My first encounter with the UCSA building was in 1985. I have maintained a long and fruitful relationship with her and so many who lived within her walls and grounds. And live many of us did.
The New Zealand branch of Yoshukai Karate Club trained at the UCSA from 1980.
To our youthful knees, the hard concrete floors of the Upper Common Room were like rubber mats fit for protecting innocent children at play. Were we innocent?
The lino covered Shelley Common Room and carpet covered Lower Common Room were comparative luxury.
The mighty Ballroom. The UCSA didn’t always manage to keep her pristine. The ritual pre-class included scanning for at least the obvious glass shards. During class we bled more from the feet than the head.
Post-training we’d get some drinks delivered by trolley. In the early years: quart bottles in crates delivered to the Ballroom. Later, pints and jugs in whatever the bar was currently called.
The most important part of the UCSA was and is that current students define the spaces. Every group can create a place where they belong.
Yes, there is management. Yes, the university has a view (hence, the trees along University Drive to protect unsuspecting tourists in buses from seeing students). But students have genuine power.
That freedom to self-define goes to the heart of the university project. Many posts have talked about how the UCSA supported that. That’s what good students’ associations do. Students' literal ownership matters.
Yep, let James be judged by what James does, says, and promises.
The type of person we need is someone credible to the people of the electorate such that they will work for the candidate to get them elected. That probably means someone from the area, or someone with a very good claim to be connected with the area. Given everything, it seems more likely to be someone who has been through the worst of it.
The Party would do better by not trying to finesse an outcome and parachute in a candidate to remedy a perceived "strategic" representative deficiency, such as a particular demographic.
The strategic deficiency is someone credible from and to CHCH East.
The loss was through lack of attention to Shirley and Papnui. The lower turnout wasn't The key.
There are plenty of good Labour candidates for selection who come from “round here”. Clayton isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but he has done a good job for Labour in an electorate which is National/ NZ First. But it is difficult to jump electorates just because it is difficult. Either you’re from there or you aren’t.
In defence of Brendan Burns. The reason he lost CHCH Central is because his margin left the city. By August 2011 it was on public record that there were 2323 fewer voters in CHCH Central. These people were primarily from earthquake affected areas of Avonside and some Richmond and the White zone in the central city.
In 2008 Brendon netted 647 votes against Wagner in Avonside and Richmond scoring 62% of the head to head vote in both suburbs. The central city was a tie. He had a majority of 935.
Avonside and Richmond have deprivation index 9. These are largely poorer people that are usually attracted to Labour.
The central city was a strong party vote Green but electorate vote Brendon. Three of the best booths for the PV Green netted Brendon 210 votes in 2008.
I believe that Brendon over focused on his earthquake affected constituents and suffered the consequences because most of his electorate were moderately affected to not much affected. Many of those that were affected left the electorate.
He lost by 47.
Parliamentary Services recorded an extra $2m of expenses in the Operations, Information and Advisory Services area of its last Supplementary Expenses declaration of $7.5m. So how hard is it really for Lockwood to authorize an extra $30k for Mojo?
On the Human Rights issue, one of the Exec in 1999 was pro-VSM until Amnesty International published a letter in Canta saying they didn't believe it was a Human Rights issue. If anyone cared it should be about early 1999.
No one ever said there was forced membership of the UCSA
Yep, so why legislate? The first set of legislation took away the right of members to disestablish their students’ association at a general meeting if they so wished. Students’ freedom to disassociate was abused by the first lot of VSM legislation.
No one had to belong to the UCSA.
I am not convinced that stupidity (in the view of many, most?) is a reason to change the law on referendums. Is stupidity a reason not to select or elect MPs, City Councillors or other politicians? I think you'll find the answer is no.
Shouldn't the framers of referendums be free to choose to do something you might think illogical but which 10% of the population thinks sufficiently OK (by whatever criteria) to actively sign a petition asking for the question to be put?
The restrictions on gathering signatures and how much you can spend are a high barrier to purely vexatious questions.
The referendums are not binding.
This referendum will be the fourth. The last was the Norm Withers one of four parts of which people might have agreed with enough of them to vote Yes:
'Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?'
I don’t remember Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark attacking this referendum which is poorly written too.
And I don’t think $9 million, or $36 over 16 years is excessive for the right of citizens to initiate non-binding referendums.