Well done Greens!

115 comments on “Well done Greens! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   13 October 2013 at 8:35 am

   Someone should tell Metiria there are local boards in Auckland 😀

   But I am very pleased at the election of Saffron Toms and Steve Tollestrup to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. Two more decent and dedicated people you will not mee.
   • karol 1.1

     13 October 2013 at 8:45 am

     Thanks, micky. Is Tollestrup Green? Only Toms is showing as Green on the preliminary result.

     Congratulations to you and the rest of Future West in the Ranges, micky! Will update my post further.

     Are your correcting Turei for calling them “community” boards in Auckland?
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       13 October 2013 at 8:48 am

       Hi Karol. Yes he is and yes I am!
       • just saying 1.1.1.1

         13 October 2013 at 8:55 am

         Congratulations Mickey 🙂
         • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1

           13 October 2013 at 9:00 am

           Cheers.
       • karol 1.1.1.2

         13 October 2013 at 8:55 am

         Excellent result for Waitakere Ranges! Well done!
       • karol 1.1.1.3

         13 October 2013 at 9:05 am

         Thanks, micky. Actually, the labelling of the boards in Auckland is telling. Surely they should be called “community” boards too. I am hoping if we have a Labour led government by the end of next year, that they can do soemthing to restructure Auckland Council so that it is more democratic, less autocratic, and more directly responsible to the community.
         • mickysavage 1.1.1.3.1

           13 October 2013 at 9:53 am

           Aye Karol.

           The first thing that needs to be done is to review the Council Controlled Organisations. If I was in charge I would bring Auckland Transport back into the Council fold and I put POAL under direct Council control.

           There is far too much control of the city under the control of non elected entities.
           • RedLogix 1.1.1.3.1.1

             13 October 2013 at 2:02 pm

             Absolutely mickey. Well done and congratulations.

             It’s been an inspiration to see you make the transition from here to being directly in politics. For what it is worth however, I’d suggest that it can also be a tricky and sometime hazardous transition … what was ok in one environment can catch you out in another.

             Best wishes all the same. You’ve shown that blogging can be more than just talking about politics.
           • karol 1.1.1.3.1.2

             13 October 2013 at 6:05 pm

             I’m glad you agree with the need for a total rview of the CCOs. Plus I think Local Boards need more say in the running of the wards.

             The lections focus too much on the Mayoral context, and too little on the council candidates and local board members.

             Also, I’m sad to say, some people in the New Lynn area are saying that they never saw any (and/or too few) of the candidates around locally during the election period, even though some are happy with the outcome of the Wahau part of the elections.

             One thing I like about the successful Whau Board candidates is that they appear to be diverse and representative of a fair bit of the diversity in the communtiy – ethnically and gender wise.

             Congratulations on the strong team at Waitakere Ranges. They do include some people that have a strong presence in their community – Sandra Coney, yourself etc.
       • veutoviper 1.1.1.4

         13 October 2013 at 11:21 am

         My congratulations also, Micky – the Waitakere Ranges team looks really strong. And that is from a Wellingtonian!

         I am really happy with the Wellington results. Celia W-B was my local councillor for years before running for Mayor and was a wonderful local councillor. Always approachable, on the case immediately and great to deal with. I was not sure she would make it this round, but am thrilled she did – and Morrison is gone! Yippee!
   • miravox 1.2

     13 October 2013 at 9:22 am

     ohhh micky – you better keep writing even though you’re now a pollie. Well done!
     • mickysavage 1.2.1

       13 October 2013 at 9:54 am

       Cheers miravox. I have been a pollie for a while …
   • Rogue Trooper 1.3

     13 October 2013 at 11:41 am

     congratulations are in order ms 😀
2. ghostwhowalksnz 2

   13 October 2013 at 9:02 am

   Raffils in Whau had to rebrand herself as non CR, with no blue insight to remain competitive.

   I see Anae has done much the same in his area
3. tc 3

   13 October 2013 at 9:40 am

   Where can we find full results for all nz councils
   • mickysavage 3.1

     13 October 2013 at 10:27 am

     Either try the Council’s website. There is a collection of some at http://electionz.com/elections/LGEResults/2013_results.htm
4. bad12 4

   13 October 2013 at 9:41 am

   Low voter turnout seems to be the talking point of these elections after the counting has been done, i suppose that if online voting along with the postal ballot and the ability to cast the vote at polling booths on the day could be tried but there’s quite a huge demographic of voters who know full well that the Local Body elections were being held and for various reasons still choose not to vote,

   My view, in a democracy there should be one political interaction that should be compulsory, that being voting,

   Wellington seemed to have slightly bucked the trend as far as numbers voting goes, up just over a % on the numbers last time round,

   As Metiria said, a great result for the Greens here in Wellington and on the present numbers i would suggest the further swing to the left if translated into a General Election would here in Wellington just about be enough to topple Slippery and Co from office, if such a swing also translates across Auckland then we may have the pleasure in 2014 to witness a rout,

   Lolz, naughty me, there is much work yet to be done befor the announcement of that little victory….
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     13 October 2013 at 10:13 am

     I chose not to vote, in CHCH, on the basis that Lianne was going to win; I only would have voted “against” someone (eg, Bob) but there was no need. I have 0 knowledge about any of the people standing and whether they’d do a better job than existing counsellors, so decided there was no real value in my voting.
   • Outofbed 4.2

     13 October 2013 at 10:34 am

     there is much work yet to be done before the announcement of that little victory….

     Yes and that has already started
   • muzza 4.3

     13 October 2013 at 10:43 am

     Compulsory voting – No thanks!

     Better educated, more knowledgeable voters, understanding of the legislative/financial fraud which is being perpetuated against every one of us – YES PLEASE!

     Perhaps then voting would not need to be made compulsory, as an educated, knowledgeable voter base would ensure they are not continually screwed, which is why the dumbing down accelerated !
     • Paul 4.3.1

       13 October 2013 at 10:51 am

       +1
       An educated electorate.
       An independent media – free from the corporate agenda.
       George Carlin ‘You have owners’
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
       • muzza 4.3.1.1

         13 October 2013 at 11:49 am

         Indeed, Paul!

         Carlin understood, and articulated various situations, wonderfully!

         There are owners, because they have lied/tricked the populace into handing jurisdiction over, contractually!

         Sadly there are still too many who can’t wrap their heads around the notion that their ignorance is responsible the state of the world we live, because of fraud, complex fraud, but still easy enough to observe with a little effort!

         Time is running short to fight it, as once the technological grid is fully implemented, there will be few options available, and even less places to hide.

         It’s why TPTB are forcing through as much destruction/theft as they can, because they are aware of the growing consciousness!
       • The Al1en 4.3.1.2

         13 October 2013 at 2:12 pm

         For the win, add candidates worth voting for.

         First time I’ve not voted in a long while, but good luck to those saying I have no right to complain.
         Being forced to chose between dumb or dumber gets a compulsory get fu*ked response. Always has, always will. 🙂
         Never encourage mediocrity.
   • Francis 4.4

     13 October 2013 at 10:29 pm

     My understanding is that there are three main reasons for people not voting.

     Firstly, there’s the lack of knowledge about candidates and where they stand. This is where the media is really lacking in decent coverage. The political parties really need to get their affiliations known as well, especially outside the major centres. Currently, there’s no way of easily knowing where candidates stand on the political spectrum (without undertaking a large amount of research, which most people wouldn’t bother on). Heck, even if the unions could release a sheet similar to the Auckland one this year for all the electorates, that would help.

     Secondly, there’s satisfaction with the incumbent(s). If people are happy with who’s currently running things, they may not feel the need to vote. In contrast, if people are fed up with the incumbent, they’re more likely to want to vote, in order to get rid of them. Not a lot you can do about this one (obviously it’s better if the current people are doing a good job).

     Thirdly, lack of any decent contest. If it’s perceived that there’s no real ‘race’ in the election (e.g. only one credible candidate for mayor, where all the signs point to a very large majority), a lot of people will not bother voting because they have the impression that their vote will make no difference. That’s where elections (for a single position) do need to have at least two credible candidates, especially ones who have different ideas.

     Of course, in places which are still in the bad old days of FPP, having multiple candidates on the same side of the spectrum causes ‘vote splitting’, which is why I hate FPP so much. To fix that, candidates would either need to negotiate between themselves to make sure that only one person stands on their side (very bad democracy), or switch to STV (something which some people seem to hate).

     I don’t think compulsory voting (in local body elections) would solve that. Do we really want 100% voter turnout, with 80% of them just ticking the first names? General elections are easier for most people to understand, so compulsory voting could work, but I believe it’s more important that people are engaged rather than simply forcing them to vote.

     As for online voting, I really doubt it will solve much. If a younger person (who seem to be the main target of this) is truly engaged in the elections, they will almost certainly make the effort to fill in a sheet of paper and pop it in their local post box, or to walk down the street and vote in a polling station. It’s only the ones who aren’t really engaged who may be likely to use the system (that wouldn’t otherwise), and then you run into the same problems as I mentioned in the last paragraph.

     And besides that, I have real doubts as to the integrity of computer-based voting systems, particularly online ones. As someone who works with computers a lot, I know how easy it would be for someone with a vested interest to manipulate them on a reasonably large scale. I personally will still be using the paper voting system at the next election for that very reason, and I encourage others to do so.
5. billbrowne 5

   13 October 2013 at 9:43 am

   An interesting analysis

   http://truthseekernz.blogspot.com/2013/10/auckland-council-elections-2013-voters.html
6. bad12 6

   13 October 2013 at 9:44 am

   A PS, with pleasure i also have to point out that John, having not secured the Mayoralty here in Wellington is gone,

   He didn’t stand for a seat on the Council this time round,(the ego must have got the better of Him), thus Wellington voters got to give Him ‘the message’ loud and clear, ”see ya later John, enjoy the retirement wont you”…
   • Martin 6.1

     13 October 2013 at 10:27 am

     apart from more cars and flyovers and cricket there wasn’t much else there.
     A lesson here:

     sporting prowes and/or celebrity does not alone a good choice make.

     Britney Speares or Justin Beiber anyone? 🙂 anyone or even SBW? [untested]
     • bad12 6.1.1

       13 October 2013 at 10:37 am

       Yes as far as dear John goes it was more cars for what benefits cricket at the Basin could get outta the deal, the politics of the used car salesman, riddance…
7. Dr Terry 7

   13 October 2013 at 9:54 am

   Well done Greens – what a happy result! How refreshing to receive such good news.
8. QoT 8

   13 October 2013 at 10:22 am

   I just wish some of them weren’t anti-fluoride (Paul Bruce, GWRC).
   • bad12 8.1

     13 October 2013 at 10:25 am

     What’s wrong with being anti-fluoride, many of us are, there’s more than enough of the stuff in toothpaste to satisfy any benefit vis a vis teeth without loading up the water supply with the stuff…
     • infused 8.1.1

       13 October 2013 at 10:31 am

       For once I agree on something. Fuck fluoride. Don’t need the shit in the water.
     • QoT 8.1.2

       13 October 2013 at 11:05 am

       Well, the fact that most anti-fluoride campaigners are essentially anti-science aside, god forbid that I express an opinion based on my political leanings. I promise that henceforth I will never write any post or comment which expresses a wish that people whose ideas I agree with have power. And thus, I will never blog again.
       • bad12 8.1.2.1

         13 October 2013 at 11:41 am

         i wont drag the Post any further off topic, ‘Open Mike’ appears to be the place for this little ‘take’ to have another airing on the Standard…
     • Lanthanide 8.1.3

       13 October 2013 at 11:36 am

       “What’s wrong with being anti-fluoride, many of us are, there’s more than enough of the stuff in toothpaste to satisfy any benefit vis a vis teeth without loading up the water supply with the stuff…”

       For the people that use toothpaste, yes. Unfortunately not everyone does, and their costs come back to bite the taxpayer in the form of, at the very least, children’s dental care.
     • RedLogix 8.1.4

       13 October 2013 at 1:54 pm

       In my former role I was personally and directly involved in the fluoridation of Wellington’s water supply.

       1. The amount added is 0.7 ppm. This is not a lot more than the background level in river or aquifer water which ranges around 0.1-0.3 ppm. All the science I read strongly suggests that there are no confirmed reasons to think that 0.7 ppm is cause for concern.

       Having said that:

       2. Increasingly people don’t drink much tap water directly anymore. It’s a pretty inefficient route of mass medication.

       3. As evidence of this the old ‘borough’ of Petone has never been fluoridated, while the rest of Wellington is. (Otherwise they get the exact same water.) This has been a very long running controlled experiment and as far as I am aware no-one has shown has any apparent health, dental or otherwise, differences between the two populations.

       My opinion is that dosing fluroide via toothpaste is probably more effective and that dosing the water supply is neither here nor there.

       On the other hand if we really cared about dental caries in children, we would make sugar laden fizzy drinks illegal and address the root cause of the disease… which is all about our carbohydrate/sugar intense diets … and much less to do with anything in the water.
       • weka 8.1.4.1

         13 October 2013 at 2:38 pm

         Fuck, that would have to be one of the most sensible things I’ve seen written about the issue, ever.

         The fluoridation issue is a red herring. We should be looking at real prevantative care, not Claytons preventative care. The flow on health benefits would be enormous (not to mention the effect on the Health budget).
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.4.1.1

           13 October 2013 at 3:02 pm

           Remember, the pro-fluoridation lobby are just that: pro-fluoridation. They are not a pro-child dental health lobby. They do however use where you stand on the issue of fluoridation as a surrogate social marker for whether or not you care about child dental health.

           I notice Lanth in Open Mike has suggested that Christchurch teeth are OK despite a lack of fluoridation because children consume drinks made in fluoridated parts of the country. Which is of course a completely unscientific statement. If it were true though it suggests that far lower exposure to fluoride does the same protective job. And it would back up what they tend to do in Europe instead of polluting everyone’s drinking water – you can buy fluoridated table salt and fluoridated milk, in addition to fluoridated tooth paste.
           • QoT 8.1.4.1.1.1

             13 October 2013 at 3:17 pm

             It’s amazing how much you can infer from my preference for pro-fluoridation candidates. Less amazing: how utterly inaccurate it is.

             Of course I want children to have good dental health. But I’m also quite happy to point out that a decent number of anti-fluoride people are completely talking out their asses on the issue, and I refer you to the hilarious antics of bad12 in the same comment thread.
             • Colonial Viper …

               13 October 2013 at 3:33 pm

               I never used to be interested in the issue, but after looking at it I now know that a large majority of developed first world countries don’t fluoridate their community water supplies.
               • Jim Nald …

                 13 October 2013 at 4:49 pm

                 Here is what has been submitted on Wikipedia … food for thought with regard to the European list of countries:

                 “Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[36] Scotland[37] Iceland, and Italy.[citation needed] A 2003 survey of over 500 Europeans from 16 countries concluded that “the vast majority of people opposed water fluoridation”.[38]”

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   13 October 2013 at 4:59 pm

                   Hope your 5 or 6 year old child does not drink more than 3 glasses of water per day.

                   http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/index.htm#4

                   The very youngest are at greatest risk of exceeding fluoride limits. The estimated tolerable limit for children under 1-6 years old is 1.5 mg/day, which should produce less than 5% of moderate dental fluorosis. This is exceeded if they drink more than 1.0 L water containing 0.8 mg F/L and they use a normal amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste. If they drink 1.5 L of water they go over the limit even without the toothpaste.
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:12 pm

                     If they drink 1.5 L of water they go over the limit even without the toothpaste.

                     1.5L x 0.8mg = >1.5mg?

                     lol
                   • tamati …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:21 pm

                     Fluorosis- Whitening of the teeth. Most people are happy to have whiter teeth.
                   • weka …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:23 pm

                     Laugh away McFlock.

                     But I’m curious, as an aside, do you think that all children metabolise chemicals in exactly the same way and at exactly the same rate, irrespective of age and other factors?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:30 pm

                     Fluorosis- Whitening of the teeth. Most people are happy to have whiter teeth.

                     Huh?

                     http://worldental.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dental-fluorosis-picture.jpg

                     Laugh away McFlock.

                     Notice how McFlock didn’t address any substantial issues. The error in the EU text appears to be from an over simplified editing of the higher levels of detail available on the EU website I linked to.
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:31 pm

                     Of course not.

                     But until Jenny McArthy claims fluoridation caused her kid’s autism, I don’t think there’s any claims of people being harmed by fluoridation at NZ recommended levels. In fact, in NZ any measure of harm is firmly on the side of those areas that do not fluoridate – either through DMFTT or through probable overcompensation.
                   • weka …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:35 pm

                     CV: “Notice how McFlock didn’t address any substantial issues”

                     Yes, it was interesting to see what they pulled out as the thing to comment on.

                     McFlock: “But until Jenny McArthy claims fluoridation caused her kid’s autism, I don’t think there’s any claims of people being harmed by fluoridation at NZ recommended levels. In fact, in NZ any measure of harm is firmly on the side of those areas that do not fluoridate – either through DMFTT or through probable overcompensation.”

                     So? I wasn’t commenting on your views on flouridation, I was commenting on your critical thinking skills and how you present in this debate.
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:54 pm

                     I see no point in regurgitating an already exhausted argument, so I’m happy pointing out the basic inconsistency in the source document.

                     How I present? What do I care? The math, the detectable effects, and the NZ experience won’t persuade the anti-F crowd. In NZ, non-fluoridation results in thousands of caries and tooth extractions in NZ kids.

                     Show me the case of a single kid who experienced hardship worse than a tooth extraction as a direct result of fluoridation at NZ recommended levels, and I’d maybe acquire a modicum of respect for proponents of the anti-F position.
                   • tamati …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:58 pm

                     Agreed, this argument has gone beyond tiresome!

                     I just hope all the major political parties have a clear and ambitious fluoridation policy. Handing this issue over to local government is wrong.
                   • weka …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:23 pm

                     Show me the case of a single kid who experienced hardship worse than a tooth extraction as a direct result of fluoridation at NZ recommended levels, and I’d maybe acquire a modicum of respect for proponents of the anti-F position.

                     Way to completely miss the point. Not to mention skew the debate to your own bias.
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:46 pm

                     Oh no, I was skewing the fluoride debate towards my own biased objective of reducing harm to kids.

                     That is the entire issue of fluoridation: if it fails to reduce harm, it’s pointless.
             • weka …

               13 October 2013 at 4:58 pm

               “But I’m also quite happy to point out that a decent number of anti-fluoride people are completely talking out their asses on the issue”

               Yeah, it drives me crazy. It happens with lots of issues that are polarised around mainstream powerholders and fringe objectors. The really annoying thing is that the fringe objectors are often right in principle, but lack critical thinking skills and end up saying lots of stupid things in public (and often don’t have a good understanding of science or the scientific method). Equally annoying is that many of those siding with the mainstream powerholders have better critical thinking skills but a seeming inability to apply them to their own world views, or god forbid, science.

               “Of course I want children to have good dental health.”

               I don’t think that’s what CV meant. I think he meant that the pro-flouridation lobby isn’t a pro-health lobby in the broader, holistic sense. We don’t see the same degree of effort going into reducing risk from diet for instance. Or poverty etc. I didn’t take CV’s comment to include you, I took it to mean the medical/dental/MoH/industrial chemical people who are pushing the pro-flouridation agenda (but he can correct me if I am wrong). Most people fall somewhere between the pro- and anti- lobbies.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 13 October 2013 at 5:05 pm

                 yes that’s pretty much how I meant it weka.

                 Anybody pushing for keeping sugary soft drinks and fruit juices out of schools, in the name of better child dental health? Well, we wouldn’t want to deprive children and their parents of “free choice” in favour of ‘nanny state’ would we? Despite the loads of scientific evidence which details how damaging those beverages are to childrens teeth.

                 Yet people are happy to take away peoples rights to pure unadulterated water.
                 • McFlock …

                   13 October 2013 at 5:18 pm

                   Not at all – there are many ways to gather non-fluoridated water or purify the municipal supply to lab-quality levels.

                   Why should other people’s children be at greater danger of fluorosis and cavities just because you’re lazy as well as paranoid?
                   • weka …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:29 pm

                     The thing about this argument (and I’ve seen it put out on ts alot) is that it’s the height of hypocricy. Let’s make a political argument for the health of some children, but the people that are excluded from that health policy (and their children) are ‘lazy’, not poor or disabled or overworked. The assumptions in the argument about who doesn’t want fluoridated water are astounding.

                     I suspect what you actually mean is “there is no validity whatsoever in your view on fluoridation”. Why not just be honest instead of making up spurious political arguments?
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:44 pm

                     Because I was addressing the even more stupid claim that fluoridating water is depriving people of any access to non-fluoridated water, rather than the generally stupid complaint that fluoridation at NZ levels is harmful.

                     As for the argument that a small percentage of fools might not be able to adequately meet the needs of their idiocy, so therefore we should boost dental caries in children by 8% (increasing according to socioeconomic factors) on average just to satisfy their paranoia… I have no sympathy whatsoever.
                   • tamati …

                     13 October 2013 at 5:47 pm

                     Where are these libertarian fools demanding their right to drink chlorine free water?

                     Cholera is a human right!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:24 pm

                     Everybody benefits from cholera free water. Only some slices of the population benefit from water added fluoride.
                   • weka …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:30 pm

                     Tamati, lots of people in NZ drink unchlorinated water, from various sources. Lots do it by choice. And they don’t get cholera. Are you a fucking idiot or what.

                     McFlock: As for the argument that a small percentage of fools might not be able to adequately meet the needs of their idiocy, so therefore we should boost dental caries in children by 8% (increasing according to socioeconomic factors) on average just to satisfy their paranoia… I have no sympathy whatsoever.

                     Ah, the arrogance. See you don’t even accept that people have a right to untreated water or to have choice in the matter. Tamati can cry libertarian, and I’m tempted to cry facism, but really this is just another example of the hubris of people who think that their world view should be inflicted on everyone else. Fucking fundamentalists.

                     If you still haven’t gotten it yet, I’m not, right at the moment, arguing that fluoridation should be taken out of the water supply. I’m saying that people like you who will use any argument to futher their dominating world view are hypocritical in the extreme when it comes to politics.

                     Thanks for calling my disability laziness. Now go fuck yourself.
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:30 pm

                     CV: but only some people have contaminated water, so why poison everyone with chlorine, a poison used in chemical warfare? It’s madness, I tells ye!
                   • McFlock …

                     13 October 2013 at 6:38 pm

                     Ah, the arrogance. See you don’t even accept that people have a right to untreated water or to have choice in the matter.

                     They have a right to safe water. They don’t have a right to impossibly pure water, or to lime flavouring in the mains, or whatever.

                     Tamati can cry libertarian, and I’m tempted to cry facism, but really this is just another example of the hubris of people who think that their world view should be inflicted on everyone else. Fucking fundamentalists.

                     No. It’s not “world view”. It’s actual, detectable harm that should be minimised.

                     If you still haven’t gotten it yet, I’m not, right at the moment, arguing that fluoridation should be taken out of the water supply. I’m saying that people like you who will use any argument to futher their dominating world view are hypocritical in the extreme when it comes to politics.

                     In the same way that being intolerant of intolerance is hypocritical.
                     I’m intolerant of people inflicting harm on others. In this situation I need to choose between definite lifelong harm to children, and making idiots scared of their kitchen tap.

                     No contest. Idiots can get stuffed.
           • Lanthanide 8.1.4.1.1.2

             13 October 2013 at 9:01 pm

             CV, I did *not* suggest that the halo effect is the reason that Christchurch may have dental outcomes similar to other parts of the country. I don’t even know if that’s a true statement or not.

             I used the halo effect as a possible explanation to counter bad12’s point, to highlight the fact that his simplistic, shallow and “obvious” strawman that he set up to discredit “science” was stupid.
   • tamati 8.2

     13 October 2013 at 5:26 pm

     Don’t worry too much. The most important Green, when it comes to fluoridation, is very strongly in favour.

     Kevin Hague, easily one of the most capable MP’s in parliament, is a shoo-in as next health minister. I sincerely hopes he ends this anti-science nonsense.
     • weka 8.2.1

       13 October 2013 at 5:32 pm

       Are you saying that Kevin Hague should set GP policy on his own?
       • tamati 8.2.1.1

         13 October 2013 at 5:35 pm

         I would be happy for him to do so as he’s an immensely talented M.P. As Minister of Health next year I imagine he’ll have significant sway at the cabinet table.
9. Penny Bright 9

   13 October 2013 at 10:25 am

   Issue: Mayor (1) Date: 13/10/2013
   Auckland Council Time: 00:43:00
   LATEST RESULT ON AUCKLAND COUNCIL WEBSITE

   Candidate Affiliation Candidate No Votes Received Rank
   BERRY, Stephen Affordable Auckland 101 13539
   BRIGHT, Penny Independent 102 11619
   BROWN, Len Independent 103 162675
   BUTLER, Jesse 104 1455
   CHEEL, Tricia 105 1202
   DUFFY, Paul 106 3067
   GOODE, Matthew 107 2090
   HUSSEY, Emmett Independent 108 2933
   KRUGER, Susanna Susara Independent 109 2162
   MINTO, John Mana Movement 110 11436
   O’CONNOR, Phil Christians Against Abortion 111 3006
   PALINO, John Independent 112 107672
   SHADBOLT, Reuben Independent 113 3120
   UNASA, Uesifili Independent 114 7964
   VERMUNT, Annalucia Communist League 115 849
   WILLMOTT, David Roads First 116 1637
   YOUNG, Wayne Working for the Homeless 117 3913
   INFORMAL 118 1576
   BLANK 119 7074
   Preliminary Result

   ______________________________________________________________________________

   Kind regards,

   Her Warship 😉
   • veutoviper 9.1

     13 October 2013 at 11:14 am

     Penny – a big congratulations to you for the number of votes you received. Well done!
     • Penny Bright 9.1.1

       13 October 2013 at 11:51 am

       Thank you 🙂

       Imagine if I had $150,000 instead of $1500 to spend on an election campaign!

       😉

       Penny Bright
       • RedLogix 9.1.1.1

         13 October 2013 at 2:49 pm

         Penny,

         Well done Penny. Yes the end-result influence of big money in elections can be seen in the dysfunctional mess that is now Washington. People instinctively know this and it’s a very large part of why there are such low-turnouts. Turning this situation around has to be a major challenge for the left.

         These days it takes a great deal of bravery and a certain kind of obsessiveness to make it into politics and for that you have my respect.
         • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1

           13 October 2013 at 2:54 pm

           Looks to me like Hilary Calvert outspent by a country mile every other candidate down in Dunedin. And the result: she bolted on to Dunedin City Council with the most votes out of all the candidates.
   • Rogue Trooper 9.2

     13 October 2013 at 12:11 pm

     congratulations Penny, steam on!
   • Jum 9.3

     13 October 2013 at 3:22 pm

     Congratulations to Penny Bright and John Minto
   • Tigger 9.4

     13 October 2013 at 5:45 pm

     Well done, Penny. That’s a terrific vote for you.
10. infused 10

    13 October 2013 at 10:27 am

    I didn’t vote mainly because I know all of the candidates quite well. They are all useless. So who do you vote for?

    I’m really surprised Len got back in, and even more surprised Celia did.
    • muzza 10.1

      13 October 2013 at 10:46 am

      Why are you surprised Brown was re-elected, and do you believe it makes a difference?

      Who might have achieved what you feel is necessary, that was on the ballot, if any ?
      • infused 10.1.1

        13 October 2013 at 10:52 am

        I have no idea about Auckland, but I thought he just wanted to spend, spend, spend and people were sick of him.

        Obviously not.
        • Paul 10.1.1.1

          13 October 2013 at 11:19 am

          Maybe people an’t abide Morrison.
        • muzza 10.1.1.2

          13 October 2013 at 12:01 pm

          Infused – So you have made a comment about the re-elected mayor of AKL, but then you claim

          I have no idea about Auckland, but I thought he just wanted to spend, spend, spend and people were sick of him

          Ignorance is not a positive trait to have, but one which is readily and easily perpetuated!

          Note – I’m not commenting on the mayor, or if one is any different from another, I only wanted to explore your level of consideration, which you have confirmed as being low!
11. finbar 11

    13 October 2013 at 10:42 am

    Well done the Greens.And after seeing Cunliffe on the Nation yesterday, looking and speaking very much like our next Prime Minister Labour may also have a few new seats come the General Election.

    In truth, i have been dismayed for quite some time about the state of the Labour Partys leaders and the direction their caucus!s.However,it would seem after yesterdays performance we now have a leader who can articulate policies and direction under pressure, and Prime Minister in waiting.Great stuff indeed,bring on the election.
    • bad12 11.1

      13 October 2013 at 11:58 am

      Yes, i marked David Cunliffe’s appearance on TV3 yesterday with an Excellent, a well measured well mannered performance in spite of whats-her-face trying to butt in while He was speaking…
      • tc 11.1.1

        13 October 2013 at 2:58 pm

        The more smalley brain and her colleagues do this, the better DC looks as they show their bias.

        You wouldnt see them interrupt shonkey and risk a visit from joycee and his boot crew.
        • finbar 11.1.1.1

          13 October 2013 at 4:10 pm

          In fairness Smalley, is one of the better interviewers on the telly.She lets her guests, have there say.I would say though,that she interjected more than usual interviewing Cunliffe,and Dave handled it supremely.Lets hope he keeps it together and the wheels don!t fall off,and his caucus don!t fuck up and keep the eyes, and minds, on the prize.
          • poem 11.1.1.1.1

            13 October 2013 at 4:51 pm

            Finbar, what you see of David Cunliffe now is what you will see all the way through in the future, his wheels wont be dropping off and he certainly has caucus under control. No doubts about that at all.
            • finbar 11.1.1.1.1.1

              13 October 2013 at 7:34 pm

              Lets hope so,there is much to be done.I was picking the Nat!s to go for a early election,but heh! their sell off of our assets is not profiting what their promise predicted.But Labour, has to instill its direction, and a early election would hinder that.Looking good though.
        • poem 11.1.1.2

          13 October 2013 at 4:46 pm

          +1 tc
      • poem 11.1.2

        13 October 2013 at 4:43 pm

        +1 Bad12 David Cunliffe left Rachel Smalley floundering like a fish out of water.
        • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.1

          13 October 2013 at 6:03 pm

          Smalley had entire lines of questioning prepared for the interview and seemed unwilling to alter course. Even though Cunliffe was clearly pointing out flaws in the premise of many of her questions.
          • Jim Nald 11.1.2.1.1

            13 October 2013 at 6:07 pm

            Yes, I was LOLing.
            It was like ‘there is no alternative’ line of questioning for Smalley.
            And Smalley is one of the sharper ones in the business in NZ.
    • poem 11.2

      13 October 2013 at 4:53 pm

      +1 Finbar
12. Penny Bright 12

    13 October 2013 at 10:49 am

    FYI

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/13/35-turnout-in-auckland-apathy-the-winner-on-the-day-how-to-change-it/

    Firstly, congrats to The Daily Blog bloggers, Efeso Collins, Julie Fairey, Penny Hulse and Aaron Hawkins for winning, and congrats to John Minto for managing to run a Mayoral campaign on a fraction of the budget of the big guys. – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/13/35-turnout-in-auckland-apathy-the-winner-on-the-day-how-to-change-it/#sthash.eivL7aGV.dpuf

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
13. Penny Bright 13

    13 October 2013 at 11:45 am

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/13/minto-for-mayor-and-the-mana-local-body-election-campaign/

    “The only media to give any serious coverage of the issues and contenders were the New Zealand Herald and Radio New Zealand. Unfortunately the great mass of voters in West and South Auckland in particular – those most likely to support our Mana campaign policies – do not read the Herald and prefer commercial radio to Radio New Zealand. To get these people seriously engaged would take a large budget well outside the modest means of our campaign. – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/13/minto-for-mayor-and-the-mana-local-body-election-campaign/#sthash.FYIl352G.dpuf”
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    I was neither interviewed or reported by Radio NZ – thus effectively censored – in my considered opinion.

    (As I was on Martyn Bradbury’s ‘Daily Blog’).

    However – it seems that thousands of Aucklanders ARE getting the message about the need to ‘open the books’ and ‘cut out the contractors’, and this Auckland Mayoral election result gives a VERY strong base for some real progress to be made on progressing this ACTION PLAN against ‘white collar crime’ corruption and ‘corporate welfare’:

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

    I look forward to as many political parties as possible – picking up as many of these policies / proposed legislative changes before the 2014 General Election.

    ‘Where the people lead – the politicians will follow ….. ?’

    Penny Bright
14. George D 14

    13 October 2013 at 2:28 pm

    As a Green, a huge congratulations to Labour. A very strong showing where there were clear Labour tickets.
    • Akldnut 14.1

      13 October 2013 at 2:55 pm

      A possible indicator “the winds of change they are a’comin”, and that the public are really starting to wake up, especially in West Auckland. Real shame that Christine Rose didn’t make in though.
      • AmaKiwi 14.1.1

        13 October 2013 at 8:40 pm

        No. The Left candidates (Labour and Green) united as a single ticket and worked very hard to win.

        It’s not going to fall into our laps next year. We’re going to have to work for it.
        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1

          13 October 2013 at 8:53 pm

          Correct. Its going to be tough tough work. And the Tories are going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at us.
15. poem 15

    13 October 2013 at 4:49 pm

    Huge congratulations to the Greens and to Labour !!!
16. Psycho Milt 16

    13 October 2013 at 5:48 pm

    It was all looking pretty good, until I got to “Sue Kedgely … elected to the Wellington Regional Council.” My sympathies to those residents of the Wellington region who aren’t deranged hippies.
    • bad12 16.1

      14 October 2013 at 9:28 am

      Ha ha Sicko Milt,for deranged hippies we sure as hell know how to get people elected, and, all the better if they seriously twist the pea that rattles around in the empty cavern that is your head…
    • Tracey 16.2

      14 October 2013 at 9:51 am

      Better to type nothing and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt
17. McFlock 17

    13 October 2013 at 5:58 pm

    In dunedin, Hawkins ran an excellent campaign, and good on him.
    • karol 17.1

      13 October 2013 at 7:52 pm

      What was good about Hawkins’ campaign, and what can other left council candidates learn from it?
      • McFlock 17.1.1

        13 October 2013 at 7:57 pm

        lots of posters all around town.
        I basically all but ignored the election, but knew he was running before I opened the papers.

        And I think a blurb that trod the line between the banal nothings (that most candidates regurgitated) and being so different as to be kooky (seriously, one candidate just seemed to list random words).
        • karol 17.1.1.1

          13 October 2013 at 8:05 pm

          So it’s the print communications that you think did it? Did he get out and about in the community and talk to people? How did he express left/green polciies? By appearing to be likeably “kooky”?

          It seems to me too many council andidates have got in the habit of trying to sound apolitical, and just talk about their families, and very bland examples of community involvement. No wonder no-one is very interested.
          • McFlock 17.1.1.1.1

            13 October 2013 at 8:36 pm

            Given that I was pretty snowed under with work and so on, for me it was the print around town, more specifically that he did paper posters like gigs around the central city, and I figure most of the other candidates did bollards on car routes, newspaper ads and mailouts (I tend to check the box while leaving the house, so junk mail gets biffed, and read local news online). His posters always seemed quite isolated, so he did something that others didn’t and that happened to work for me.

            My point is that iirc he seemed a bit different while not being kooky. Most of the candidates were just the same old crap, with very few differences between one or two who I knew to be leftish and Calvert the actoid. All “dunedin connections, build opportunities, work hard, responsible government” tosh, and with very quiet signals as to actual policies (e.g. I took the “keep rates down / strong business experience” combo to mean “wants to privatise water supply”, whereas any mention of social services being good signaled the other direction).
            • McFlock 17.1.1.1.1.1

              13 October 2013 at 8:38 pm

              oh my god, I just used the word “tosh”.
              One of the seven signs of aging…
              • Murray Olsen …

                13 October 2013 at 11:24 pm

                The other four are losing the ability to count.
18. karol 18

    13 October 2013 at 7:14 pm

    NZ Herald – always so on the ball, published the “full results” for Auckland elections just after 4pm today. It has the Whau Councillor as Nolene Raffills with 5546 votes. Yet this morning the Auckland Council preliminary results showed Clow as the winner with 6175 votes over Raffills on 6127 votes.

    And on the basis of that, another NZ Herald on Sunday article is claiming a stalemate between Len Brown and the 10 right leaning councillors, compared with 7 left leaning ones & 3 centre ones.
    • deWithiel 18.1

      13 October 2013 at 8:47 pm

      Bernard Orsman would appear to be having an attack of hubris. Evidently, his master’s aren’t pleased with the consequences of his voice. On Bernard’s assurances, they expected the right to win outright and it hasn’t come to pass. New strategy required.
19. finbar 19

    13 October 2013 at 7:52 pm

    Tuesday 2pm.Smith,cowering as the arrows fly.
20. Glenn 20

    13 October 2013 at 7:57 pm

    New Plymouth has given mayor Harry Duynhoven the boot.

    Voters have elected two-term councillor Andrew Judd to become mayor by a huge majority, 16,800 votes to Mr Duynhoven’s 7600 votes.

    Mr Duynhoven, a former Labour MP, becomes the first New Plymouth mayor in more than 50 years to not get re-elected after one term.
21. risildowgtn 21

    14 October 2013 at 9:17 am

    Horowhenua gets stuck (AGAIN) with Brendon Duffy

    9 years of this idiot already.

    Tokomaru is 1 place he has failed bigtime…..

    The guy is a joke
22. Rich 22

    14 October 2013 at 12:13 pm

    I favour one day of voting at voting booths

    On the same day as the general election => people turning out to vote nationally would usually also vote for a council candidate, and we’d have a secret ballot.
    • Francis 22.1

      14 October 2013 at 9:17 pm

      Even better, do it on a weekday (Tuesday or Wednesday) and make it a public holiday. I’m sure that would give a reasonable turnout, and there would be no excuse of forgetting…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS