Len Brown is toast

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, March 18th, 2015 - 119 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, len brown, local body elections, local government, phil goff - Tags:

Len Brown’s chances of re-election appear to be miniscule. Bernard Orsman in the Herald reported this morning:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has lost the backing of key members of his campaign team, who are turning their attention to other left-leaning candidates at next year’s local body elections.

The Herald has learned of a meeting last month where key campaign and mayoral advisers delivered the “blunt message” to Mr Brown that he has no chance of winning and should step down.

Mr Brown was told he would receive no financial backing, political support or volunteers to erect billboards and deliver pamphlets for a campaign where his sex life would be centre stage.

The article mentions talks being held between some of Brown’s former supporters and Phil Goff and deputy mayor Penny Hulse is also mentioned as possible options. Goff should have the inside running. Use of the Labour machine in South Auckland the isthmus and West Auckland will be important and probably determine the outcome and Goff is sure to get this support.

Meanwhile on the right talk is about washed up politicians John Banks and Michael Barnett having a go for the mayoralty. Neither would succeed.

Brown has said he will announce his intentions a year out from the next election. There are rumours that he has been polling to gauge support. Expect things to come to a head sooner than that.

119 comments on “Len Brown is toast ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    18 March 2015 at 8:22 am

    I suspect the only way Brown could win would be if there were a re-run of 2010: Brown v Banks. The Banks brand is now so toxic Brown would still win that easily.

    But against a credible right wing candidate he would struggle, and I think would be well advised to stand down in favour of either Hulse or Goff.

  2. te reo putake 2
    18 March 2015 at 8:56 am

    I doubt that Orsman is right when he says that the campaign would focus on Brown’s sex life. That was the last election wasn’t it? Didn’t seem to cause Brown any real damage anyway.

    If the rail upgrades get underway and Brown pitches that he is the man to see the changes in public transport infrastructure through to completion, he’s only a few photo ops with a shovel and a hard hat away from winning another term.

    btw. Goff? Really? Phil was the man of the future thirty years ago. I’m keen to see him move on from his current gig, but I doubt this is the way it’ll happen.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      18 March 2015 at 9:06 am

      Photo ops? Who’s going to hold the camera? Or carry the shovel for him?

      • te reo putake 2.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 9:09 am

        Nobody, if the post is correct. But it was said he was toast before the last election too and he won comfortably.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 9:12 am

          Your memory vis-à-vis the timing of the previous election and Cameron Slater’s blackmail plan, is faulty.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.2
          18 March 2015 at 9:13 am

          I voted for him last election but won’t vote for him again unless I have compelling reasons or need to do the lesser of two evils.

          If Auckland gets an ideologically right mayor we will, imo, see the full force of intent of the Supercity model…

          • DoublePlusGood 2.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2015 at 10:18 am

            Best that we don’t have Brown or Goff standing for the left then…

            • Once was Tim 2.1.1.2.1.1
              18 March 2015 at 11:13 am

              +1
              In 2045 … the ‘secessionists’ are gaining power but they’re not sure of the northern parts of Whanganui, Gisborne and Hawkes Bay boundaries. The South Island is ready to depart with a 2/3 majority having easily been reached. The Chathams have opted to align themselves with the South.
              The City of Queenstown is vehemently opposed to secession with a sizeable population of ex-pat Aucklanders living on lifestyle blocks and dependent on the northern economy.
              In other news …. Kills and Moon are about to stage a comeback on state-owned TV channel ‘YOU’ with news and views from the entertainment world. Former Prime Munster’s son Mex will host an entertainment extravaganza with guest judges Phil Goff, Maid Marion, Lenny Brown. Its expected that celebrities Mathew Hooton, Lynton Crosby, kathryn Ryan, and a plethora of others will attend.

              Meanwhile …. in the South, people couldn’t actually give a shit

              • the pigman …
                18 March 2015 at 3:36 pm

                That is an uncharacteristically optimistic/sunny/blue skoiz vushhun of the future, Tim 😉

            • Murray Rawshark 2.1.1.2.1.2
              18 March 2015 at 10:08 pm

              double plus one

              Goff would not be an improvement on Brown at all.

    • Sanctuary 2.2
      18 March 2015 at 10:06 am

      “…I doubt that Orsman is right…”

      Orsman will be writing the stories for the Herald, I think he already knows what the campaign will focus on.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2.1
        18 March 2015 at 12:15 pm

        Orsman has an appalling reputation as far as keeping to the facts.

        It would guess it was a meeting where they talked about Lens strengths and weaknesses, but Orsman decided ony one part was worth talking about.

        Any existing mayor has big negatives, been the same if you go back to Banks, Hubbard, etc

        • seeker 2.2.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 6:19 pm

          Quite Ghostwwnz. Am surprised no one has picked up on this sentence:

          “The meeting was confirmed by four sources,none of whom wanted to speak on record. ”

          Is this some sort of dirty politics emanating from Carrick Graham and Cameron Brewrs new spin firm and now using compliant Brenard Orsman, a well known Brown detractor, rather than the previous stooge,Jared Savage.. Just wondering…

          PS Will still vote for Brown at the mo.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 9:07 am

            Its a dodgy sentence if you read what it really means: There was a meeting.

            No mention of confirming what was said in the meeting.

            • seeker 2.2.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 5:06 pm

              Exactly ghost. And guess who was being pushed forward by Orsman today,,together with a perfectly posed portrait/photo……. yes every rightwinger’s favourite councillor……. Cameron butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth Brewer.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3
      18 March 2015 at 10:07 am

      btw. Goff? Really? Phil was the man of the future thirty years ago. I’m keen to see him move on from his current gig, but I doubt this is the way it’ll happen.

      QFT

      I’d be better off voting for the other right-wing dude whoever he may be.

      • Skinny 2.3.1
        18 March 2015 at 11:23 am

        It is a good thing Goff moving on, he confirmed to a Union mate that wants to be Auckland Mayor.

        Now to find jobs for another 8 to 10 current deadwood Labour MPs.

    • lurgee 2.4
      18 March 2015 at 5:39 pm

      The stories around Mr Brown’s love life emerged after the election.

    • Steve Withers 2.5
      19 March 2015 at 11:26 am

      The sex scandal came out the day after brown won the last local body elections.

      Many would not have voted for him had they known prior.

      It wouldn’t have changed my vote. Why would I vote for Palino and the entire privatisation / no public transport agenda because Brown had an affair?

      Looking at the two agendas……Brown could go to a brothel every day and twice on Sundays and I’d pay his cab fare.

      But yes…..someone not tainted by his own dumbness and several years of anti campaigning by the Herald would be good.

  3. saveNZ 3
    18 March 2015 at 9:01 am

    Len has been disappointing however his power was effectively stripped with the revelations and the Supercity.

    Therefore for a lot of reasons he should not run again.

    I would prefer Cunliffe to Goff. Cunliffe to me will always have more integrity. He was smeared as leader of Labour, but in Auckland I think he would be popular. His wife would also be a huge asset and it is a job not based in Wellington for his young family. Goff is tainted by Rogernomics.

    I don’t know much about Penny Hulse. Sometimes you need a big name to win.

    Since democracy has been gutted by moving to the Supercity, there needs to be someone who can fight for ALL the people of Auckland. At present the councillors to shuffle around while Rome burns (I mean sells or gets demolished or cut down for more ugly buildings). I’m tired of bureaucrats that talk about all these fluffy things, transport, sustainability, liveability, but actually do nothing tangible to achieve that. I want a leader of Auckland that gets things done, but not in fire sale of Auckland assets which is the right wing agenda.

    Love the way Granddaddy Herald talks about John Banks as though he has already been cleared to be innocent form his charges. Money talks these days for justice. You seem to be able to buy any outcome.

    Dotcom guilty even though not convicted, John Banks not guilty, even though convicted, but through legal wrangling needs another trial, which he is trying to get out of.

    So my vote is Cunliffe for Mayor if he will stand, and I hope he does.

    • Tracey 3.1
      18 March 2015 at 9:14 am

      “I don’t know much about Penny Hulse”

      http://pennyhulse.co.nz/

      What I like about Hulse is she has made local politics her gig. She has been in and around it for 20 years. She gives a shit about it and Auckland. Too many central politicians turn their attention to it as a post “real” politics gig, bringing their arrogance of central politics with them.

      Whether from the Left or the Right.

      20 years of central government politics does not trump 20 years experience of politics for Auckland. in my opinion.

      • saveNZ 3.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 9:25 am

        @Tracy.

        Yep read that before i posted. Does not fill me with any reason to vote for her. I don’t care what fluffy things she believes in, I only care about what she has actually achieved in 20 years of being a councillor, which from her website is not listed. i.e. Results are what is needed in Auckland not endless talking, waste and meetings.

        She is probably not bad, but Auckland actually needs someone brave, honest and results focused.

        I would prefer a new face like Cunliffe.

        Cunliffe could support Little, if they both win next election. Which I hope they do.

        • David H 3.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 11:13 am

          But would Cunliffe want to stand? You know that Slater would wind up his dirty politics machine, to try to get someone like the Toxic Banks into power. And if that happens God help AK.

        • Tracey 3.1.1.2
          18 March 2015 at 12:23 pm

          fluffy things she said? As opposed to 20 years of what she has actually done?

          I am glad we will cancel each others votes out then.

          So, Cunliffe is in the running is he?

          • saveNZ 3.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2015 at 12:59 pm

            @Tracy this is what is on her website – sorry I live in Auckland and I would give not achieved or under achieved grade to her results in the city of Auckland.

            In my view, Auckland is not liveable for all, many people can’t afford a house or even to rent one, public transport is a disaster, there is no sustainability being enforced in the resource consents – quite the opposite, she is in Waitakere where they are cutting down historic trees with council support, many voices are not being heard in Auckland, the council ignore the public and ratepayers. Auckland is not becoming a better city in those key areas.

            on Hulse website, I believe in:

            Weaving economic, social, environmental and cultural outcomes to create a livable city for all.
            Having the courage to try new ways to design and run sustainable cities, bringing the best of world experience to our local places across Auckland.
            Ensuring all voices are heard, and concerns recognised as we strive to build a better city.

            Again the Auckland Councillors need a brave honest new voice to lead them as Mayor and Aucklander’s want that.

            • Tracey 3.1.1.2.1.1
              18 March 2015 at 3:52 pm

              Don’t be sorry you live in Auckland, I live in Auckland too.

              She is hamstrung by the same system as Brown has been. I voted for brown because he had experience giving a shit about Auckland, Manukau City to be precise and I consider it a part of Auckland. Hulse has a history of giving a shit about Auckland (Waitakere being her first focus). Deputy mayor’s are like Deputy PM’s, rolled out on occassion but bowing to the mayor, and the media goes to the Mayor…

              Now, i asked you if Cunliffe is standing. Has he talked about standing? Would appreciate the links if he has.

              • saveNZ …
                18 March 2015 at 5:51 pm

                @Tracy
                Nothing concrete, just rumours just like with Goff. Personally I think Cunliffe would not only sail into Auckland as Mayor (there are currently no real contenders) it is a better fit with him personally and the Labour party in terms of strategy. And it would also be good for Labour as many Labour supporters are not happy how Cunliffe was treated by Labour and would like him supported into a positive powerful role. Win win. Labour needs to hold onto talent (even if they have a break) and not burn bridges, especially in the eyes of their supporters. I know Goff seems keen for Auckland but he is not right for Auckland and they should pick the person who will get the most votes and win, in my mind, it’s Cunliffe.

                You have to read the public, Winston is doing much better in Northland than expected and that is positive for Labour as it is breaking down the JK Myths, likewise a power house mayor in Auckland, Cunliffe is best bet for votes not Goff. Getting Cunliffe in as Mayor, major coup for Labour.

                Goff great in foreign affairs type role.

                • Tracey …
                  19 March 2015 at 11:37 am

                  I would consider voting for Cunliffe.

                  Goff backs TPP, all the way….

                  • saveNZ …
                    19 March 2015 at 1:49 pm

                    @Tracy – hopefully Goff will be foreign affairs outside of NZ:) A lovely Pacific Island, maybe Fiji where he can’t do trade deals or sell off NZ

      • Sabine 3.1.2
        18 March 2015 at 12:23 pm

        Penny Hulse just lost herself a few votes out in west Auckland with her vote against the “Tree”.
        She is coming across as an opportunist with few convictions ready to turn the coat at a moments notice.

        Mind, that would make her the ideal candidate.

        • Tracey 3.1.2.1
          18 March 2015 at 12:25 pm

          the choices i was putting her against were Goff and Collins and Banks…

          • sabine 3.1.2.1.1
            18 March 2015 at 3:13 pm

            again with these guys she would be the ideal candidate.

            sadly auckland will get one of these oportunist, and having lived in auckland for the last 20 years, I can tell you that the achievements of Penny Hulse are well….invisible. She did earn a nice comfortable living as a person on the council, however i don’t think she achived a single thing. And that puts her at par with Goff, Collins and Banks.

        • saveNZ 3.1.2.2
          18 March 2015 at 1:00 pm

          That rules out a vote from me, straight away.

    • Olwyn 3.2
      18 March 2015 at 10:05 am

      Is there a chance that Cunliffe will stand? My preference, as things stand, is for Penny Hulse – I would have to weigh things up again if Cunliffe was in the picture. But surely you would not get Goff and Cunliffe going for the same mayoralty at the same time.

      • saveNZ 3.2.1
        18 March 2015 at 12:48 pm

        @David and Olwyn

        I hope Cunliffe would think about standing under Labour.

        The people of Auckland spoke and want a centre left Mayor in Len Brown. Phil Goff is not really centre left in my view.

        Cunliffe is still very popular especially in Auckland. Slater is very unpopular and well past his used by date. He might find he has enough problems of his own, likewise National in Northland.

        I think the people of Auckland would prefer Cunliffe to Goff. Goff has more baggage, he will split left wing votes between Goff and Hulme. If Cunliffe ran, most left leaners would support him.

        Maybe Cunliffe would prefer to be in Auckland supporting the Labour party as Mayor rather than as an MP.

        Hope Labour have not stitched it up with Goff as preferred choice as I’m pretty sure the people of Auckland would prefer Cunliffe and he would be more useful in that role to The Labour Party.

        Goff would be good in an overseas role maybe?

        • Tracey 3.2.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 3:53 pm

          What makes you think he will stand, as opposed to you wanting him to?

          • Steve Withers 3.2.1.1.1
            19 March 2015 at 11:27 am

            Goff doesn’t really want to stand either. He wants an overseas posting (according to rumours).

            • Tracey 3.2.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 11:36 am

              Doesn’t surprise me. Either way he wants the gravy train he thinks he so richly deserves…

              Do you think dropping hints is his way of getting national to offer him one so he wont stand for mayor?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.3
      18 March 2015 at 12:27 pm

      Banks has been trying to get the case thrown out many times.

      Even before he was convicted, he had a district court judge AND a high court judge say it can go ahead.

      The blurb about changing their case ? Ask Mark Lundy about that one.

      The reality is that Banks didnt check the law when he personally went around asking for and getting money.

      His previous defence was that at the very moment he signed the declaration he wasnt really intending to mislead anyone.

      The judge decided the law meant did you know who the person was when you got the cheque in your hand or made arrangements for it to be desposited

      He o was cleared over the sky city donation he walked out the door with, because they put his Banks name on it, and it was returned to Skycity so they could reissue it as Team Banksie. So it was a technicality.

      The funny part is Banks is hiding behind his ex wifes skirts by not getting into the witness box himself.

      As for if Banks is an honest man, well many years before in a civil case over a bee pollen business, Banks did get in the witness box, and the High Court judges decision was he didnt believe a word of what Banks testified

  4. heather 4
    18 March 2015 at 9:04 am

    we went to hear Phil and David Shearer speak about defence a few weeks ago.
    Phil Goff was impressive, he has got what it takes and would make an excellent mayor, my money is on him

    • saveNZ 4.1
      18 March 2015 at 9:16 am

      Personally I am not interested in a good after dinner speaker in a Mayor, I’m interested in ACTION, someone that can drive to Titirangi and mingle with the people to save a 200 – 500 year old Kauri and Rimu being cleared for a council approved garage and 2 x 2 story building’s by some local developers with good ties to council planners.

      • Sabine 4.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 12:25 pm

        Then you should draft Cunliffe. Mrs. Hulse, together with Len Brown voted against the tree.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 12:25 pm

          and Goff, what was his opinion?

          • saveNZ 4.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2015 at 1:32 pm

            @Tracey
            Goff will have to consult with SIS on that one, and get back to you.

            He will be riding his motorbike to seem like a man of the people.

            After much soul searching and research he will hedge his bets, or maybe support it, but after all the soul searching it will be too late for the tree, which would have been cut down, but for the people protecting it. But luckily the SIS managed to put Michael Tavares under surveillance so another eco terrorist of NZ captured with our taxpayer SIS dollars.

            Oh, well, Phil may or may not have tried.

            Unfortunately the bio security risk which was not identified with the Kauri at council level has led to more eco disasters, but another day, another dollar.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11415153

          • sabine 4.1.1.1.2
            18 March 2015 at 3:39 pm

            well goff was not asked for his opinion it seems.

            from here https://www.facebook.com/saveourkauri/posts/448962935252344

            the break down of the who voted for what
            HOW THEY VOTED] Yesterday Auckland Council voted.
            The decision to review the process was unanimous.
            The decision “supporting the Waitakere Ranges Local Board to save the Kauri tree at 40 Paturoa Road and the Rimu tree at 42 Paturoa Road” was divided – 10/9 against.
            AGAINST: (10) Len Brown, Cameron Brewer, Bill Cashmore, Linda Cooper, Denise Krum, Dick Quax, Sharon Stewart, Penny Webster, George Wood and Penny Hulse.
            FOR: (9) Cathy Casey, Ross Clow, Chris Darby, Chris Fletcher, Mike Lee, Liane Ngamane (IMSB), David Taipari (IMSB), Wayne Walker and John Watson. (thank you Cathy Casey for the voting record).

            not sure why anyone would think that Penny Hulse is of the left. But fwiw, this Tree debacle is Aucklands Politics in a nutshell – no love for auckland but a lot of self love, self promotion and greasing it, cause there might be no tomorrow.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.1.2.1
              18 March 2015 at 3:45 pm

              But he has a whole article space in SST…

              • sabine …
                18 March 2015 at 3:51 pm

                yes, but again, he was not asked and it was not his place to vote.

                when goff, collins or any of the other muppets want to run for the big gig in auckland than we can put them under scrutinty about what they say, eat and which bike they ride. (mine is of course the prettiest, biggest, and fastest just so we get that sorted right away).

                Until then, it does not matter.

                It is however interesting how Westie Hulse, with her left leaning credentials, voted with the wingers of the council against saving a tree in titirangi. Again, she who is deputy mayor of akl….what are her achievements other than being nice? And considering that there is an issue with her achievements, namely the lack of any…is nice enough?

                Again….we get to vote for poo or shit…turn it over and it is always the same stench.

                • Tracey …
                  18 March 2015 at 3:54 pm

                  cool, they don’t have to give a shit about Auckland until they want to be CEO. Now THAT’s what Auckland needs.

                  • sabine …
                    18 March 2015 at 7:49 pm

                    as sad as it is, but that is what we have been getting for the last twenty years that I lived in Auckland.
                    and the reason less and less people vote is just that the choice we get is so bad.

                    I mean the last election? Lack luster Len Brown and that Geezer :”I was part of No Plot to blackmail Len Brown” John Palino.

                    I mean really, that was the best Auckland could get?

        • saveNZ 4.1.1.2
          18 March 2015 at 1:04 pm

          You can see how out of touch with the public the Auckland Councillors are!

          Liveable city, my arse!

          Sell your grandmother to a developer!

          Then pimp them out at Sky Sore!

          Brown and Hulse defiantly lost my vote.

      • Visubversaviper 4.1.2
        18 March 2015 at 12:33 pm

        Seeing that The Herald was not interested in printing anything that Council put out about the tree – here are a few basic facts.

        Two resource consents were granted by Independent Commissioners for the construction of two houses on adjoining sites in Titirangi. The sites are bush-clad and are zoned Bush Living – which is a residential zoning in the Waitakere section of the District Plan. It is also a Significant Ecological Area under the Unitary Plan and the removal of vegetation and trees for an access way and building platform is provided for within this overlay.

        When the consent application involving the section with the kauri tree was processed, the council had communication with the local board and received the opinion of two separate arborists, ecologists, a landscape architect and an engineer. The applicant contacted iwi. Careful consideration was given to a range of options for locating the building platform that would cause the least impact on the bush, and ensuring the shortest driveway to minimise effects, etc.

        The final proposal placed the house close to the road, leaving a large area of trees and bush undisturbed at the rear of the section, allowing a “green corridor” along the rear of a number of properties which preserved the habitat of birds and fauna. However, that did mean that a kauri tree closer to the front of the section would need to be cut down. This kauri tree is estimated by several arborists to be approximately 150-200 years old. There is no evidence to support the claim that the tree is 500 years old. There was a thorough assessment of options to retain the tree, but it has a lean on it and if it was left, it would be susceptible to wind effects, and would be so close to the house it would be considered hazardous.

        There are two larger kauri trees at the road berm which will be retained, as well as other trees at the rear of the section, including an old Puriri tree.

        After having considered all options, council presented its recommendation to an independent commissioner for a decision. The independent commissioner agreed with the council recommendation and the consent was granted subject to strict conditions around construction, including intensive monitoring during the building process.

        • saveNZ 4.1.2.1
          18 March 2015 at 1:12 pm

          Hello the independant commissioners are not independent. The council appoint them.

          The commissioners very rarely vote against the council, cos if they do their, cushy junket goes away.

          You could say the process was working, only leaky building, and the Auckland CBD and many of the current ugly developments shows that it is not. Again the types of houses being built are spec houses, designed to make money, not be affordable or relevant to the character of area and site.

          I am absolutely sure a dwelling could have been put on the property without removal of the trees. However maybe it would be smaller without garaging?

          I’m not against someone building a house on their section, only those that it is appropriate to the natural environment of the site.

        • Tracey 4.1.2.2
          18 March 2015 at 3:47 pm

          the owners told the commissioners they had contacted iwi

          FIFY

      • greywarshark 4.1.3
        18 March 2015 at 1:01 pm

        Yes that’s the sort of defence Auckland needs. Caring about trees, the environment, the people and other blah blah stuff that has to be repeated on rotate to keep it from sinking under the hyperbole and rhetoric of the BS artists and wallet wallahs..

        It woud be good to have a Mayor who is interested in Auckland, holidays in Auckland, works in Auckland and rejoices in the Pacifica part of Auckland, its achievements and potential, and the housing and transport needs with cars as adjuncts not the main device. What about circular routes with Council people movers and contract taxis picking up people taking them to their nearest town and rail stop? A good Mayoral idea that one would be.

  5. Tracey 5
    18 March 2015 at 9:12 am

    Once Goff took upbeing a writer int he SST i thinkit was darn obvious he was beginning his pitch to run for Auckland mayor. Is it possible Collins might line up against him?

    She has certainly been trying to cultivate a moderate caring side in her SST columns?

    I would vote for Penny Hulse myself because I think Goff is only marginally left of Collins ideologically.

  6. Brutus Iscariot 6
    18 March 2015 at 9:13 am

    For the most part I support Brown, but unfortunately (rightly or wrongly) he has become a laughing stock and his re-election chances are dismal.

    “Brown vs Banks 2” would entail a massive risk of Banks getting in, which IMO would set the city back 30 years, with his neanderthal attitudes towards development and crucial infrastructure projects.

    Yes, there is a lot of waste and inefficiency at Auckland Council, but we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    At another level, i think it’s not a bad idea to have a local leader who isn’t aligned with the current ruling administration. Reduces the potential for corruption and favouritism.

    I really hope Goff runs, he is a very credible candidate IMO and could take on any National Party shill. Hulse, i’m not sure could do the same.

  7. Penny Bright 7
    18 March 2015 at 9:26 am

    Just so you know – as someone who fought against this corrupt, Auckland ‘$UPERCITY for the 1%’ corporate takeover, literally from Day One (5 September 2006) I shall be standing (again) as a 2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    I shall be campaigning for DE-amalgamation of the Auckland ‘$UPERCITY, abolition of ALL CCOs, for ‘opening the books’ and ‘cutting out the contractors’.

    For the returning of our region, towns, cities, resources, assets back to direct democratic control of citizens and communities – back from BIG business, property developers, speculators, investors and financial institutions.

    It’s about time.

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  8. hoom 8
    18 March 2015 at 9:34 am

    Most of the stuff Brown gets blamed for should really be pointed at ACT/Hide.
    Because Supercity has sod all actual control over most of the organisations in question due to the way the law was written.

    I do wish he’d actually show some public spine on a bunch of stuff eg telling PoA management to pull their heads in.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      18 March 2015 at 10:31 am

      Most of the stuff Brown gets blamed for should really be pointed at ACT/Hide.

      QFT

      It’s the structure that National and Act forced upon Auckland that is the problem. It removed the voices of Aucklanders from their government.

      • John Shears 8.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 5:14 pm

        DTB Right on the button thank you for stating the facts.
        A carefully considered plan researched over about 3 years by 3 Intelligent and experienced Commissioners was chucked in the the recycle bin and the. ACT/Hide
        plan devised in a matter of months replaced it.
        Another R/W conspiracy job.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 10:41 pm

          a matter of months a lifetime of dogma, and massive conflicts of interest.

  9. Penny Bright 9
    18 March 2015 at 9:36 am

    Those who REALLY run the Auckland region are the unelected BIG business private lobby group – the Committee for Auckland.

    If you haven’t checked this lot out for yourselves – I strongly recommend that you do – particularly ‘membership’ ….

    http://www.committeeforauckland.co.nz

    Penny Hulse was personally endorsed in 2010 by Sir Ron Carter, then the Chair of the Committee for Auckland ( now their ‘Patron’).

    In my view, Penny Hulse will be the preferred option for the Committee for Auckland BIG boys and girls, who will see her as a ‘safe pair of hands’.

    If some of you folk purport to have an anti- corporate control perspective – you really do need to to do some ‘due diligence’ on whom you are supporting, in my considered opinion.

    Penny Bright

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      18 March 2015 at 10:43 am

      If some of you folk purport to have an anti- corporate control perspective – you really do need to to do some ‘due diligence’ on whom you are supporting, in my considered opinion.

      True but, unfortunately, it’s almost impossible for the majority of people to do that due diligence because the connections of people are hidden.

    • Tracey 9.2
      18 March 2015 at 12:31 pm

      thanks Penny

      Sadly the due diligence is difficult to do. I am aware that Ms HUlse has a neo liberal view. My preference for her was couched in terms of Brown, Banks or Goff or Collins standing.

      Too often the “due diligence” available comes with jaundiced viewppoints from a number of sides.

  10. adam 10
    18 March 2015 at 9:52 am

    What would a Mayor working directly for the interest of the 1% do to Auckland?

    The current model is anti-democratic, and a so called left wing Mayor has not listened to the people.

    We need restoration of Local Government by the people, for the people.

    We gave up a system which worked – so the rich could steal our rates money.

    How are they stealing our rates? By privatisation, and out sourcing.

    Less services and more rates – the super city – a front for austerity since it’s inception.

    I’m struggling to find any other option but secession from the Super City – it may be our only hope.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      18 March 2015 at 10:46 am

      We gave up a system which worked…

      We didn’t give it up at all – we had it taken from us by this National/Act government.

      • Tracey 10.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 12:32 pm

        ^^^^^^ THIS

        it was a thoroughly undemocratic act which Hide pretended would save money and enable rates to be kept down

        • adam 10.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 2:26 pm

          Hide always speaks with forked tongue.

          To Draco T BAstard I was talking about the borough system Auckland had – It worked – lower rates, more service, jobs for locals, and far,far less waste. Funny how the super city is a waste prone model – when we desperately need to think about our waste and consumption.

          Actually – I’m confused why the old fashioned conservatives, let the super city happen. They had good outcomes in the borough system – power, rates, and expenditure wise.

      • Brutus Iscariot 10.1.2
        18 March 2015 at 3:03 pm

        That we voted for.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1
          18 March 2015 at 9:39 pm

          No we didn’t. Aucklanders were supposed to have a referendum on the changes but National/Act removed that requirement and forced through the changes against the will of Auckland.

          Central government should not have a say in how a city is structured. Only the local people should.

  11. Craig Glen Eden 11
    18 March 2015 at 9:53 am

    The left should have got rid of Brown after his appalling backing of the Ports of Auckland over the Watersider’s. Brown has certainly not been the workers friend why those in Labour continued to support the scab in his last campaign is beyond me.

  12. Penny Bright 12
    18 March 2015 at 10:04 am

    The reality is that the ‘failed Mayoral coup’ on 5 September 2006, kicked off the Auckland ‘Supercity’.

    The four City Council Mayors, Bob Harvey (Waitakere), Barry Curtis (Manukau), George Wood (North Shore) and Dick Hubbard (Auckland), on 5 September 2006, called a media conference at the Auckland Town Hall, and presented an ‘Open Letter’ to then Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, calling for the abolition of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC), and it’s replacement with an Auckland Supercity.

    Having been tipped off with an hour’s notice, myself and fellow community activist gate-crashed and disrupted this ‘Mayoral coup’ meeting, on the basis that there was no lawful authority for either the proposal or the process.

    This helped to create the FUSS which helped to derail and slow down this corporate takeover.

    However, the FACTS are that the Labour Government appointed Royal Commissioners on Auckland Regional Governance – in their Report – established the basis for the corporate takeover of the Auckland region with their recommendation that the bulk of Auckland regional assets be transferred to Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) – which had and have still have never been subjected to ANY ‘cost-benefit analysis’ for ‘cost-effectiveness’ for the majority of citizens and ratepayers.

    So – although it’s currently very popular to blame Rodney Hide for the Auckland ‘Supercity for the 1%’ – the reality is that the framework was set by the Labour Government appointed Royal Commission for Auckland Regional Governance.

    Lest we forget.

    The reality is that the Auckland ‘Supercity’ has been a massive dose of Rogernomic$ at Auckland local government level, and seen a massive transfer of public monies to the private sector.

    Because of the lack of transparency in Auckland Council and CCO spending – the extent of this ‘corporate welfare’ is not yet known.

    That is why I refused to pay rates – because of this lack of transparency.

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    • The Murphey 12.1
      18 March 2015 at 11:29 am

      Good on you Penny

      I hope you have a continuity plan in place for the work you carry out

    • Tracey 12.2
      18 March 2015 at 12:34 pm

      Despite our differences I do support your stand against paying your rates on the basis that they are being imposed by an undemocratic and opaque structure.

    • Visubversaviper 12.3
      18 March 2015 at 12:38 pm

      The Royal Commission’s recommendations were dropped in the bin by the NACT government and the one in Rodney Hide’s top drawer was substituted. The Auckland Council of today is unrecognisable from the models of the Royal Commission.

  13. Clemgeopin 13
    18 March 2015 at 10:46 am

    I am put off Brown not only for his impropriety and poor judgement in his sexual shenanigans, but equally if not more importantly, in his what appears to me to be shady/dodgy dealings and sleepovers involving Sky City.

    He must go.

    • DoublePlusGood 13.1
      18 March 2015 at 10:51 am

      Oh no! Someone had an affair! Call the morality police!
      Really, all that people should be caring about is the Sky City greasing in that whole affair. Who he shags is none of our business.

      • Clemgeopin 13.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 11:04 am

        “Really, all that people should be caring about is the Sky City greasing in that whole affair”

        Yes, that is what I was referring to, not the morality of the sexual relationship.
        The cozy and dodgy relationship between a Mayor and a shady mega rich/powerful corporate.

        I realise I did not word my comment well.

        • tricledrown 13.1.1.1
          18 March 2015 at 11:26 am

          Its very similar to why the Greek economy ended up in such a mess.
          Politicians being bought off by big bribes and luxurious pampering.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1.2
          18 March 2015 at 12:36 pm

          What decision did he make that was of benefit for Sky City ?

          Increase poky numbers ?. Done by Government legislation.

          The convention centre ?. Well thats a benefit to the city at large ( if we dont pay for it), all the details negotiated by Joyce and consents processed by council staff.

          Id love to know a single ‘decision’ he made that benefited Sky City

      • Tracey 13.1.2
        18 March 2015 at 12:36 pm

        Actually people are entitled to take account of the character of those who seek elected office.

        For your part, you do not see it (his lying to his wife and using council premises to conduct his sex life) but some do. You do not get to decide which set of values is “right”.

        Oh and Ports of Auckland as well as Sky City, when you put it all together it’s not the kind of leader I will vote for.

        • Skinny 13.1.2.1
          18 March 2015 at 12:59 pm

          Brown has had his turn and proven to be weak, POAL, Skycity. I heard he got yelled at and abused told to shut up and sit down by some rightwing fucker from the North Shore, Hulse to her credit stood up to this clown while Brown sat there like a whimp.

        • DoublePlusGood 13.1.2.2
          18 March 2015 at 7:58 pm

          Certainly people can consider such things in whether to vote for someone. I prefer to go with a) do they do the job well and b) are they corrupt or not?
          (I actually don’t mind if the mayor snorts cocaine off the mayoral desk and has sex in every room of the town hall as long as they’re doing their job well and aren’t corrupt. Now, if they’re trying to obfuscate about the affair after being busted, that’s a different story)
          But the overblown Sex Scandal! Something ending in -gate! Secret affair! nonsense that gets blown up by the media is way out of proportion to how much they should be caring. There’s way better things to criticise Brown’s mayoralty about.

          • Tracey 13.1.2.2.1
            19 March 2015 at 9:18 am

            and my comments about skycity and POA which show I choose my leader on more than one thing? Was it just easier to pretend I only judge him on his sexual duplicity? Remind me did he campaign with his wife and children in order to create a particular image in voters minds?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.2.1.1
              19 March 2015 at 9:21 am

              I agree about Sky City. What is Brown supposed to do about PoAL? What power does one vote at the table give him? What am I missing?

              • Tracey …
                19 March 2015 at 9:21 am

                Did you follow his public comments at the time?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 March 2015 at 9:29 am

                  To an extent: they could have been stronger in defence of MUNZ. Did he have the political capital for a stand-up stoush? I doubt it.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.2.3
          19 March 2015 at 9:04 am

          Fancy that Tracey, political leaders not being perfect

  14. Penny Bright 14
    18 March 2015 at 11:07 am

    Len Brown did a 180 degree U turn on Sky City – from being a ‘poster boy’ for the Problem Gambling Foundation – to someone who became a major advocate for the Sky City deal, which gave them MORE ‘problem’ gambling machines.

    As soon as it was discovered that Sky City gave ‘freebies’ in the form of free accommodation for his illicit sexual affair, then the ‘inquiry’ into Len Brown should have been, in my opinion, handed over to the Police or SFO.

    Sky City was an ‘item of business’ before Auckland Council.

    Sky City have been able to set up, in my opinion, a ‘money-laundering factory’ in the heart of Auckland City, because NOBODY has ever done any ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering arising from the NZ International Convention Centre Act – including Auckland Council.

    Penny Bright

    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1
      18 March 2015 at 12:32 pm

      Penny, you are wrong there. Upgrades are a normal part of hotel business for regular customers.

      As for Sky city. The Mayor and Council members didnt have a say on the increase on poky numbers . That was done by National and passing a law in parliament.

      The Convention centre was allways supported by Brown, and the consents are are processed by council staff.

      You could say he was influenced by the extras at the hotel but he didnt make any direct decision regarding SKycitys expansion.

      As you know in your rates battle, details matter

      • DoublePlusGood 14.1.1
        18 March 2015 at 8:01 pm

        Yes, but upgrades should be more transparently managed when it comes to politicians, to avoid the potential for future conflict of interest issues like those that have arised with Brown. It’s important to have the perception that the mayor and other officials are not receiving special treatment. Sky City and Brown should have been far more open and declared these things as occuring, and Brown and his staff should have done better, really.

  15. Ovid 15
    18 March 2015 at 1:22 pm

    What’s the voting system for mayor up in Auckland? It really should be STV.

    • Tracey 15.1
      18 March 2015 at 3:48 pm

      it is the person with the most votes, gets to be mayor.

    • DoublePlusGood 15.2
      18 March 2015 at 8:03 pm

      Hear, hear! That’s a much better system than the current, which risks getting several candidates between 50 k and 100 k votes if all the potential candidates jump in.
      It worked well in Wellington, which would otherwise have had odd effects from the four candidates that were a bit behind Wade-Brown and Morrison.

  16. infused 16
    18 March 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Phill Goff might actually do some good for Auckland that this cock, Len.

    Len has no chance regardless. I bet $100 his wife will leave him after that too. I believe they only stuck togeathor to support him while in office.

  17. Ron 17
    18 March 2015 at 10:46 pm

    Well if Goff is going to be the left wing candidate then the right won’t need to put up a candidate. Goff will suit them just fine

    • saveNZ 17.1
      19 March 2015 at 9:55 am

      If Goff gets in, then Hide will be handing out his leaflets as his NO 2, Kelvin Davis style.

  18. Sable 18
    19 March 2015 at 9:46 am

    Why does this supposedly left wing site keep quoting right wing news sources. I’d take anything the Herald has to say with a pinch of salt.

Links to post