Posts by James Caygill
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm excited. I spent three years running the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy immediately pre-quake and this looks at first and second glance to be a solid platform. (With all the usual caveats around planning vs reality - the fact that it's the grit and chaos which make cities work not the monoliths etc).
Yes we've had plans before but this was always going to be the process once it was mandated by the CER Act. CCC did something, then CERA took another cut. Now that's done we can move on.
And that's mainly my view. I just want things gotten on with - particularly the acquisition of land.
A lot of the concerns in comments are justified but also seem to lie at the next level of detail down. How these projects are now put together will clearly be crucial. A new town hall, for example, could replace the world class acoustic we've lost and showcase orchestral music - or it could be a Michael Fowler Centre, in which case everyone else can stand in line behind me in the queue to burn it down.
There is actually loads of room for residential development in the Four Aves (I live two blocks from the Frame and the new stadium site). It does look as though residential is being preferred outside the Frame -- but in truth it's too hard to tell. I can't track down a copy of the Appendix which contains the detail on the designations and regulatory changes which might indicate the degree to which mixed use is actually contemplated in the CBD.
As for cries of "trains, trains, trains" - they'll take care of themselves over time provided the corridors they need to run in are protected. There's not the population in the right parts of Christchurch to warrant the investment at the moment - but there will be.
Ed - the problem with using the heavy rail lines is the amount of freight traffic already on them. Those lines are how the coal gets to the port and they're very busy already. They also don't go where the people want them to.
A lot of work has been done in researching passenger rail in Christchurch which will stand the city in good stead when the time comes to start investing in it. But despite what Bob Parker might say, that time is not now, nor likely to be in the next ten years.
-
SO performers and the CSO players (I'm CE of them too) and my staff were all ok, although one of our singers lost her parents. We've been evicted like everyone else from the Arts Centre - although that came as no surprise as we've been unable to access anything in the office since the quake.
We're getting by, re-budgeting, talking a lot to CNZ, and trying to get a programme together based on new venues etc, starting in June.
Normal things take forever, but I'm optimistic about the future. Should be making more things public in the coming fortnight
I'm not surprised you commented on the naming rights sponsor - but they have been great to us since Feb 22.
-
It's also worth noting that Sharolyn Kimmorley - the accompanist for the Sydney Concert - is the Chorus Director for the Solid Energy Chorus of Southern Opera here in Christchurch (I'm SO's CE).
It's lovely to have her involved with a bunch of keen kiwis - far too many of whom I seem to know.
-
I'm not really down with the "great, but what it's for?" analysis. Add the $9.99 iWork apps and the thing looks bloody useful. Priced like a netbook, more portable than a laptop, easier to read than a phone.
Absolutely.
Apple have just delivered a beautiful replacement for the portfolio I carry around with me all day. The one with a legal pad, pens and business cards.
Storage is fine - that's in the cloud or on the network hub/external HDD.
And I can dock back in the office to type when I'm feeling like Tolstoy.
I'll keep my high spec desktop for gaming - keep my laptop for the long journeys - and use this day in day out.
My only question now is the crossover in my life between this and the iPhone.
-
You do your bit in two years' time.
First tick "I vote to retain the present MMP system"
Second tick "I vote for the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)"+1
-
I/S, I know my history too.
But importantly I'm making an argument not about the quality of voters, but their number in aggregation. I think that tends to a different argument.
And of course I'm not suggesting as you suggest maximising the unfairness (I've already pointed out your inaccuracy there). No one is suggesting (I stand to be corrected of course) that the threshold should be raised.
Rather, I'm simply settling on a higher level of unfairness than you are prepared to allow. Doing that does not inherently rule my position invalid, albeit not to your taste.
-
I/S I understand your point.
I guess I'd say that the ancestors of the present Labour Party organised enough to overcome the basic prejudice in the system.
I'm not at all trying to claim my position is without prejudice. I just personally believe that a 4% threshold, say, can be organised around (or more properly over) as a qualification for national representation.
Yes I'm advocating a barrier - I'm simply taking the view that the barrier is reasonable - where yours is that no barrier is reasonable.
Of course the elephant in the room here is that there's another path to representation which is lower - organise geographically and get elected in a seat.
-
Can you wear boots on tentacles?
I sure hope so
I make no apologies for my harsh language. In a democracy, the people should rule. I think it is fair to say that some people in this thread are not interested in that, but rather in shutting out voices they consider "irritating" and limiting the people's choices (and in the process, stacking the outcome in their favour). Those views are bad and horrible and undemocratic, and if people don't like being called that, then I suggest they change their minds.
You can call me all sorts of things - I just take exception to being misrepresented. :)
I agree with you that a 4% threshold, say, stakes the outcome in my favour - but as I say only at the margins. I know that's unacceptable to you. To me it's not.
Under all proposals I've heard/read for MMP the people rule - but all contain a judgement about how the people can rule. It's representative democracy after all. We have all sorts of rules in place about how that representation can occur.
-
Then you are not a democrat. Sorry, but you're not. And language such as "single issue irritants" makes that crystal clear.
Whether our Parliament consists of a few big, broad parties or many smaller, narrower ones is properly a decision for voters - not self-interested big parties.
(Oh, and full disclosure here: James Caygill is the architect of Labour's current position).I am a democrat - sorry but I am. I'm also a political scientist by training, including democratic theory. I'm just not and never have been an advocate of direct democracy or its variants. There are plenty of democratic traditions where my views are perfectly justified. I know you know that too. You do yourself no favours by being so rigid.
FPP is democratic too, just on a different framework. One that is based on the aggregation of local democratic contests. I far prefer MMP - it provides a nationally democratic outcome, ignoring local contests (other than, as Graeme rightly points out, the coattails situation where a local contest provides a disproportional effect on the national outcome).
Take exception to 'single issue irritants' if you will but I think, in general, single issue parties, or joke parties (and to be clear I'm not trying to say they are the same), are unhealthy for the polity, and outside their single issue are dangerous and biddable.
Of course the composition of Parliament is a matter for voters - that's the point of this discussion, and the referendum - you can't conduct theoretical discussions outside the context of the system - big parties are made up of voters too you know. At the end of the day if the majority want no threshold, fine, I'm not going to die in a ditch, I just don't think that they do.
Discussion about the threshold at 0,1,2,3,4,or 5% is still a discussion at the margins. It is not a discussion about whether the parliament will be made up of one, two or four parties. I think we're relatively stable at the moment with party numbers largely dictated by the retirement schedule of leaders, and succession planning, rather than a sneaky plan by big parties (which is pretty unsneaky if this is it) to screw the scrum.
And for the record (which I know you know) I am one of the architects of Labour's current position. Hence the use of the personal pronoun in my post. But I'm only one - and there's plenty of robust argument inside the party. Which is all good.
Let's save MMP, and continue to argue about how it can be improved.
-
I/S:
"Removing the coattails mechanism does not make the system "fairer". It's just that instead of being unfair to 95,000 voters, we'd have a system that was unfair to 180,000 voters."
And which would suit the big parties very well indeed. Which is why e.g. Labour is advocating such changes.
That's not what I or others within Labour are promoting. We're promoting both removing the coattails mechanism (yes that's procedurally fairer but substantively less fair) and lowering the threshold, which is substantively fairer.
Doing one but not the other might well 'suit' the big parties, but it's not what Labour is advocating.
I get a little sick of the 'that's why 'x' is doing 'y' arguments when they're not based on any evidence, just drawing a circle around things and saying 'these things must be related'.
Personal opinion here: I don't see a good enough argument for no threshold, although I understand I/S's and others' arguments in favor. I believe our representative democracy should set a base level of aggregated support for representation in the parliament. I fully accept that others like I/S disagree.
I think that a threshold (say 4%) sets a minimum bar that is more likely to mean a substantial movement is required to get elected rather than single issue irritants, which I'm happy to put my hand up and say, should not in and of themselves justify representation in parliament.
But that said, I'm not stupid enough to suggest that this position is more fair than I/S's I accept it is less 'fair' but overall a better outcome for the polity.