Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to James Dunne,
Also if they could mobilise to protect a councillor who was on the fence but scared - if you're a councillor who'd like to support density but you look over to where Northey used to be and see Krum sitting there as a result of a scaremongering anti-intensification campaign, and you know there's no votes in it, who wants to be a martyr?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
Much different dynamics : as far as urban residents care, ECan does buses and water, neither of which are big issues in the way that these zoning issues are. The Ecan removal basically just confirmed people's beliefs in a way that didn't shift voter intentions. The AC structure & Unitary Plan process was set up by this government - they own it in a way they don't own regional councils and the RMA. And, in reality, fewer people live in Christchurch.
Going into Auckland would be a very different prospect both in terms of scale and optics. Why not wait and see what Goff's like to deal with before picking a huge fight that you're likely to end up on the wrong side of?
-
There is no way Key puts commissioners into Auckland.
It would be an absolute undemocratic outrage, the optics of shafting a Goff either possessing or about to take a huge mandate are awful, and it would open Labour up to hold an pro-intensification stance - in principle - while simultaneously arguing against any given bit of intensification as an undemocratic abuse of power (which it would be). National would be alienating key constituencies across the board - I suspect it would be one thing that would put Seymour under real pressure to break with National, for instance.
Even if the AC rejects the UP (which I doubt it will) I would imagine Key does nothing for the rest of this year and resets the agenda with Goff in early '17, and they try and deal with this early in the term and as far away from an election as possible.
You can't get elected members to vote against their constituents' wishes in an election years, it's just not feasible, and if you construct a process that requires that you are set up for failure.
-
I would be curious to see whether a ward of 500,000 would pass the community of interest test under the Local Electoral Act.
My gut feeling is that it would struggle to, although the LGC did approve a ward of ~100,000 in Dunedin. Will be interesting to see where the LGC comes down on the proposal to abolish wards entirely in Dunedin this year.
The LGC said in 2010 that “we have concluded that, for Auckland, wards larger than those electing two members are undesirable.”
There is a weirdness here in that the voting system is determined by the Council or referendum, but the electoral map will almost certainly be determined by the Local Government Commission.
Putting aside perfect electoral system design concerns, next term’s representation review for the Auckland Council will be amazing to watch – hugely complex, politicised, and consequential.
[ETA: ps: the Auckland right will have to deal with the loss of the Franklin/Rodney distortion embedded in the original Act - those wards will have to drastically change unless LGC uses a different path to allow a variance greater then +/- 10%, which would be very debatable.]
-
(from Wired:) "architect Kyle Lockwood" -- that's libelling architects there! He's an architectural designer...
-
Hard News: Victoria Crone and what…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
(a) people emmeshed in those networks are way more likely to vote, and (b) parties don't just build relationships in that way, they do that and a bunch of other stuff.
-
Insider trading is the point of prediction markets of this kind in many ways -- for instance, it's not entirely clear why an oil company employee betting on petrol price movements is doing anything unethical (except in terms of possibly misusing their employer's confidential information).
-
I doubt the voters of Mt Roskill care where in the strange world of Labour factions Goff sits (and it's not entirely clear he is "right" these days, his manifesto in 2011 will probably be the most left-wing manifesto for twenty years either side) but I suspect they do care about the fact Goff is a hard working and effective local MP.
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to Julie Fairey,
Yes! This is a minor point of annoyance for me - because local government in Auckland and Christchurch is FPP, it makes sense for the left to contest elections together to avoid vote splitting, and if you look at the rise of formations like City Vision and Christchurch 2021 they follow on from the fracturing of the left in the late 80's / early 90s.
(Sure, some of it is about being "Labour in drag" but the need to co-ordinate a broad left front is an important and under-discussed factor.)
-
STV would create very large wards in Auckland, which would tend to favour the rich and infamous.
It’s also not entirely clear that “proportionality” is a particularly coherent concept in a not-very-partisan environment like the Auckland council.
And you can’t compare L/R on the council now with L/R if the Mayor was indirectly elected, as the Len Brown For Mayor campaign would have focussed on turning out marginal council votes instead of mayoral votes, and I think could have swung at least one if not more council wards left if that resource had been redirected.
[I do think mayors should be elected by the Council, and probably shouldn't also chair the council meeting - or, possibly, should, and a new office of Leader of the Council be created for the political head of the council.]