Adams stepped aside from all the discussions but it still came down this way (as doubtless it would), well, I'm not happy that she's getting a lot wealthier on the back of a National Party decision but at least the proper form has been followed. That she's fronting the decision certainly makes it look like there was a conflict that wasn't managed, though, and that's rather close to the letter of the definition of something perceived. According to the bits in the Cabinet Manual that have been put front-and-centre with Collins' indiscretions, that perceived conflict is a big problem. It's not like Cantabrians are overly thrilled about the EDFZ's continued existence, either.
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Emma Hart,
don't use someone else's death to make your point.
I've poked and poked at this idea, because it can't possibly be that simple and there must be a whole bunch of exceptions, but it stands up pretty well.
I think the only possible exception would be a public safety campaign, where someone's death really is the ultimate demonstration of a "xyz behaviour is dangerous" message.
For personal points, though, it's probably a pretty consistent rule. -
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to Kumara Republic,
It's the need to have first complained to the Herald before going to the Press Council that makes me hesitate. Orsman is senior editorial staff.
-
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to Russell Brown,
I gather the consulate official who contacted the Herald is quite shocked by the nature of the subsequent correction. So that’s a great look.
I'm tempted to complain on the Consulate's behalf. Pursuit of a political vendetta that drags in a sovereign nation's diplomatic mission? That's pretty despicable, even by what pass for Orsman's journalistic standards.
-
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to llew40,
government is supportive of the CRL, at the least.
The sure have a funny way of showing it. When they insist on occupancy targets for rail before they'll commit to funding something that's going to be needed to allow additional train services before they're prepared to even start its construction, they conveniently don't mention that on a vehicle-occupancy basis Auckland's motorways are so far from congested that we should have stopped laying tarmac in the 1960s.
If National are "supportive" of the CRL, they shouldn't have a problem with committing a future government to spending money on the project. The actions and words around funding the CRL vs funding the Roads of (increasingly) Dubious Significance are far more convincing than any side conversations with "senior officials".
-
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
Are you saying that LB has no influence on meaningful change in urban planning policy and legislature? I actually though that pressure was coming from the central government on ACC to free up land and construct affordable housing. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Brown absolutely “has influence on meaningful change in urban planning policy”, but only within the realm of Auckland Council and even then only as one voice and one vote at the table. He has no fiat powers of policy-setting, he can only achieve change through persuasion of other councillors to his perspective. Councillors don’t answer to him, either, they answer to the voters in their wards, and that means that the councillors are quite open to being swayed by hysterical beat-up bullshit like we saw being spread across the pages of Granny during the draft Unitary Plan process. So whatever you might think, Brown cannot hammer his fist on the table and get his way. Not just will not, not just should not, cannot.
As for the government’s pressure, you’re confusing opening up land with affordable housing. The two are not the same. The government has no interest in the council’s intent to use intensification as a way to improve affordability, and has said as much; their perspective is that the only solution to housing affordability issues is to open up more greenfields land and sprawl, baby, sprawl. This negates any influence Brown might have on policy at the national level, too, because what he believes is directly opposite to what the numpties on the Treasury benches believe; same issue with the Core Rail Link.
The evidence is building that sprawl runs counter to affordable housing, because even if the housing might be cheaper the far greater transport costs imposed consume all the money saved on the mortgage and then some. The isolation and automobile-reliance also destroys social fabric and general health and well-being. So when you speak in the same breath of “free[ing] up land and construct[ing] affordable housing” you are speaking of two incompatible policy settings. -
Hard News: The Mayor's marginal enemies, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Kerre must be utterly furious, then, that the Prime Minister refuses to front on National Radio. How dare he cower in fear of being asked sensible questions by proper interviewers!