How Hyde is wasting my taxes on an uncosted project

20 comments on “How Hyde is wasting my taxes on an uncosted project ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   6 May 2009 at 5:20 pm

   It should be Key and Hyde, or Hide and Key.
   • lprent 1.1

     6 May 2009 at 5:33 pm

     Personally I prefer that it wasn’t either of them. However they’re there, so they should at least cost what it will mean for my rates before they try and sell me on what looks like a really stupid plan.
     • SPC 1.1.1

       6 May 2009 at 5:42 pm

       I was looking at the relationship between the Key of 2008 – if the people want Labour lite then that is the government John Key will lead and now the Key of 2009 (in tandem with Hide) who does not care what the people of Auckland want. The real Jeckyll and Hyde is John Key.
       • lprent 1.1.1.1

         6 May 2009 at 5:49 pm

         Ah – sorry I’m slow today – just getting over a cold…
       • DeeDub 1.1.1.2

         7 May 2009 at 9:45 am

         Key is really more ‘Machiavelli’ than ‘Jeckyl & Hyde’ surely?
         • BLiP 1.1.1.2.1

           7 May 2009 at 1:06 pm

           Nah – Key doesn’t have the brains he’s more Howdy Doody with the Business Round Table pulling the strings.
2. exbrethren 2

   6 May 2009 at 6:03 pm

   Never mind Hide and Key… how about all four of the partners using the US abbreviation style so instead of Brangelina you could have Hiddun Turkey
3. Mike Collins 3

   6 May 2009 at 6:31 pm

   “Thanks for those telling me that Hyde should be spelt Hide – I think that you’re wrong. He has gone from a friendly gnome or the dancing of Grope the Stars to snakeoil salesman without drinking a potion.”

   This from the bloke that gets so upset when anyone spelt dear former leader’s name wrong that he set an auto filter up to stomp it out. Case of what’s good for the goose being a little too sour for the gander?

   For my part I couldn’t care less if people want to spell others names deliberately incorrectly. I instinctively dismissed people out of hand when they spelt Clark with a K. I’ve seen schoolboys with more originality.
   • Chris S 3.1

     6 May 2009 at 10:07 pm

     I was about to mention that, Mike. Poor form, lp
   • lprent 3.2

     7 May 2009 at 7:27 am

     I wasn’t complaining about Klark etc.. I’m far more direct than that. I just added them to auto-moderation. If people chose to use them, then they took the consequences. Fits exactly into Act philosophy really…

     I’m not concerned with playing with names and language for effect (in this case to point out the difference between Hide as a campaigner vs Hyde as a minister). I do get annoyed with over-use of such devices – just read Wishart or Whale or Robinsod to see what I mean.

     Getting back on topic. In Feb Hide was talking about doing a slash and burn across the council staff. So presumably he has been working on it since then. In which case he should have some costs for the restructure. Otherwise, why has he gone into persuasion mode.

     Look if he doesn’t have costs for this plan of his, then why is he trying to sell it. I could have just used the word conman, because that is exactly what that approach reminds me of. Instead I chose to highlight the arrogance of power that he is exhibiting.
4. SPC 4

   6 May 2009 at 8:22 pm

   Manukau as an area which has retained community ownership of assets is most at risk in any new Super City – as other areas may agree to pool region wide assets and or privatise them.
5. Loco Burro 5

   6 May 2009 at 9:46 pm

   And now Hide/Boscawen/Garret have sold their party down the river on the Gang Patch Bill. So much for personal freedom being a platform for ACT. I covered the issue here

   Hide is getting out of control, telling Aucklanders, his own voters, and pretty much all of New Zealand that they can go and get stuffed.
6. jcuknz 6

   6 May 2009 at 10:10 pm

   Obviously it is such a good idea that all the opponants can do is to slag the mover since they have no sensible arguments against the proposal.
   • lprent 6.1

     7 May 2009 at 7:35 am

     We have many arguments against the proposal. Not that we really know what the proposal is – there is no detail. There isn’t even a settlement of the number of local boards.

     However Key has said that we will not be listened to seriously. A few months of select committee hearings, where it is clear that the arrogant NACT members are not going to listen, is not consultation. Not having a referendum means that we have no control on the results. That isn’t going to make Aucklanders happy with the process.

     The real problem is that NACT are too arrogant to listen. So they’ll get rebellion.
7. Loco Burro 7

   6 May 2009 at 10:17 pm

   jcuknz – what on earth are you talking about? Try reading the numerous sensible contributions, arguments and alternatives on this site and others if you want to see some sense.
8. jarbury 8

   7 May 2009 at 9:16 am

   I’ll believe that select committee hearings will be proper consultation when I see it. At the moment I can just go off what has happened regarding the RMA select committee hearings – ie. most people weren’t even told about them, and those that were had about 3 minutes to state their case.

   Hopefully we might get slightly more than 2 days of hearings in Auckland this time around.
9. Hoolian 9

   7 May 2009 at 1:35 pm

   Isn’t it ironic that a hard-core Labour supporter is blogging about wasted taxes? Sheesh! Where have you been for the past nine years and where were your complaints then?

   Need an example? Think KiwiRail. “Purchased” for $640 million, real cost well over $1 billion – actual value: $440 million. NOW that’s an uncosted project.

Links to post

1. Oh dear - Hyde the costs at The Standard: posted on 7 May 2009 at 5:49 pm
2. Fixing Auckland: Pot calls Government black « Blue Rag: posted on 7 May 2009 at 8:40 pm
3. How much is that doggie in the window? at The Standard: posted on 26 May 2009 at 3:05 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS