Send a JAFA to Wellington….

12 comments on “Send a JAFA to Wellington…. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Armchair Critic 1

   26 April 2010 at 10:31 pm

   So we have Whangarei to thank for John Banks and Phil Heatley. WTF.
   I’d be interested to know whether one mayor representing 1 million people would have more influence than, say, five mayors representing 200,000 people each. Water under the bridge, I know, but I’m still not convinced that the one city model works. My instinct is that the one mayor will be too far removed from their constituency to be effective. I’d love it if Labour would commit to letting Aucklanders completely revisit the structure of local government in the region. Pity it would take more than one electoral cycle.
   • lprent 1.1

     26 April 2010 at 11:53 pm

     Yep, that is a problem. However the super-shitty council has the power to delegate authority downwards. With a C&R dominated council I have no doubt that will not happen, regardless of what they say during the election campaign.

     So Auckland has to elect a council that isn’t dominated by National and Act proxies.
2. Jum 2

   26 April 2010 at 11:56 pm

   So they replace 8 councils with 1 council and 7 unelected, unaccountable ccos. What a joke. That’s supposed to be progress?!

   The earlier councils were scrapped because we were told they couldn’t work together. WTF. They have to conflict. That’s how you get best outcome, providing all are on a level playing field, unlike Banks and his railroading C&R crony council blockers. We should have sacked the Auckland Council and kept the other councils. The Mayors’ forum would have continued. That would have been fairer to all the outlying areas.
3. Clipbox 3

   26 April 2010 at 11:57 pm

   I agree its good that we retain assets, but is it really viable to say that we can just buy them back soon after they would have been sold off?
   • lprent 3.1

     27 April 2010 at 12:06 am

     Parliament can do almost anything. Including legislation and regulation making those assets unable to make a profit of Aucklanders using their monopolies. In this case the assets are all natural monopolies which parliament already has powers to regulate.

     The people of Auckland were not consulted about putting those assets into a ‘saleable’ form. I can’t see any particular reason to consult or even consider with the new owners if Rodney and National sell them. The new owners will know the risks of parliament acting on Aucklands behalf making it impossible for them to get the returns off them.

     Quite simply, sales of natural monopolies to private interests is unacceptable.
     • Bored 3.1.1

       27 April 2010 at 7:25 am

       Iprent, theres something a little ingenuous about the idea of Goff or Labour buying back privatised assets. Heres a man who was part of the Douglas regime, and a party who blithely for years signed international trade agreements that were all about gauranteeing the right of private property, and the loss of our sovereignty. Then perhaps we could that mention the original commission on Auckland was the brain child of Labour.

       What really gets me about this whole Nact drive to feather the nests of their buddies is that for 9 years in government Labour failed to distance NZs parliamentary processes from the legislative confines of the Douglas revolution. It sticks in my craw that labour left the door so wide open that these burglars just walked on in and started the plunder.
       • lprent 3.1.1.1

         27 April 2010 at 8:52 am

         I dislike intensely the privatization of natural monopolies. It just offers opportunities for price-gouging while running down assets by the rapacious buyers. That has been the experience not only here, but also in virtually every other place that has done it over the last 30 years. Over the long-term privatization of natural monopolies offers no significant advantages to the consumers of their services and usually costs more and offers less service.

         But I also recognize the advantages of freer markets including for exports and imports. After all that is where I’ve been working in over the last 30 years, mostly in exports. It is like everything else in economics, there are balances.

         I suspect that Phil Goff looks at it in much the same way.
         • Bored 3.1.1.1.1

           27 April 2010 at 9:07 am

           Agreed to some degree, what still rankles is that all that the rules GATT,the IMF , plus agreements at Davos etc do is impose a system that trades “free” market access in return for open slather to a countries infrastructure and service sectors. Labour have been complicit in this compromise position. Trade needs to be fair trade, our “free” market international scenario is far from this. I dont know how much traction opposing this system has electorally nor if Labour actually sees it as an issue.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.2

           27 April 2010 at 2:29 pm

           Free trade (ie, trade in finished products) I can agree with as it actually makes sense. It actually does what the economists say it will – things made in relation to advantage. Although, with the oncoming shortages due to Peak Oil, we will probably find that more local manufacture will be beneficial.

           Free movement of capital and free-ownership (foreign owners) is a load of BS. That must, and does, result in a stifled economy as more and more of the worlds wealth is tied up in fewer and fewer mega-corporations and individuals hands. This, of course, results in a massive misallocation of resources as the wealth goes to only advancing the affairs of the few rather than that of the community.
4. peter 4

   27 April 2010 at 7:51 am

   Lprent , well said. I was gobsmaked when I saw that the citrats had shown almost total contempt for the aspirations of Aucklanders by recycling useless time wasters such as Christine Fletcher et al..
5. bahandhumbug 5

   27 April 2010 at 8:53 am

   Dove Myer Robinson was definitiely before his time and from memory was potically independent ?

   All of the current mob;Banks, Brown, Harvey, Lee, Williams are inept morons to varying degrees. I have very little hope of things improving under a supercity when we’ll have the usual approach of the majority being not bothered to vote and other idiots voting along party lines rather than choosing the best person regardless of what politica persuasion you choose to attach to them.

   Not that there’ll be any “best persons” just the least odious as per usual.
6. Dav 6

   27 April 2010 at 11:06 am

   I believe your opening paraphrase is meant to involve New Zealand and Australia rather than Auckland and Wellington. And, seriously, who with half a brain would consider Auckland to have a higher average IQ level than the country’s cultural and political capital?

   But that’s far from your only misconception. Shadbolt wasn’t “inflicted” on Invercargill, Labour’s leader suggesting the Auckland Mayor sit at the cabinet table isn’t a minor story and Goff didn’t do “pretty good”. His speech was verbose, disorganised and lacked narative. Perhaps he did a great job of preaching to the indoctrinated but no one else could be bothered listening.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS