Discussion: Regarding Auckland
318 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
(Hat-tip to The Standard.)
-
Here's more evidence of widespread concern about this issue, not on Planet Pundit but out where the real folks live:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/papakura-courier/2386378/Questions-over-supercity
Hundreds of people turning up to public meetings on local government? There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear ...
-
There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Well, I've had a rather disturbing conversation with my next door neighbour where "it" appears to be a certain North Shore councillor, well... serving up porkie pies. Hell, I'd be scared and angry too if I thought the person concerned and reality were on speaking terms.
And while there's any number of perfectly sensible caveats to be had, "John Banks is a cunt" isn't really one of them.
-
"John Banks is a cunt" isn't really one of them.
I'll vote for that. :)
-
-
All bar one of the results of Reid poll mentioned in The Aucklander was ignored by the Herald. Interestingly, the only part of the Reid poll mentioned by the Herald - the even split in opinions on the Maori seats - was in a story that was used to reinforce the 'reasonable, open minded' John Key meme consistantly pushed by the NZ Herald.
The Herald appears to have made an editorial decision to try and muzzle dissent by ignoring opposition to the supercity and effectively seems to have abandoned any attempt at even handed exposure of different points of view.
Yet again, it appears Tim Murphy is prepared distort and ignore and basically use his paper as a propaganda vehicle for the Remuera business elite if it suits him.
-
-
Sacha:
Ah, so APN running biased and hysterical editorial campaigns isn't quite so bad now...
And, Tom: Serious question, but do you have links to this wonderful Reid poll -- you know, things like the sample size, the questions that were actually asked etc.
-
Eh? I fixed the link Max provided and made no comment about the article at all. Sure you're not thinking of someone else?
-
Eh? I fixed the link Max provided and made no comment about the article at all. Sure you're not thinking of someone else?
Probably am, sorry. But I find it rather amusing that when one arm of APN goes into editorial crusader mode (regarding the EFA) its the end of civilization, but when the community papers lose what we shall generously call their minds about the Super City? Not so much. Perhaps the print version of The Aucklander is less of a dog's dinner than the website, but how seriously can you take an organ running headlines like 'Bomb Parliament'?
-
And sorry for sounding like a broken record about this, but I do have to note the very bitter irony that APN and Fairfax apparently give a shit about local body "democracy". The increasingly thin and superficial coverage of local bodies suggested the opposite to me.
-
Yes, I did notice them having a buck each way with the editorial position. Just not keeping up with posting this thread as things develop.
Any thoughts on merits/chances of full ward representation for the 20 new Councillors, Craig?
-
I have listened carefully to Rodney Hide today, talking about his answer yesterday to the question "Has he costed the Government’s super-city proposal outlined in Making Auckland Greater: The Government’s decisions on Auckland Governance; if not, why not?"
He answered "Yes".
Today Rodney was eventually, under something rather like duress from the Speaker, explained that the Auckland transition etc. has not been costed. I had gathered by that time, and he subsequently clarified, that yesterday he was referring to the cost of making the proposal rather than of implimenting it.
People who deliberately break the language are not clever.
(Just blogged the above, thought I'd copy it here)
-
Any thoughts on merits/chances of full ward representation for the 20 new Councillors, Craig?
I think the merits are considerable -- which probably means its not going to happen. :)
-
Whilst I tend to regard knee-jerk reactions to communications expenditure with suspicions, I'm a bit staggered by the $553,000 spent by the government in a month on super-city publicity.
These things don't come for free, but that's a hell of a lot of money to be thrown at publicising proposals made in haste and likely to change considerably.
Good score for Labour's new Auckland-issues man Phil Twyford, though.
-
Good score for Labour's new Auckland-issues man Phil Twyford, though.
Meh... one might think, however, Twyford et. al. might want to be a little careful with the "each ratepayer will pay at least $550 in restructuring costs for the Super City" line, when I think it's based on a crude division of a number from the Commission that was, quite properly, very carefully qualified. If everyone really wants a rational debate, -- I think it's reasonable to have a very low tolerance for Enron accounting from any side.
-
I think the wider point, Craig, is that at least the $550 is based on something well thought through. Hide and co are blustering on without any idea - other than that the cost will be met by Auckland's ratepayers.
It's not a stretch to say that's likely to be seen as an invitation to privatise assets to avoid increasing rates. There seem to be a shortage of leaders of Bruce Jesson's stature to prevent that happening just as it was intended do last time around.
-
I think the wider point, Craig, is that at least the $550 is based on something well thought through.
No, Sasha, the widest point is that pulling numbers out of your arse is bad, m'kay -- even if you happen to agree with the people doing it. And the Commission put those tiresome caveats and qualifications there for a reason, so having them honestly acknowledgedby folks like Twyford is a good look from people who'd like to occupy the moral high ground.
-
"each ratepayer will pay at least $550 in restructuring costs for the Super City"
You could almost get a new stadium for that!
-
More from the Aucklander (Herald's Thursday supplement):
http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/story.cfm?storyID=3797594
Summary: JAFA reporter goes south, meets the hicks from the sticks who will be included in the Super City (Pokeno, Mercer etc), gets an earful. They're not happy. The tone is light but the message is clear.
The only surprise is that anybody should be surprised.
-
Summary: JAFA reporter goes south, meets the hicks from the sticks who will be included in the Super City (Pokeno, Mercer etc), gets an earful. They're not happy. The tone is light but the message is clear.
Yes, Simon. I object to the thought of sharing a city with a patronising slab of cock cheese like Joseph Barratt too. Could we force Parnell to become sort of like the Vatican City?
-
The cockies are being included as collateral to support the Banks-O-Mander.
Should all else fail and a credible left-wing candidate gain some momentum, their votes will be there to get the ACT candidate elected. Whether they want their paddock to be part of the Greater City is of no consequence - they've been allocated their role and that's that.
-
Yes, Simon. I object to the thought of sharing a city with a patronising slab of cock cheese like Joseph Barratt too. Could we force Parnell to become sort of like the Vatican City?
I'm mystified by this comment. The point is...?
-
Maybe Rodney Hide never bothered to read through to recommendation 27 in the executive summary of the Commission's report:
27. At the same time, the Commission was concerned not to create an organisational monolith, unconnected to the people it serves. With this in mind, the Commission considered carefully a number of variations of a two-tier model comprising a unitary authority with additional representation at a local level. The Commission concluded that having up to 20 community councils, as a number of submitters proposed, would be costly to establish and run, and disruptive to existing staff and services. The conclusion was borne out by independent financial analysis undertaken for the Commission by experts Taylor Duignan Barry.
Hmmmmmmm......
-
Worth reminding ourselves too that the Commission only recommended Councillors elected at large to balance the parochial influence of the six large Councils - which would have been required to implement strong community engagement in the absence of Communty Boards.
With Hide substituting weakened Local Boards, there's no justification for at-large Councillors other than wanting more decisive power concentrated at the top. It's not as if the existing councils tend to splinter down ward-based lines on decisions - party lines dominate in most. And those are the groupings strengthened by at-large elections.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.