Discussion: Regarding Auckland
318 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Yes Sacha, but I doubt that it will make any difference with Hide saying that the desision is now government policy and while he is happy to talk nothing will change.
-
why should anyone need to remind such an overpaid journo of that?
Methinks you give him too much credit, calling him a journo.
The real reason he likes Hide is that they can gaze into eachother's eyes without getting a stiff neck ;-)
-
Roger, any links for that from Hide? It fits with others dismissing calls for them to meekly "submit" to a select committee provcess with little prospect of success.
-
And both necks such a fetching shade of red, Mark.
-
@ Mikaere
* While our society is multiethnic, our governance institutions are rooted in a monoculture (that of Britain). Representatives from different ethnic backgrounds does not change the structures, so does not equate to multiculturalism
Such assertions may come as a surprise to the Scots and the Welsh.
-----
I was under the (mis)apprehension that this whole rigmarole was in large part about reducing rates demands. How you can propose a drastic overhaul that reduces democratic representation, council buildings, etc. but achieves no reduction in rates demands (not even a token couple of percent?) ... well, what was the point?I'll just stick with Waitakere City for better or worse, thanks.
-
What a docile bunch we are.
Imagine these stories: "Mayor of London / New York works hand-in-glove with a blog from the depths of the sewer." Imagine the response.
But, hey, it's Auckland, it's just good old Banksie. And it's a long weekend. We're having a nap.
-
Farrar notes "It was hardly a difficult guess that Whale would be responding to Mayor Williams latest outburst."
In any case, let's not get diverted by the sideshow. -
Why do you even look?
-
So others don't have to..
-
Sacha...
NZ Herald 13/04/09
Mr Hide said the mayors would be able influence the detail of the Government's plans before legislation went to Parliament, but no change would be made to plans for one council, one mayor and 20 to 30 local boards.
NZ Herald 11/04/09
"Aucklanders can be assured that the main decisions announced this week are Government policy, and are expected to be included in the legislation passed by Parliament," he [Hide] said.
They seem to be making such categoric statements that there would be too much political loss of face to retreat, or to return to ther recomendations of the Royal Commission. So it does seem that we are stuck with this regardless of what people think... unless it actually proves impossible to implement.
-
unless it actually proves impossible to implement.
Well, part of me wonders if this isn't Key's way of keeping Rodney all tied up and too busy to cause trouble. Also, without Rodney around to muzzle him, David Garrett has a free reign, as Heather Roy does not seem up to managing DG. That leads to an unstable party, with Rodders more than ever dependent on JonKey.
Conspiracist, wot me?
-
What a docile bunch we are.
Imagine these stories: "Mayor of London / New York works hand-in-glove with a blog from the depths of the sewer." Imagine the response.
Simon:
If by 'docile', you mean I'm not interested into buying into the mututally parasitic circle jerk of self-righteousness some sections of the left have with Master Slater, guilty as charged.
-
Craig, I don't think any of us would characterize you as docile.
-
Remember when Jeanette called for a Royal Commission on genetic engineering, and when the conclusions didn't suit her, she rather churlishly disowned it.
Mr Hide comes across as about to repeat the same mistake with Greater Auckland. If it ultimately ends up in a 'Community Charge', we all know the shark will have jumped.
-
Never one to let us down, Sainsbury fans the flames in a 9 minute studio piece with Bob Harvey and Andrew Williams valiantly trying to move on and Rodney Hide playing he who has already decided. Still, at least they'll all be round the same table on Thursday, it seems.
-
Oh, and Williams waved the Oram SST story, which I sincerely hope Hide reads.
-
Never one to let us down, Sainsbury fans the flames in a 9 minute studio piece with Bob Harvey and Andrew Williams valiantly trying to move on and Rodney Hide playing he who has already decided.
You're taking the piss, right? Please.
-
If by 'docile', you mean I'm not interested into buying into the mututally parasitic circle jerk of self-righteousness some sections of the left have with Master Slater, guilty as charged.
Are we going to have the lefty-bloggers-are-just-as-bad-the-right debate again?
Slater is an ass, and an unpleasant and frequently misogynist one. If Banks really is handing off attack-dog duties to him, it reflects poorly on Banks.
And there's some form here. Aaron Bhatnagar made repeated unethical use of Wikipedia to attack his opponents (and then tried to cover it up by deleting articles on election night), and, of course, after tut-tutting about Brian Nicolle and the infamous anti-Hubbard fliers, turned out to have PDFs of all the fliers on his own site. He still seems to have boundary issues.
Ironically, Oil has been fairly frothing about Gordon Brown's email to blogger scandal. He doesn't seem to perceive an irony. But I suppose that hasn't ever been his strong suit ...
-
Hey, I'm not claiming sainthood for anyone in this situation - but Craig if you can't see what I wrote in that clip then I welcome you to tell us all your analysis of it.
Was Rodney all a-quiver and inviting suggestions? Didn't think so. Were Harvey and Williams piling in to Banks, Slater et al? Well, no. Was Sainsbury coming back to the scrap as his central framing of the story? Only at the beginning, middle and end.
How about telling us what you think rather than whining about what other say here. I know you're very capable.
-
Are we going to have the lefty-bloggers-are-just-as-bad-the-right debate again?
No, Russell, but we might actually need to have a discussion about why you shouldn't reward infantile acting-out with attention. But perhaps everyone gets what they need out of it, so who am I to complain.
-
Re the rush to implement, I must admit my worst case scenario is the FPP at-large SuperMayor elections sees a Holmes or similar (shudder) voted in. So we'd get a pointless celebrity overseeing an incredibly complex transition of governance and operational capability and SuperAuckland would be wrecked from the start.
As much as I don't love any of the current mayors, I almost feel we need a Bob Harvey or similar for the first term just to ensure that the whole thing actually gets up and running.
-
Banks spent much of the first part of his term telling us he had changed, and that we would see a kinder and gentler side to the man.
The supercity debate has shown that Banks hasn't changed one bit. Thankfully his disguise has melted in a very public manner.
I see a new rival emerging. Bob Harvey's playing a smart game, acting as mediator, and coming across as the good guy. He's fairly well liked out west where I live, and is the type of candidate that could unite rather than divide.
Of all the current mayors Harvey looks like the one who could win it. Banks would come close, but so many people dislike him that a strong alternative candidate might get a powerful "anyone but Banks" vote - just as Hubbard did once.
-
No, Russell, but we might actually need to have a discussion about why you shouldn't reward infantile acting-out with attention.
But- but- then we'd never hear from you at all, Craig! And that would be bad.
-
...we'd get a pointless celebrity overseeing an incredibly complex transition of governance and operational capability and SuperAuckland would be wrecked from the start.
I think that there is a high probability of that. The race (and the ticket of councillors that you would need to actually make the Mayoralty worth having) is likley to be a money game or the possibility for a TV celeb.
Remember that the Mayor only gets one vote in the model, and if he or she wants to get the budget approved, then they will need a workable majority on the 20 person Council. That means that any Mayoral candidate will have to have a strong ticket for the 8 at large seats and then carry the ward seats from their 'home' area (unless they have national celeb staus).
-
From the Herald 15/4/09:
What's clear is that in the current struggle for control of Tamaki Makaurau, what's in the best interests of big business, or central government or the soon-to-be-dispossessed mayors, is not necessarily going to benefit the rest of us.
At the risk of repeating myself, Auckland's 1.4 million people should be asking loudly, what role, if any, am I going to end up playing after the revolution occurs?
More people should really be asking this... or do we really not care?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.