Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Privacy and the Public Interest, in reply to Russell Brown,
No, this isn’t how everyone does it. That’s a myth.
It also shouldn’t be relevant whether or not “everyone does it”. Myth or not, the critical thing here is how anyone can do it and continue getting away with it until some loser who’s careless with his email gets hacked.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve yet to see any commitment, or even an outline of what any political party proposes to do for increasing politically neutral accountability and oversight in Ministerial offices, including the PM’s office.
-
There is simply too much here for it all to just melt away – and it won’t, if for no other reason than that we need to find ways for what has already been revealed to not happen again.
Hah, shows what you know.
In this morning's live chat on Stuff, Bill English assured us that "the issues relevant to the conduct of good government have been addressed by the Prime Minister".
Problem solved!
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Angela Hart,
I occasionally ask the Department of Conservation for information about various things. Not usually controversial. One thing I’ve found, disappointingly, is that I’ll often get a much more helpful response if I simply go through regular channels (like sending an email) and ask the question. Legally that’s still an OIA, but it often means they’ll just flick it towards someone less formally and we can have a back and forth conversation about what I’m trying to find out. If I don’t hear back in a few days, I’ll send a followup and they poke the person they forwarded it to.
If I submit a question explicitly as an OIA, it’s more likely to go into the official tracking system with ticks and signatures and 3 levels of approval from managers panicing about what information’s being released and whether the Minister will care, and sitting on the desks of people who are already overworked and choosing to put it off until they’ve been able to make time in their schedule to read it, 3 weeks from now. It might easily come back after 4+ weeks with a response like “that information doesn’t exist” because I hadn’t know exactly which question to ask.
To be clear, though, the OIA doesn’t say 20 working days is okay. It says that 20 working days is the maximum allowable time which can be taken without an extension, but also that it has to be answered “as soon as reasonably practicable. The way in which government is badly resourced and badly prioritised around OIA adherence is the reason why 20 working days has become the de facto standard for when to expect a response. Unless you’re good friends with Judith Collins or John Key, at least.
-
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
If house prices actually fell, then there would be a lot of people who bought at the height of the market for their own occupancy rather than for speculation, who will end up with negative equity and feeling pain.
Looking around Wellington (mostly northern/western) as a buyer, there are some which are extremely popular and go quick, but there also seem to be quite a lot of houses still on the market after many months that simply aren’t selling. From what we’ve seen elsewhere, owners seem to be demanding too much and not getting it, and we’ve wondered if that’s maybe because they paid more than they really should have to begin with…. or they expected prices to keep spiraling upwards and they didn’t. It’s definitely caused us to think very carefully about how high-an-offer we actually want to put on any place we’re keen on… not because we’re in it for a big investment so much as having a good thing to live in, but if there’s some change meaning we need to sell up in 3 or 4 years, it’d be good to not be throwing lots away. Possibly that’s why we’re still looking. Of course the longer it takes, the more cash we’re burning in rent so I guess it’s a trade-off. :(
Also, tenders are evil when you’re a buyer. They seem to be everywhere right now, too, and they suck. I understand how they’re good for sellers if a property’s likely to be very popular, but they seem to be being used much further than that, and vendors must be missing out on some reasonable offers here and there because of it. We’ve certainly had to ditch putting offers on some that we liked because we needed to prioritise which mystery magic number tender to go for. Very frustrating.
-
Hard News: Show some decency, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
We could stay on and rent out this house but that puts me in a position to make money from others for no other reason than to take someone’s money.
I don't really care for the housing market as an investment, but we've been looking for our own home for about 6 months now. We're fortunate to have a reasonable deposit and until now have mostly been renting for practical reasons. It's mostly a lack of finding what we want that's holding stuff up.
After a couple of recent life changes, renting suddenly feels much more like it's just throwing money into someone else's retirement fund, having to commit for a year based on a 10 minute surface inspection, being told you're not allowed to bolt your bookcases to the wall or get a proper TV antenna on the roof, and never having legal certainty about being able to stay anywhere longer than a year. With your own home, at least, the only money usually being thrown away is rates, a little extra insurance, and interest on a mortgage.
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Ianmac,
What an interesting approach on Campbell Live to actually get to hear the leaders of all the minor parties
Yes, very much so.
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Pharmachick,
Dotcom … not a Kiwi, but a resident so absolutely has a right to vote. [--snip--] Instead, go ahead and try to build something, if you really intend to be/saty here. The IMP seems to me to be more destructive than building.
Sure, Kim DotCom has his interest, yet it's actual New Zealand voters who give the IMP whatever influence it achieves, is it not?
I don't follow. Should the IMP not exist because some voters might agree with it?
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to ,
I don’t believe he will have any real influence after the election.
That's been my own impression, too, at least as far as direct influence goes. I guess you could note that he's dropped a bundle of money on a group which mightn't have otherwise had it. I'll be interested to see if his involvement has had any measurable effect on younger voter turnout.
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Pharmachick,
So many people I know on all sides of the spectrum have gone beyond angry and they’re just tired of it all now.
I’m tired of it, too. I’d rather be considering other things, but I don’t think that makes it acceptable as a consequence. It’s more like an unpleasant thing which remains critically important for NZ’s future and still requires dealing with.
What do you propose we do? Ignore it because people are tired of it? Leave it up to politicians to decide how to improve their own conduct?
-
Speaker: On the upland road, in reply to Sacha,
Someone suggested making the government agency being investigated liable for the costs of the investigation
Heh. You beat me to it. :P