Hard News: Bringing an order Auckland just might not want
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Why does the National Party even need to stand candidates in a local body election? If the elected councillors don't do the "right" thing, they can be replaced by commissioners who will, or overruled by a minister with extraordinary powers. That's how "democracy" works round here anyway.
-
" Kaye, Michelle Boag and others were frustrated that there is "not a coherent left-right divide that you see in central government" and that councillors vote on issues. "
And that is why Future Auckland or whatever they are called are doomed to fail from the outset.
The South and West (okay Webster) are both made of Centre Left and Right Councillors but for the most part will vote for or against something together out of pragmatism for the City and their Wards.
The Isthmus and east (Fletcher notwithstanding apart from the Unitary Plan) are more driven by ideology and wonder why they get frustrated around the Governing Body.
I do wonder if some realise there is more to Auckland outside the old Auckland City Council boundaries I really do. A true test of Councillor mettle will be in December when they vote for which five areas of Auckland will go under Panuku Development Auckland's urban renewal stewardship.
How the Councillors vote will give a good indication whether they are for more pragmatic or ideological approaches.
And heck if Ralston is steering clear of Future Auckland that is a bad omen.
-
And the most interesting part is who's not in the tent.
Perhaps risk averse conservatives might wait and see and if it looks safe and secure, more might come forward.
Be awful to have Central Government MPs voting issue by issue. They would have to canvass the electors to find out what to think. Long may Councils continue to do that. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
The Isthmus and east (Fletcher notwithstanding apart from the Unitary Plan) are more driven by ideology and wonder why they get frustrated around the Governing Body.
That, sir, is an interesting observation.
-
Sacha, in reply to
They would have to canvass donors to find out what to think.
fixed :)
-
I'm not the only one to suspect that Future Auckland's biggest effect would be to do a Ross Perot on C&R.
-
We can now all get the popcorn, because you can guarantee that the Tea Party faction of the Auckland National party (Slater/Brewer/Quax/Collins) will regard the NINA (National In Name Only) Future ticket as their true sworn enemies.
-
Last minute voting details (from an email from CityVision). Looks like you can drop off papers in person till Friday 5pm at 198 Federal St. And if you didn't get voting papers, you can phone and organise a special vote.
All power account holders in the AECT district covering the old Auckland City Council area, Franklin and Papakura are eligible to vote. Ballot papers must be posted no later than Wednesday 28 October to ensure being counted in the election that officially closes on Friday 30 October. Voting papers can be delivered in person to the polling place at Election Services, Level 2, 198 Federal St, Auckland 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If power account holders did not receive voting papers it is still possible to arrange a special vote by calling Election Services on 09 973 5212.
-
Maybe they should change the name to the "Some of the Southern Bits of Auckland Energy Trust". Auckland's a bit bigger these days and I've never even heard of the Trust.
-
It's all because of the undemocratic FPP voting system. (even though if the right are split, that will leave a gap for the left to dominate).
Councils should have:
- fair voting, which would allow individual parties to run under their established identities (and that nutjob candidates like Quax would reflect on the party that endorsed them at a national as well as local level)
- mayors (or leaders) indirectly elected by council, requiring (and ensuring) that they hold majority support
- ballot box voting on general election day (requiring a short or long council to align the dates) -
Russell Brown, in reply to
We can now all get the popcorn, because you can guarantee that the Tea Party faction of the Auckland National party (Slater/Brewer/Quax/Collins) will regard the NINA (National In Name Only) Future ticket as their true sworn enemies.
Yep, I think the Slater rage has already begun. As it was always going to, given Boag's involvement.
Ordinary Aucklanders have every right to think this shit isn't their damn problem.
-
"Future Auckland" also have a problem, as their name is quite similar to the longstanding (two electoral cycles) and successful Labour-Green-independent grouping called Future West.
I've suggested to Greg Presland that he take a complaint to the Electoral Commission. The names are sufficiently similar that a voter could easily be confused when marking their ballots.
It speaks to either arrogance or incompetence, and neither is a great thing.
-
C&R president Karen Sherry, when asked if C&R could merge with Auckland Future, said “that’s a discussion that needs to be had” but added “sometimes competition can be healthy”.
LOL, genius. Hoist by their own petards!!
-
Kaye, Michelle Boag and others were frustrated that there is “not a coherent left-right divide that you see in central government” and that councillors vote on issues.
It's like they found the only good thing about local government and decided it had to go.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
Meanwhile, in Wellington the current arrangement is playing out in interesting ways. The green (formerly Green) Mayor and her centrist (quietly Labour) deputy are being challenged by a National contender and a Labour deputy-contender, and the reasonably workable Council in the middle is a mixture of egos, policies, friendships, and working relationships.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I've suggested to Greg Presland that he take a complaint to the Electoral Commission.
heh. brilliant
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
The roles of (senior) officers and councillors seem to have reversed in Wellington. The CEO and his mates drive policy, and our ex-Green mayor fronts for it. Actually standing up for the policies she was voted in on (not building motorways, white elephant runways and other pork for the construction industry) is somehow considered unethical.
Meanwhile, we receive a weekly propaganda leaflet from the National & Labour contenders professionally disguised as a local paper – although, credit to them, they are certainly showing the way to disguise ones campaign leaflets as a newspaper. It even has car ads and stuff.
-
From Metro Mag
There are no caucuses. There’s a small right-leaning grouping led by Dick Quax, who is in the Act Party, not National, but it doesn’t include several high-profile National Party people, like Christine Fletcher and Cameron Brewer. There is a looser but larger grouping centred on deputy mayor Penny Hulse, who genuinely is an independent. That grouping includes councillors who are or have been members of Labour, National and Act.
http://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/simon-wilsons-auckland/national-puts-the-moves-on-auckland/
Seems Simon also thinks the same as I do (http://voakl.net/2015/10/28/future-auckland-already-failed-with-auckland2016/ ) that the looser group of pragmatists from Council (both Left and Right) often rally around Deputy Mayor Hulse.
The Auckland Development Committee which Hulse chairs (and oversees the Unitary Plan) would be proof of that one.
-
I wonder what their berm policy is #bigtings
-
George Darroch, in reply to
It's a very strange situation. I worked with councillors on a policy recently, and they were being pushed around by their CEO and senior officers. Policy that the officers didn't like was undermined by the vague threat of "legal action", despite similar such policy being well established elsewhere. Arguably it is the role of the Mayor to ensure that such a situation does not develop. I'm hoping that Lester stands for Mayor this time around; he has the talent and capability.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Seems Simon also thinks the same as I do that the looser group of pragmatists from Council (both Left and Right) often rally around Deputy Mayor Hulse.
And as he points, apart from being a vehicle for National (one potentially at war with the established vehicle for National), what exactly does Auckland Future represent? Whence would they take us?
-
It's been interesting to observe when the ideological leanings are clearly expressed by those in the centre-right groups on Governing Body - Denise Krum for example delivered a really full on anti-Living Wage speech but is generally considered quite moderate. (Linda Cooper of course pledged pre election to support it but has since voted against it). See also the TPPA debate, and no doubt the forthcoming oil drilling debate. Pragmatism does seem to be the order of the day (and I don't always agree with that) most of the time, but when it is something that has a whiff of criticism of central govt about it then often those who are National aligned are far from moderate.
I found it bizarre that the Herald spent a whole editorial castigating Akl Council for even debating the oil drilling issue - the report is seeking Council's feedback to the Block Offer 2016 put to them for feedback by central govt. As they have the last three years iirc. Two local boards (Puketapapa, which I chair, and Waitakere Ranges) have consistently also made submissions on this issue.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
I found it bizarre that the Herald spent a whole editorial castigating Akl Council
I find it fairly normal. The Herald have had a vendetta against the Council ever since the first elections produced a centrist-left majority of Councillors and Mayor.
Negative editorials are as reliable as the rain.
-
Do-Re-Mi...
Future Auckland
FA
(...a long long way to run)
and what are they gonna do?
I can see their slogan now:
"What are we good for? F.A. ..."
sweet F.A.
;- ) -
The use of 'Centre Right' is interesting. In today's newspeak this tends to mean rabidly neoliberal.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.