Written By:
all_your_base - Date published:
12:45 pm, April 23rd, 2009 - 9 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, democracy under attack, democratic participation, national/act government -
Tags: act, manakau, national, supercity, waitakere
The government’s refusal to listen on its fast-tracked Supercity plans is already resulting in protests.
The unrest that’s building should hardly come as a surprise. I can certainly understand Aucklanders not wanting to be dictated to by Wellington – especially when the outcome is ACT running their city.
I’m still at a loss as to why the government won’t just ask the ratepayers what they actually want. Surely they deserve a chance to be heard and the opportunity to make a choice.
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
“I’m still at a loss as to why the government won’t just ask the ratepayers what they actually want.”
I’d like if that was how local government worked.
i.e. ratepayers were asked, as opposed to the general population.
While we are at it, can we restrict voting for national elections to taxpayers only as well.
How easily the ‘libertarian’ mask slips. You don’t stand for freedom, you stand for a dictatorship of the rich.
Hey Mike, why don’t we just eat the poor – they’re obviously not doing anything worthwhile.
Tane, nicely put.
How easily the ‘libertarian’ mask slips. You don’t stand for freedom, you stand for a dictatorship of the rich.
I know, he’s a joke, but check this out from Perigo…
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0904/S00233.htm
Libertarians for torture, and against the rule of law, with side orders of every fringe wingnut meme of the week.
And they come around here, spouting rights talk about a few extra points on the marginal tax rates. Fuck off.
http://www.mp3lyrics.org/t/tom-lehrer/i-wanna/
I’m also at odds over why the Government didn’t ask parents what they thought about having smacking banned.
Your oddness is thinking that the Govt wanted smacking banned. (Though it would have been great if it had asked “do you want the smacking/hitting/thrashing of kids or adults or animals to be illegal?”)
The Act was to protect children from caregivers who used “reasonable force” as a defence when assaulting kids. Simple. Most people would have agreed to that but some smart arses turned it into an anti-smacking arguement????
Well its a bit like asking a businessman if he wants a tax cut, really. I mean, what loving parent would want it to be legal to hit children? C’mon, this is a wind up, isn’t it? You’re just trying to distract the commentators away from John Key’s broken promises and the National Party’s bulldozing of democracy to suit the elite?