Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Greg Dawson,
... based on the more reality-aligned view...
You could suggest the continued and unchanging policy of not paying relatives to care for their disabled family members was a direct implementation of Labour Party policy.
-
Isn't politics wonderful.
Skycity is the highly visible face of gambling. Skycity is a crony corporation that has been cronying up successfully to governments since its conception. It is a state granted monopoly that runs a typically monopolistic enterprise - a cavernous, dreary and disappointing service. And it has been granted new monopoly powers. Whoope-de-do. The new convention centre will be bland dreary shite, supported by the casino monopoly granted to Skycity.
As long as no political party is talking about stripping the monopoly from Skycity, it is all political BS.
We'll the ususal get lectures on the harm of pokies - but we can also gamble at the TAB, at the computer, at the corner dairy, at the pub or on any mobile device. Avenues of gambling that have grown under successive governments. And will continue to grow under the next government.
To say that Labour is different from National, because the exact same deal (for a dreary convention centre) under Labour was handled by a regulatory process of "integrity" and Labour then acted to reduce prevalence of pokie machines - that is a stretch . Especially when the same Labour government between 2005 and 2008 poured money hand over fist into the racing industry; compared to the present National government slashing this funding.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Sacha,
Well aren't you going to kill a lot of internet discussions with that sort of attitude.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Stephen Doyle,
Or like relying on the landlord to enforce liquor laws, but then saying we'll only review your licence in 35 years.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Graham Dunster,
Graham,
The ETS schemes of Europe are non-robust and unworkable. They fail because their authors ask too much of other people and do not ask enough of themselves.
The biggest threat to the planet is unchecked consumerism, the readers of Monbiot are almost all first world consumers. An ETS deflects costs away from consumers and on to world production (which is more & more developing world). Monbiot's readership has a preferred approach of avoiding direct responsibility for climate change and will now blame others for their failure to act.
-
Hard News: You can Roughan but you just…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Or did I miss the bit where you were anointed Supreme Being of New Zealand?
No, but it is a democracy where I (and a lot of people like me) get a vote.
However to find the Supreme Beings of NZ is very simple - follow the money.
The part of NZ that has the highest property values is the Auckland CBD. The part of NZ that has the highest net worth employees is the Auckland CBD. The home of our bankers, insurance firms, financial services, national media is the Auckland CBD.
This transport plan will enhance the value of the Auckland CBD. The original consensus of Aucklanders was that the poorer and less powerful parts of the NZ would pay, but the rest of the country are saying no. We need a new consensus that allows for Auckland to pay for the rail loop.
Paying for this plan is going to be objectionable to a majority of people in Auckland, because it is a useless plan for most of us most of the time. It is a plan that is designed to spend money on services that are NOT "convenient, quick, reliable, comfortable and affordable public transport options" for a majority of Auckland. Can you see this point?
If I was less of a cynic I'd be expecting that the rich pricks...our supreme beings...local tory businessmen...chief executives...honest hardworking people... of the CBD to pay for this costly enhancement to their well being. But these people are disproportionally wealthy and will get someone-else to subsidise their existence.
The political questions stay same, but the stage is now Auckland and not the rest of NZ.
A - How much should less expensive places pay to enhance the most expensive place?
B - Should the most expensive place pay to improve its own infrastructure?
In the rest of NZ the answer was very little of A and a lot of B.
-
Hard News: You can Roughan but you just…, in reply to James Millar,
You do not need the CRL to do any of that.
Sans-CRL there could be trains going West-East for much less investment than buying a tunnel. There could be trains running West-South today if the funds were cleared to do so.
But the funds are not there, instead they are committed to building a tunnel, and that is kind of my point.
-
Hard News: You can Roughan but you just…, in reply to Mike Graham,
Depends on how well the proposed plan is able to create:
...convenient, quick, reliable, comfortable and affordable public transport options...
..for everyone. But this plan is to spend the vast majority of funds on getting people to and from the CBD.
If people, like me, do not work in the CBD this plan is of stuff all benefit. My commute to work would take 1.20 hours to walk, while the existing "un-convenient, un-quick, unreliable, uncomfortable and unaffordable public transport option" takes 1.05 hours. I drive and on a bad day it takes 12 minutes.
A fuel tax inducement to get me out of my car is going to piss me off, since the plan is to spend virtually none of the revenue on improving it I will be getting the same level of non-service as now.
All of the benefit is going to the CBD, the CBD best pay for this through rates rises there or congestion charges there. Anything else is going to be problematic.
-
Hard News: You can Roughan but you just…, in reply to Konrad Kurta,
They are the opposition (or writers closely associated with) and to oppose something politically means pointing out all the things the governing party does are horrible.
-
Yes, and the same goes for the unions in the 80s who floundered aimlessly as Douglas rogered the nation. Citizens and voters deserved a better choice.
The union movement did not flounder through the 80s, they worked very hard to achieve the election of the 4th Labour government. And then they supported it.