Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
It is allowed to happen due to central government failures (liberal immigration policy to maintain quantity based economic growth by simply increasing the population and by not developing other regions). To simply give in to such irresponsible laissez faire BS is a weak justification for having to do all this.
If this is continued to be allowed for years into the future, prepare for Auckland to hit the 5 million population , as there will be no shortage of people from an impoverished, increasingly polluted and overpopulated planet wanting to come here for better opportunities and whatever else. That is on top of also unsustainable natural growth.
You seem to be happy to fund a 3 billion plus desalination plant at some time, it seems.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
Well, well, Simon Wilson has been supportive of the Auckland Plan and also of much what Generation Zero and some others want. So there are no surprises. He seems very worried but also passionate about what Council has proposed as the submitter, without allowing for sufficient consultation. He realises the natural justice issues. We can continue going on about that, we know the arguments from both sides.
As for his claim of “us” and “Aucklanders”, well, maybe we need to remember how many people bothered voting in 2010 and 2013, and how many of those voted for Len Brown and for his vision for Auckland. If I remember it was roughly half of those entitled to vote that bothered in 2010 and about 36 percent in 2013.
A sustainable Auckland would cover less area as it does now, and perhaps contain its population at what it is at present, given unresolved future water supply. But no, the Auckland Plan wants growth, that is growth in population, up and out, and pushing the limits and testing the sustainability of natural resources. Private enterprise developers will enjoy the construction and real estate selling boom, of units, apartments, terraced houses near centres and transport hubs, and of course single dwellings with or without attachments on suburban sections. Prices will not come down, as long as the population growth is not outpaced by building dwellings.
Where will the money come from? It will be borrowed from overseas owned banks, it will be coming from more returning and new migrants that have access to cash or bank deposits, and those that can now not afford homes will not be any better off at all, as nothing really affordable will be built.
The government cannot let home and unit prices drop, as that would create a fiscal and economic disaster, like a bubble that bursts, so face the stark reality, all growth will not really lead to improvements for those it is meant to deliver more affordable homes for.
And the central government wants to sell more Housing NZ land and properties, wonderful?!
-
There is right now a discussion on the Daily Blog, where 'Waatea 5th Estate' is live streaming, and Penny Hulse, Richard Burton and one other person are talking with Martyn Bradbury about the Unitary Plan and recently raised issues. I think there will be a downloadable version on that blog later on.
-
Polity: Poll Soup, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
It has been my impression after the last three general elections Labour have been “frozen” and like a possum staring into the headlight of a car in front of them. Labour and even the Greens should stop falling for this fallacy that they have to win votes off National. Well, there may be some swing voters that voted National, but for the most, they are voting like that, because of their vested interests (caring for number one and their personal gains).
The most certain destruction of Labour, perhaps even the Greens is, to keep telling and convincing them that they must compete with National for the votes and potential votes of the more selfish people in society. By following that false "advice", Labour and Greens would give up (or at least look like they give up) their principles and would lose all credit.
Hence the ones like Hooton and Farrar keep going on and tell Labour to do just that, they know it will surely destroy Labour and their chances to even win again. Even the ones like Josie Pagani have fallen for this fallacy. Stay well clear of their so-called “advice”, it is the certain kiss of death that they promise.
-
Polity: Poll Soup, in reply to Mr Mark,
Looking at the stuff.co article and also the Statistics NZ info, it shows that firstly, the non voters preferring Labour AND Greens clearly outnumber the ones preferring the National Party. And those that are on benefits, or poor, and also new migrants, they are more likely not to vote.
This makes it clear, there is a good reservoir of people that are disengaged or do not bother to vote for other reasons, that would potentially vote for progressive kinds of policies, that is certainly so if they may benefit from this (e.g. low income earners getting better income prospects).
Those that own homes and have savings and investments may tend to vote National, ACT and some perhaps NZ First or Conservatives. They tend to be more motivated, i.e. to protect their personal privileges and interests.
The challenge seems clear enough for Labour and Greens, to activate those that may potentially vote for them, but so far those at the bottom, especially those on benefits, seem to largely be ignored, as Labour and also now the Greens tend to look at the middle class voters that vote National. But by going there, they lose potential votes at the other end. The task must be to get enough middle class voters AND more of those that have so fare tended not to vote.
-
Oh yes, these POLLS, here we go again, the same all over again, and again, and yet again. When I hear and read about them, I do not pay that much attention to what the media presenters tell us, but I look at what was NOT mentioned. That is often much more important to take note of than what my appear at the surface.
What we do not get is how many of the people contacted by the pollsters did have no view, chose not to bother to comment, had no idea about the political environment and events we have. How many were the undecided, I wonder, how many could simply not bother to respond to the many questions. Now that may be a significant percentage of the whole population, but these never really seem to be mentioned, as the polls only show how many persons of a sample group expressed a clear view or preference.
We are back to the missing million, I say, those are the ones that are apparently not even included in the polls, as they cannot bother participating, have no clear view or preference, or are so disconnected, they do not even follow politics anymore.
And how are these polls conducted, are they only asking political questions, or do they include these in a wider spread of questions that are put to the phoned up persons? Some persons I know have been contacted by polling companies, and they told me that they were asked at least two to three dozen questions, of which only some were political. There were questions about consumer preferences, about certain businesses, about a number of topics, and it seems that some companies combine polls and ask lots of questions, to which some will not bother answering as it may take them too long to answer.
Counting just the ones who have clear preferences seems to just confirm the already known, that the National supporters tend to be the more conservative, asset owning, business friendly, entrepreneurial, laissez faire lot, who will make more of a commitment to vote, as they seek to protect their vested interests. Those that have no such interests, they feel less inclined to vote, as they already often feel rather powerless, and may see no point in voting.
With the vanishing influence of unions (since around 1990) Labour has lost much clout, which is also evident in it lacking financial support, so they do depend mostly on their hard core traditional supporters (not getting any younger) and perhaps swing voters that may gain from what they can offer in attractive policy.
The Greens are stuck with those often middle class professionals, and some student supporters in urban centres, who genuinely care for the environment and social fairness, but they do not appeal to the larger part of the population, given the fact that consumerism and commercialism has taken hold of much of our society (just look at the media). Re NZ First we know what support they get, which also is limited to the elderly, the nationalists and perhaps now disillusioned dairy farmers.
These days elections can be decided by the large number of undecided or swing voters, who may influence the end result. As they tend to not express clear views and preferences, this makes it damned hard to get any realistic "polls" on what may be liked or preferred by the population as a whole.
It is time Labour and Greens get cracking on getting that missing million a bit interested in what they do and wish to do when back in government. This navel-gazing and ongoing negative self analysis will hardly get us anywhere. A clear direction and inspiring, honest policy is the start, so internal arguing or confusion are the worst that can happen.
Perhaps an inspiring, exciting movement is needed, a mission of sorts, nation building and stuff like that, as long as that does not happen, the voters may just stick to what they know, that devil called JK and his lot.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
The accused, Russell J. Tully, does appear to be reluctant to work with a professional lawyer, and will instead be represented by two "Friends of the Court".
That will mean, he is not likely to get much of a chance to effectively defend himself, as such "Friends" usually only do as much as is necessary to make the hearing appear to be "fair".
The accused man must have some serious mental issues, and that may be one reason for the endless delays. It will remain to be seen how it will all go ahead, and I am interested to hear the accused's story, which has so far not been told.
There has been no mention of this due hearing on TV or radio news, the MSM do not seem to be all that interested, so far that is.
-
-
A reminder:
"Carmel Sepuloni, Labour's spokeswoman for social development matters put some questions forward on 17 September 2015, to the Associate Minister for Social Development:
http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/39670She appears to have OIA info that proves that newly started trials are not delivering what was expected."
Some evaluation info was promised by the government late last year, but there was none presented.
I ask, do we have an effective opposition, or has Carmel Sepuloni simply forgotten about what she asked for?
It does not look good, I feel, the government gets away with so much, and nobody bothers raising issues with this.
And the justice system is taking its time on hearing the case about the Ashburton WINZ Office shootings. The accused has been locked up for a year and a half and the trial is just planned to be heard from Tuesday 23 February, it seems. Who knows what will come up during that, it may shine light on how WINZ now works with clients that have health issues.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
What a weak explanation, of course the re-zoning is not yet final, it is part of newly proposed evidence that Council presented. But that means they have with their evidence re-zoned properties. So this is playing with arguments what re-zoning may mean, is it only proposed or final, and this does not change the fact that many property owners were not given a chance to submit re the proposed changes. Of the 4,000 submission points that are mentioned, I wonder, what percentage was supportive of up-zoning and what for down-zoning, and how many submitters - not submission points, were supportive or opposed.
Yet it is right, Council notified the earlier prepared plan, and during the hearing is also a submitter, a technical legal separation, with blurred lines, I feel. It is still the Council that made the earlier notified plan, and it is Council proposing more changes in zoning, the same authority that is. In the end they will firmly be in the driver's seat to accept or not accept the Panel's recommendations.