Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The Message

83 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Grant McDougall, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And while he’s still a Member of Parliament (and, as far as I’m aware, still his party’s “spokesman for Auckland issues”), he might want to think very carefully about whether it’s wise to start laying down the law.

    Andrew Little said on RNZ Nat yesterday that Goff has been relieved of that and it's been given to, er, someone else.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 760 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    Perhaps Key reasons that giving the Auckland centre-right a leg-up would complicate the internal balance of the National Party. Morely likely, he realises that Goff already has a considerable head start and it would be better to work with him than to have to deal with a political neophyte, or worse, a flaming nutbar.

    True, but ya gotta admit, the rest of the country would find a fair amount of comedic value in it, if this turned out to be the case.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 760 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Ethan Tucker,

    Flaming nutbar: boom, Whittaker’s next chocolate range.

    That has serious possibilities. Chilli almond. Sweet and sour cashew. Satay...

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1942 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I can't bring myself to vote for Goff, so I guess I'll let everyone else decide, like most people do. The nicest thing I can say is that it could be worse. But why would National even need to stand a strong candidate if Goff ends up mayor? He's the guy that won more votes for their party than he did for Labour in his own electorate. Pretty clearly, National voters like the guy more than they even like their own guys.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Gordon Campbell has reckons.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Grant McDougall,

    Andrew Little said on RNZ Nat yesterday that Goff has been relieved of that and it’s been given to, er, someone else.

    Thank you, Grant. I expect some tech gnome will update the Labour Party website presently. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Transportblog assesses Goff's utterances so far on rates, asset sales, and urban intensification.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Lyall, in reply to BenWilson,

    He’s the guy that won more votes for their party than he did for Labour in his own electorate. Pretty clearly, National voters like the guy more than they even like their own guys

    Well there are a lot of ways to interpret the differences between the list and party votes in electorates. How about this one:

    Around 10% of the Mt Roskill electorate likes Labour enough to vote for their local candidate but preferred a National government

    Those are the voters that Labour need to win [back] to get into government. They are not "National voters", they are "Potential Labour voters who voted National in 2014".

    They are also likely to respond better to someone whose politics are closer to Phil Goff than to Sue Bradford (or Jeremy Corbyn).

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 60 posts Report Reply

  • Glenn Pearce, in reply to Simon Lyall,

    Neither Labour or National wants to risk a by-election on Roskill in the run up to the election.

    You watch, Goff will remain as MP for Roskill for several months after he becomes mayor until after April then both the major parties will agree to forgo the by-election.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 504 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Simon Lyall,

    Around 10% of the Mt Roskill electorate likes Labour enough to vote for their local candidate but preferred a National government

    That's pretty much exactly the one I was referring to, except, of course, changing the word "Labour" to "Phil Goff", because he was the local candidate that they voted for. If they wanted to vote "Labour", the box on the other side of the ballot was for that.

    Those are the voters that Labour need to win [back] to get into government. They are not “National voters”, they are “Potential Labour voters who voted National in 2014”.

    Well they do need to get more votes, and put more people off voting National. I'm not seeing why those particular ones are of such importance. With the exit of the best qualified neoliberal from the Labour camp, they may well just vote Blue unconflicted from now on.

    They are also likely to respond better to someone whose politics are closer to Phil Goff than to Sue Bradford (or Jeremy Corbyn).

    Yes, they're National voters. In so far as they did, in fact, vote for National that is, rather than any more nuanced criterion. They're not the only people in Mt Roskill, of course, the same number as voted for Labour also didn't vote at all (despite being enrolled to).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Glenn Pearce,

    You watch, Goff will remain as MP for Roskill for several months after he becomes mayor until after April then both the major parties will agree to forgo the by-election.

    But what you’re ignoring is the political embarrassment – because it’s hopelessly naive to think Goff wouldn’t be mocked as a double-dipping hypocrite every time he showed his face in the House. Whatever else I think of Goff and Andrew Little, they’re not stupid. Or at least not that kind of stupid.

    And why would National do shit to avoid a by-election? Considering Mount Roskill's never been remotely close to marginal, all you really need to do is select someone who isn't a barking loon and will make a respectable showing. Sure, by-elections are never cheap but I'm not seeing any down side. Labour should welcome it too -- free media with a low fuck-up risk.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Glenn Pearce, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    He’ll forgo the MP salary so he can’t be accused of double dipping, he’s already said he’s going to take a “leave of absence” for a month to campaign.

    Incumbents never win by-elections in opposition held seats, why bother with the cost of a campaign?

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 504 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Lyall, in reply to BenWilson,

    Well they do need to get more votes, and put more people off voting National. I’m not seeing why those particular ones are of such importance. With the exit of the best qualified neoliberal from the Labour camp, they may well just vote Blue unconflicted from now on.

    So, you are saying that Labour should not compromise it's principles, to concentrate of the leftmost 30-40% of voters (minus what the Greens/Mana pick up) and leave the centre-right 60% to National and friends?

    So effectively National governments till (a) National implode in some scandal or (b) The above policy is reversed by a Blair-type leader.

    I have an attachment to (c) Centre party splits off Labour and picks up the 20% in the middle. I mean if they are neo-liberals who will never vote for Labour (again, since many probably did in 2008 or before) why not create another party to give them an alternative to National?

    But part of that is my wishful thinking that such a party would cherry pick the policies I like from the other parties :) . Also that Labour would actually be able to do such a thing.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 60 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Simon Lyall,

    So, you are saying that...

    Nope, I'm not saying any of that. There are many strategies by which Labour could grow its vote, and it's by no means a no-brainer that picking up people who are in the opposite camp is the low hanging fruit.

    Your apology for Goff's inability to motivate the voters in his electorate to do anything more for Labour than to personally put him in office, at whatever cost to the overall majority that actually matters in our system doesn't wash. He's popular with right wingers because he is pretty much their kind of guy. There's nothing wrong with that a priori but I don't have to like it or support it and I'm not going to vote for it.

    As for a centrist splinter from Labour? That would be their death knell (well, it would be one of the final ones anyway), since they're already smaller than National by a country mile. Break them in half and they're pretty much finished, a spent force. Which is not to say it won't happen. I can just imagine the last hurrah of the neoliberal faction of Labour would be to completely disintegrate the party as they pursue personal glory towards the center. Politics does seem to be that kind of game, where sad old buggers never let go because they just love the power and more importantly, the fame, so much.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Swan, in reply to Sacha,

    Yes apparently he doesnt want to much intensification in the nice areas of Auckland. But New Lynn and Panmure are OK apparently. So a Snob, as transportblog says, and essentially siding with the Nimbys. Very disappointing.

    Birkenhead • Since Feb 2011 • 86 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    I doubt the voters of Mt Roskill care where in the strange world of Labour factions Goff sits (and it's not entirely clear he is "right" these days, his manifesto in 2011 will probably be the most left-wing manifesto for twenty years either side) but I suspect they do care about the fact Goff is a hard working and effective local MP.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    I suspect they do care about the fact Goff is a hard working and effective local MP.

    I expect if you asked a random sample of them to name 3 achievements for Mt Roskill, 9 out of 10 would have no answers at all. But that is not to say that they wouldn't state that he was an effective and hardworking local MP anyway.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Jolisa, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Funnily enough, the far edge of the light-coloured corner of single house zone is the last of Pt Chev to be built on, and features a whole bunch of massive Brady Bunch 70s houses. A mint little enclave of gold glass and nifty balconies and endless elbow room.

    A time capsule as redolent as the increasingly extinct back yard with a shed for the mower, twelve different well-loved fruit trees, and an arrow-straight concrete path leading to the Hills hoist.

    I know change is coming and all, but I cannot help feeling a pang about the bungalow "bird" streets of Pt Chev, esp the ends closer to Gt North Rd. Some really great uninterrupted stretches of 1920s-1940s houses there, which are at the perilous point where they're not deemed impressive enough right now to preserve en masse, and yet when they're gone, they're gone for good. A decade or so from now we might really shake our heads at this one.

    Or not. I speak as a deeply conflicted town-house-dwelling beneficiary of someone else's decision to bowl the sweet old family bungalow and whack up three two-storey units , so... :-/

    I know 3-storey apartment blocks are coming, for sure... and for many owners of intact single dwellings, it will be a sweet, sweet, retirement-consolidating payday. Good design controls would help avoid the concrete-block version of sausage-apartments, as seen (or as averted one's eyes from) in e.g. Mt Eden.

    I guess my point, if I have one, is not that apartments can't be a boon for suburban vintage neighbourhoods and those who would love to live there; more that everyone, both those who live in apartments and those who look at them, deserves beauty and thoughtfulness. And at least a tiny patch of grass to stand on in bare feet, and plant a passionfruit vine. And a swimming pool in the courtyard. If I wrote the rules :-)

    Auckland, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 1472 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Sacha,

    pools across the whole region are now free to children at least, but yes, huge discrepancies in which areas have them.

    Hmmm that's odd. I just called Mt Albert Aquatic Center, and they said the kids were $5.90 each and I'm $8.20. So we're looking at the usual $20 to go swimming, which of course means that I don't do it as regularly as I otherwise would. But yes, every other pool that isn't in Phil Goff's region of influence does appear to be free to kids, and accompanying adults are frequently a nominal sum ($1 in most cases).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Kemp,

    Mt Albert Aquatic Centre is a 3 way JV where the school (Crown) owns the land. The council owns the building and and management company runs the pool. There is a complicated trust agreement in place. So it was excluded from the "free" concession.

    As a regular user I am happy that it is not free for kids as there would just be more people there. I'd guess that the Cameron pools are actually in the Mt Roskill region and those are probably free though.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    his manifesto in 2011

    the compromise negotiated amongst the caucus factions at the time, you mean.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    it was excluded from the "free" concession

    Ta for clarifying. I didn't realise that.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    As a regular user I am happy that it is not free for kids as there would just be more people there.

    I'll think to myself next time I could take the kids to the pool but don't have the budget for it that at least my absence makes it a nicer experience for you. That will make it feel a lot better.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Julie Fairey, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    Yes that's correct. Only pools in Mt Roskill electorate are Cameron Pools, which are free to kids. But they do have nothing to do with Phil Goff, they are under the aegis of the Puketapapa Local Board of Auckland Council (currently contracted to YMCA to run along with Lynfield Rec Centre) and we've put a huge wodge of money into fixing the roof starting in January.

    Puketapapa Mt Roskill, AK… • Since Dec 2007 • 234 posts Report Reply

  • Julie Fairey, in reply to Sacha,

    It's Auckland Council's smallest CCO I think! For some reason doesn't have the profile of Auckland Transport or Watercare ;-)

    Puketapapa Mt Roskill, AK… • Since Dec 2007 • 234 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.