Arrogance

12 comments on “Arrogance ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   21 April 2009 at 11:08 am

   John Key says National’s not so arrogant that they won’t listen to the select committee submissions. In that case, why have the fuckers completely ignored the thousands of submissions to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance?
2. Kevyn Miller 2

   21 April 2009 at 11:24 am

   What could he possibly be afraid of?

   If he has seen a summary of the long-term consequences of referenda from the last 100 years he would have plenty to be afraid of. Ratepayers seem to pick the worst option as often as they pick the best one.

   The worst referendum outcome was probably the ‘no’ vote to the Tramway Loan referendum in 1927, that led to Auckland becoming a car-centric city.
3. barnsleybill 3

   21 April 2009 at 11:29 am

   What exactly was the commission for? They have adopted almost the entire recommendations put forward by the commission and added more local representation and not included race based seats. You are trying to make a massive issue out of nothing. The only people whining are soon to be unemployed mayors and you!
   A referendum might not get you what you want either. Many Auckland ratepayers are sick to death of petty rules and ever increasing rates bills.
   Whether amalgamation will deliver improvements or not it is going to be pretty hard for the incumbent trough feeders to argue against such claims.
   • lprent 3.1

     21 April 2009 at 11:38 am

     NACT didn’t retain most of the recommendations. They removed the mid-tier that did have some power, and pushed it down to a wider bottom tier of representation that is powerless. On the way through they destroyed any effective local representation. Essentially they changed the whole proposal structure.

     If you don’t understand why this is a change, then I’d suggest you actually do some more reading.

     In practice we’re finding in the Mt Albert campaign that the super-city is a very hot topic as people are becoming aware of the deficiencies of Rodneys useless proposal. Aucklanders like having effective local representation because it is a strongly local city.
     • jerry 3.1.1

       21 April 2009 at 11:48 am

       “Aucklanders like having effective local representation because it is a strongly local city.”

       Maybe … but it doesn’t happen, all we have had for many decades is a small turnout vote every few years followed by an inevitable rates increase with the occasional useful project amongst a whole heap of waste, the depressing thing is the supercity proposal will probably just be more of the same gahhhhhhhhhh sods the lot of them !
4. Tigger 4

   21 April 2009 at 11:40 am

   If this is true why is Hide already at meetings on this issue making concrete plans? Not suggestions for plans – actual plans he expects to be carried out.

   Why is Hide saying ‘what I say goes’?

   Mr Key, do you care what your ACT government partner is doing?
5. Rich 5

   21 April 2009 at 1:01 pm

   They’re building a gerrymander.

   Based on General Election voting, the Auckland region went with the Labour government in ’05 and with NACT in ’08. ACT are a small minority (2.2% in ’05 and 5% in ’08).

   Now they’re trying to build a corrupt FPP system which will put ACT’s man in every time. It isn’t democracy, because ACT, deep down, believe that democracy is theft.

   Of course they won’t have a referendum.
6. exbrethren 6

   21 April 2009 at 1:33 pm

   I hope they continue on this track. They have tied themselves to a concept that will fail and fail massively. This will almost certainly lose them the next election.

   Go Rodney go.
7. ripp0 7

   21 April 2009 at 2:02 pm

   Wrote Barnsley bill — Auckland ratepayers are sick to death of petty rules and ever increasing rates bills.

   Clear inference is that fewer reps stay rates rises..

   From memory hasn’t the Christchurch City Council gone through this fewer reps loop. Did that result in a stay on rates increases(bills).. anyone..?

   Different cities, yes, yet some basis on intent or for for comparison could assist surely..
   • ripp0 7.1

     21 April 2009 at 2:36 pm

     Addendum:

     consequent following the next thread’s (Rob Thomas etc) link @ NZHerald I happened on two pertinent contributions per.. (my emphases)

     Penny Webster(Rodney Mayor) said ratepayers should not believe the Super City would save a lot of money. It would bring some efficiencies, but would not lead to lower rates.

     Auckland City Mayor John Banks … did not know how much the transition would cost Auckland City ratepayers but the council would probably borrow money to pay the bill.

     Doubtless the cost of money would future impact rates rise potentials in the latter case.

     Given costings by the Royal Commission which I understand panned several scenarios – though inescapable would be a likely up-costing on their figures due to tighter economic times and/or lender opportunity arising therefrom – and Minister Hide’s reported evasionary attitude on this important specific one would have to say how responsibility suggests the imposed time-frame constraints of being ready for the so-called super-city’s first election next October, be revised.

     And/or greater and extensive public consideration enter the debate..

     ps: In recent days the politician’s language has attempted reframe reality in terms of “majority” rule. Majority it should be said, attained nationally last November and which, even then, has a somewhat distinct economic climate operating. Changed, and significantly so, since. Likely further change coming..

     Notwithstanding external factors, rushed decisions are man-made, and local..
     Not begging the question so much as asking well, who would fall for it, and who will be the fall guy.?
     • Tigger 7.1.1

       21 April 2009 at 2:47 pm

       Based on current strategies when this all turns pear shaped and costs us ratepayers a bunch of cash/doesn’t save any money NACT will blame (a) Labour and/or (b) the recession.
8. Rich 8

   21 April 2009 at 3:58 pm

   I guess some people seriously believe that democratic and administrative services are a significant component in council spending. They aren’t. Most of the money goes for front line workers and contractors doing roads, buildings, parks, garbage and that sort of thing. That won’t change with a new council, except by cutting those services.

   (However, an unleashed ACT council would be able to do stuff like selling Maungawhau to developers – I guess that will cut rates a bit).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS