Posts by Sacha
-
how much of a chance would there be that (for example) Newman was able to ban all "racist policies" if she ever was elected again?
...
the craziness is inevitably blunted by the realities of the parliamentary system
Generally true. However, fringe policies can succeed if powerful supporters in coalition parties have aligned agendas - see Act and National currently re local government and infrastructure, for instance.
-
Jeanette Fitzsimons copped it when she appear to lend some credibility to the 9/11 Truthers, but Newman and others can churn out racist conspiracy theories and no one bothers
Probably because Fitzsimons is generally very credible and considered. Newman is so reliably deranged that only fellow travellers would take her seriously.
-
we are all Ignorant apparently
and don't forget "venal"
-
at least Aucklanders will still get to vote for their regional representatives at the end of the year.
CCOs, much? Pop quiz: what % of total supercity budget spend will be controlled by the new unelected Transport agency?
they ought better be very scared about what's going to happen to their local government if the current Monster of Local Government is in the same seat after next year's election.
Will happen before then unless resisted strenuously. Rodders is gagging to legislatively cap Council spending a la California - and central govt spending likewise.
National and ACT have been holding talks on spending limits, but Mr Hide said he was pushing hard to have a cap set before a taxpayer rights bill, which would allow the public to veto spending above a set level, goes before Parliament.
No guarantee he'll get away with it - but deserves loud and organised opposition and pressure on the Nats to ignore their own loony fringe.
-
I'd have said it was all about poll ratings in New Zealand
Doubt it - hence the discrepancy between Act's funding and poll ratings. All the fuss about third party funding would be meaningless if you were correct. Likewise your assertion that broadcast advertising does not affect votes seems untrue (especially given the sophistication of mass messaging and ongoing positioning these days).
I agree influence is multi-factorial so there's no one-to-one correlation. Many small contributions and volunteer feet on the street have some balance against a few large financial donations (which can then be used to buy feet on street, research, non-restricted advertising throughout the cycle, etc).
Given the parlous state of our media, it seems reasonable that the relative impact of crafted political messages on voters would be increasing rather than decreasing. Fortunately, authenticity still counts for something.
-
the best ideas should win on their own not because they have more capital behind them
Money is treated as a proxy for level of support. The right believes the playing field is already level, so each party ought to be able to spend as much support as they can raise through their own deserving hard work.
-
Because you think it generates votes, even though it doesn't.
the tobacco industry beckons
-
I haven't seen anyone talking about using Nixon Park yet. Could work, barring mid-winter mud. Marquees will be in demand everywhere.
-
Amazing how many people do not get the distinction between lecturer and tutor. I guess they both sound like "teacher".
-
Tim Selwyn was at the select committee hearings when the ATA's Grant Taylor presented its local board proposals. Selwyn is unimpressed. Worth a read, and includes reaction from others.
Describing what the local boards do as "decisions" is a gross misrepresentation - they are only recommendations to the Council, they are submissions, part of a consultation process in the same way that Joe Bloggs can make a submission and a recommendation to Council. The local boards have no power to make decisions on these issues unless the Council delegates it to them and since they don't want any of the local/council demarcation put in legislation the Council retains all the cards - local boards have only what they are given. Taylor actually argued that putting specifics in about what local boards could do would be unhelpful and unproductive! To whom? Why?
...
And as for the claim the boards will be: "overseeing the management of local facilities like swimming pools and parks, community programmes and local services such as refuse collection and graffiti control"
- that just cannot be true. They cannot really oversee anything - certainly not in the sense of supervision or accountability. They can complain to the Council about the operations and make recommendations to the council about operations just like everyone else, but they have no power to suspend or sack staff or to do the things necessary to really change anything.