Posts by Marcus Neiman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"In sum, this all proposes an unenforceable law that no one will pay the blindest bit of attention to..."
Come on people - I can't believe that anyone didn't pick up on this line by Russell vis a via the Section 59 bruhaha...
-
Good point about the absence of the urban. NZ (and Australia) are two of the most urbanised countries in the world but I'm guessing relatively few people's heartstrings as NZers or Australians get routinely pulled in such a maudlin way by images of Onehunga or Karori or wherever else.
-
Indeed N. Important, beware the iconic building, and in any case Sydney won that game 40 years with the Opera House, and Bilbao got the silver more recently. Nothing screams "Provincial City!" now like a consciously constructed "icon". Well situated public open spaces however rarely go out of fashion.
-
Mr/Ms. Important: I think your outrage might be a little misplaced. In the case of the $40m for the Viaduct, the beneficiaries were primarily opportunistic developers and the wealthy consumers of their products.
In the case of Ponsonby the primary beneficiaries in the short term will be established local residents, not opportunists - who will no longer have to drive/bus/ride to Western Park to experience public open space. In the longer term, as development in the area is planned to be intensified it also makes sense to buy relatively cheaply now rather later.
A more valid argument perhaps is that Ponsonby's residents are already among Auckland City's most privileged burghers and that perhaps the money might have been better spent in Avondale, Glen Innes, or Mt. Roskill.
But poor people in NZ are generally useless at organising and acting politically, so I guess it would be naive to expect that.
-
Mr/Ms. Important: There is little to suggest that "Spending for Africa" is a phenomenon that is limited to the Left - Bush's America, for example. In any case it's not as if Auckland as an urban space already has a surfeit of transport, housing, and cultural infrastructure.
I also suggest your perspective on Ponsonby is somewhat car-centric. The open space of Western Park is not that accessible for those people closer to the Three-Lamps end. If we, quite reasonably, want people out of their cars, certain amnenities need to be brought to them.
-
I used to think that myself and the person who put Stephen Fleming in an oversize Rexonna can-suit were the only people who could see past his dashing good looks and occasional good innings and see him for what he is - a player who goes through wild variations of form deserving of mild humiliation and critique rather than the awed reverance he has received for the last 10 years.
As there are other competent captains out there I had hoped that the selectors might have rested him during his long patches of poor form - I suspect that they simply preferred to keep a Christchurch old boy in charge rather than bring an outsider in.
-
I suspect part of what is going on is some sort of reflection of the Republicans having moved too far to the right, combined with their association with a deeply unpopular war, rather than the kids having moved en masse to the left.
-
Richard: I think you are somewhat missing the point, in a way I find somewhat puzzling for someone in your trade...
Pharmac's problem is one of legitimacy, not instrumental efficacy. Simply technocratically rejigging its mix of drugs funded can never solve its seeming lack of legitimacy in a somewhat open, democratic society. Increasing participation in its decision-making processes could however address this problem it faces.
I agree that tradtional consultation processes are flawed, both for reasons of time (as you mention) and their inclusiveness. I therefore favour the development of so-called "Citizens Juries" which, subject to their design, are potentially time-efficient and inclusive.
-
My point is I guess is that these problems such as those faced by Pharmac in allocating funding or spatial planners cannot be solved by technocrats in a democratic society - where there is no unambigious "best outcome" that you presuppose. Pharmac will only become more effective as a public agency when it is democratised in its allocative decision-making, through the distribution of its information and the inclusion of the national public in making the trade-offs that it needs to make.
-
Richard: Your statement that health funding decision-making should be primarily about outcomes rather than process seems a little strange coming from a public affairs professional such as yourself.... the whole reason that there is controversy - as in any case of making trade-offs of the nature that Pharmac makes - is one of political deliberative process rather than outcomes.