Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I don't expect cars to come over the barrier. But it would be plausible that either a kid or a protestor (who had already demonstrated their intention to be out on open motorway) to wander over there.
Also, I'm in a mad contrary mood today for some reason! I will stop raining on the parade of what was undoubtedly a great fun day and for a cause I totally support :>
-
David and James, I certainly think they should have just properly blocked off the clipons only and let the protest happen on there. If it had been planned and executed properly (like it should have been) I would have had zero problem with that
But given NZTA were idiots and didn't, I can somewhat understand their desire to overcompensate for safety given it just suddenly happened (for them) and they would clearly have felt that they had no control of the situation. That seems the more likely reason for closing those lanes than a conspiracy to maximise the pain for motorists to work the PR. -
NZTA did what they could to discredit the protesters by directing the crowds onto the centre lanes, completely blocking the bridge.
As I said in the other thread, this PR conspiracy story seems well over the top. A bunch of people had just proven that they were willing to ignore "advice" and walk/cycle out onto an open motorway. It seems the prudent thing to do in that case to ensure a proper barrier between those crowds and motorway traffic.
I would have been pretty pertubed if I'd been driving in lane 3, with nothing between me and the kids that attended. It is still an open motorway after all. -
Well they aren't dictating anything directly. They simply rate a country on how stable it's finances are - this is then used by people looking to lend to that country as a guide to what risk is associated with lending to that country and price their lending appropriately.
I think it is fair for people lending to a country to have a view on how risky that lend is, and that's all they're providing. Governments have to decide whether or not they care about the risk-cost associated with lending to them through their policies.I think there is a case to question the methodology these agencies use to make that rating though (as Oram put it on the weekend - S&P being overly focussed on Govt fiscal position when there are much broader economic issues to consider and which Moody's do take into account).
-
I really disagree Deborah - for me it's about opening up the institution of marriage to everyone in whatever way they see fit. So long as you sign the official bit of paper somewhere, it shouldn't matter if that's in a church, a backyard or a gang headquarters.
Let's not take this so far as to deny people religious choice - just deny them the ability to enforce that choice on anyone and everyone -
Geez guys, sounds like Russel N's hit a raw nerve.
Yeah it's a shame this has partly derailed to a discussion on Green messaging when the underlying points are very strong ones. Sorry for my part in that!
-
I disagree with the whole concept of the Junta. It's supposed to be to stop the elected councils from sabotaging the supercity, but if the change process had consensus behind it, that wouldn't be neccesary.
Totally agree with this - if you're going to change to a supercity then I expect you do need a transition team but it should be put together with some level of consensus from the existing councils (which may be difficult but at least let it go to a vote from them)
-
Oh, snap!
-
So then you'll be happy, yeah?
Huh? I can't hear you through all that straw...
At this rate what we're going to get is local govt which is quite wrong because the parties best setup to counter it don't connect with the majority of Aucklanders. Water down the "coup by a business elite" talk slightly (stop making it the heart of the discussion at least) and talk up the fact that Aucklanders are having their voice completely silenced and I think you'll get further.Highlight the overall outcome of a council far removed from the people that will decide issues like urban sprawl, transport planning and public ownership. And that the democratic right to have a say on those topics and shape the council is being removed from us (by a taster of what happens when democracy is ignored).
Then bring that down to the community level and weave the changes to the RMA into the completely lack of power in the local community boards to reinforce that local decisions will be equally removed from the people.
If you then want to discuss the nature of the people that could get into power under such a structure and the possible outcomes then fine. But it's about the heart of the message you choose.The people who will respond to the "business elite "them"" are staging a coup to silently rule Auckland like puppet masters are already against it and probably already in your camp.
-
but he has some points.
He most certainly does, and wrapping it around a "small group of business elite are rigging it" might even be correct. But I did want to take the chance to explain to him (as a political party leader) that it's a style of message that doesn't really endear me to the cause.