Labour’s response plan for Christchurch flooding

22 comments on “Labour’s response plan for Christchurch flooding ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   10 May 2014 at 7:11 pm

   Now that’s real leadership.
2. Clemgeopin 2

   10 May 2014 at 7:22 pm

   I think, as usual, National and Key will dither and take his own time to respond with spinful excuses and long winded justifications, especially because the suggestion has come from Labour.
3. Redzone 3

   10 May 2014 at 8:22 pm

   Good set of recs from Labour.

   Nats trying to wipe its hands of chch and it’s ongoing quake related flood issues as fast as they can and simultaneously playing the blame game.
   People here who are effected by the monthly 1 in 100 yr floods feel absolutely and utterly desperate. This on top of a Cera controlled rebuild that is a myth – if it wasn’t so devastating for so many it would be a joke.
   GE will be pay back time particularly in chch central and with luck the fall of the other bully- brownlie -the minister of destruction.
4. Weepu's beard 4

   10 May 2014 at 8:44 pm

   The so called swing voters will be confused by this. It’s the sort of cross party leadership they’ve always wanted from Labour, but once John Key laughs at the letter in parliament and tells them all why none of it is possible they will revert to type.
5. Ad 5

   10 May 2014 at 8:45 pm

   Wow! Not treating either citizens or local government with contempt! The last people to do that were, let’s see, the Labour government with its LGA reforms of 2002.

   The letter is a useful forecast of the kind of partnership between central and local government that could happen, if the government were changed.

   Go hard, DC.
6. Pete 6

   10 May 2014 at 8:51 pm

   As a simple matter of politics, how can the Nats hope to win the election if they don’t do anything for Christchurch? It seems like they’re pissing on the Cantabs’ legs and telling them it’s raining.
   • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1

     10 May 2014 at 9:16 pm

     I recall Key declaring loudly in Parliament that the citizens of Christchurch are thankful they’ve had a National government dealing with the quake damage instead of a Labour government.

     One of the Cantabrians in my office nearly exploded when she heard that.
7. Sacha 7

   10 May 2014 at 9:36 pm

   This is a similar move to the one Key pulled off with Clark in 2008 over the anti-thrashing law changes.
8. blue leopard 8

   10 May 2014 at 9:39 pm

   LOL National are going to hate this!!

   a red rag to a bull[y]?

   Who ever thought up this idea needs to be kept on (not least to deal with National’s response).

   Good ideas and hope it helps those in Chch 🙂
9. Philj 9

   10 May 2014 at 11:25 pm

   xox
   Christchurch has been badly let down by this Government. TVNZ should have a one hour per week night broadcast on tv showing the whole country that we are supporting them all the way. Christchurch has largely been forgotten by the MSM and Auckland TV in particular.( excepting the exceptional work of Campbell and the team at TV3. TVNZ. .. shame on you.
10. red blooded 10

    11 May 2014 at 9:05 am

    A strong and effective statement. The way NACT are dumping on the council at present is inexcusable (& wouldn’t be happening if buddy boy Bob was still at the helm). I hope it will be proofread and corrected before being released, though. Presumably “flood effected residents” refers to flood affected residents, and in saying they are looking for “fair solutions that ensure beyond the next few months” they mean to say “endure”.

    Picky, maybe, but these little things should be tidied up before they are mocked.
11. Grumpy 11

    11 May 2014 at 9:48 am

    Is this Dalziel’s policy in disguise? While Christchurch residents wait in vain for their local Mayor and Council to come up with a policy – any policy, it seems she has just passed the job to Cunliffe. Is this just the gifting of Christchurch to a future Labour government?
    • mac1 11.1

      11 May 2014 at 10:05 am

      Grumpy, the letter says “I believe all political parties should work in partnership with local authorities to offer immediate and enduring solutions and give confidence and certainty to the residents so that they can plan their lives and their futures.”

      If that is the gift of Lianne Dalziel, to facilitate cross party co-operation with Christchurch local authorities, then indeed she will have done well and wisely for the interests of Christchurch, and for all of us with family and friends still living there.

      The same must be said for David Cunliffe, whose name after all sits at the bottom of the letter as the author.
12. ianmac 12

    11 May 2014 at 9:48 am

    If National act on even one of David’s suggestions they are in trouble politically.
    If National do not act on even one of David’s suggestions they are in trouble politically.
    How sad John.
    • greywarbler 12.1

      11 May 2014 at 10:15 am

      Is this another Chinese puzzle you’re offering here.
13. Philj 13

    11 May 2014 at 12:20 pm

    xox
    Ah… lovely clear day in a pg free zone. Lurvely….
14. Armchair Critic 14

    11 May 2014 at 9:24 pm

    With all the powers available under the CERA Act, it’s difficult not to conclude that National just don’t want to fix the problem.
    There are solutions, they can be implemented, National lack the will to do it.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1

      12 May 2014 at 7:22 am

      “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

      Alan Greenspan.
15. jh 15

    12 May 2014 at 7:11 am

    “No-one could have foreseen what Cantabrians have and are still facing”
    ….
    Actually geologists knew there was a possibilty of a blind fault under the gravels of the Canterbury plain and we had liquifaction maps but minimal overlay of streets.
    What about the Alpine fault and effect on roads, bridges, storage lakes (filling with gravels)?
    Overlaid on the earthquake is 20 years of deliberate population pressure on a city whose job description was “a distribution centre for the farmland on the Canterbury Plain”.
16. jh 16

    12 May 2014 at 7:48 am

    It’s business as usual in Christchurch. The City Council is reviewing the Urban Plan and they want to intensify particular areas as has been done around Westfield Mall (blocks of flats around old houses -cars on lawns etc). The houses built for lower paid working people (railway workshops) point to a more caring (focused) time compared to the present where infill with students and other renters ocupy vege gardens. One man was driven mad by students for 3 years before a residents group took action on his behalf.
    ……..
    In Singapore the State owns 80% of the land and the do timely redevelopment with flair . Susan Krumdiek and her group have the right idea . When the Canterbury Settlement was settled the Assn owned all the land, but where would we be as just like the old beach and estuarine flat beneath half the city we have these people .
    • jh 16.1

      12 May 2014 at 8:00 am

      What people?
      http://www.waitangi.co.nz/ManaArticle.pdf
17. Treetop 17

    12 May 2014 at 9:24 am

    EQC from day one should have had nothing to do with the contents component of an insurance claim. This railroaded what the priority was, a non drafty home, free of growing mold and land which did not flood or sink. Had there have been some sort of points system like when an operation is being booked, many people may have been spared the mounting stress of living in a dwelling, which a home cannot be made from it.

    A home is a place where a person should be able to relax, not something that confronts a person on awakening or retiring for the night feeling unsettled month after month, then year after year.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS