Mayor Bruce Hucker
Am I the only one somewhat amused that Bruce Hucker, by pulling out of the race for the Auckland mayoralty, has actually become the de facto Mayor, as leader of the left bloc on the Auckland City Council.
I hope Dick Hubbard enjoys being the Governor-General of Auckland while Hucker is the PM.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 12th, 2004 at 9:25 am
It’s only amusing because you don’t pay rates in Auckland!
October 12th, 2004 at 9:39 am
Aaron – your lot were increasing residential rates like wildfire, remember?
October 12th, 2004 at 10:44 am
yes my City council rates incresed by 23% ( with the same valuation) in the 3 years of the last council.
The actual powers of NZ Mayors are largely ceremonial. Unlike UK and Australia, where they are elected from amoung the councillors as a chair of the council meeting only, the direct election doesnt give them any executive power,In contrast the US mayors have considerable powers which is often mistaken to apply here.
if you are too use a parliament analogy , the Speaker is closest to the Powers of the mayor, with the ceremonial of the Governor general thrown in for the time outside the single monthly meeting of a full council
The council CEO actually has more power, and does all the hiring and firing and will usually have some delegated spending authority up to a limit.
The mayor has none of this, and while can be a member of council committees has only the same one vote of an ordinary councillor.
October 12th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
which brings up the security of tenure for the current CEO – talk is that his days are numbered…
i imagine matt mccarten’s keen on a new job about now
(don’t worry, i’m just trying to scare you)
October 12th, 2004 at 1:09 pm
Hehe – You’re right David, Dick Hubbard will be the next G-G, afterall he’s down with Helengrad, but also a white Christian male…
October 12th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Nope, David, it doesn’t surprise me at all. As far as I can see, Hucker was in no danger of losing his council seat – and withdrawing, however symbolic, must have won brownie points with Hubbard and the left. If he didn’t stitch up a deal for the Deputy Mayoralty weeks ago, he’s not as smart as I thought.
Anyhow, he’s going to have his hands full preventing the left majority from reverting to type and committing collective suicide that will hand the ACC back to the right for another 70 years. IMHO, Brian Rudman was right in Monday’s Herald: Hubbard outlived his usefulness to the left as soon as the size of their majority was clear. They can outvote him and the C&R bloc easily.
October 12th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
… which means they won the election.
… which means that they have a mandate to implement their policy agenda.
Democracy, remember?
October 12th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Hmm, who’s the “crafty politician of 2004″? My vote’s on Hucker.
October 12th, 2004 at 4:37 pm
Jordan –
Good to see those first year politics papers weren’t a total waste of time – meanwhile the rest of us know what a majority is. I just have to wonder whether those who voted against Banks and C&R were really voting FOR anything other than a motorway in someone else’s backyard, and a more cuddly mayor. I guess time will tell; but Hubbard had no effective power, while Hucker does. Sounds fairly obvious..
October 12th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
Spannergirl – the current CEO, Bryan Taylor, is standing down in the new year, and is being replaced by the very highly regarded David Rankin who is the current finance director of Auckland City. So don’t get too excited if you think Mr Taylor’s departure in a few months represents a scalp!
As for Jordan’s comments that we were raising rates like wildfire at Auckland City- thats a bit disingenuous on his part. We kept the total rates take under the rate of inflation for the last three years. However, there was a property valuation done in the term which of course would have changed peoples rates – after all, their homes may have increased or possibly decreased in value. Also, the UAGC we introduced slowed the increase in rates for some areas (higher valued homes), but by comparison would have increased rates at a higher rate for homes of lower value. The
October 13th, 2004 at 12:55 am
So the poor who cant afford the increase in rates get lumped with up to 30 odd percent hike in rates
Whilst the more wealthy households cop something like a rates percentage increase I could count on my hand.
That goes against what most people see as fair and is why you lot got tossed out.
October 13th, 2004 at 6:14 am
So why do you think that an old lady living in a family home for decades should pay more higher rates when her impact on the infrastructure is so much lower? Less rubbish, less stormwater, less likely to drive around the city?
Besides, the truly poor will not be paying rates at all – their landlords will be. And the wealthier homes amd businesses have been socked in rates charges in the previous Hucker administration – considering that Hobson Ward accounts for 40% of all rates, I think they were entitled to a fairer rating system that recognises that their bear a greater burden of rates across Auckland.
October 13th, 2004 at 8:42 am
Hohson ward includes the CBD so is imbalanced as far as the rates take goes. As far as councillors go it has 3 the same as Eden/Albert while Roskill/Avondale has 4. wealth and property have only the same vote.
As I said while showing the 23% rates rise from 2001 to 2004 on my house, the valuations are the same( its printed on the rates notice), so that would be the minimum.
Just keep up the divine right to rule Aaron, and youll be only going back to the Remuera Library to borrow books about Mr Darcy’s love life
October 13th, 2004 at 11:03 am
What makes businesses in the CBD somehow immune to rates? They deserve to get value for money from their rates too. After all – the CBD has to go somewhere doesn’t it, so saying that it “imbalances” Hobson is disingenuous on your part.
And by the way, who on earth is this Darcy chap you are talking about?
October 14th, 2004 at 10:06 am
From Jane Eyre:
“Lizzy headed out of Pemberley House into the gardens, her head spinning with what she had heard. The praise of Mrs. Reynolds, the Housekeeper, had overturned all her earlier ideas about Darcy. She found herself thinking very warmly of the Master of Pemberley.
“I’ve been so silly! Mr. Darcy is a generous master and a good man. I am sure he would be the most caring husband. And he is so handsome. I could have stared at that portrait for hours! I wonder if he could still care for me. But I’ve been so cruel. I do not deserve him.”
Lizzy realized that her thoughts were quite inappropriate, for a man like him would never ask the same woman to marry him twice. And yet she could not help thinking about him, about how she had felt dancing in his arms, looking into his smoldering eyes. But she knew her fantasy could not come true, so she forced herself to think of something else. She remembered Jane’s letter, and thought this would be a good time to read it. Her aunt and uncle were still walking about in the garden and they would take some time.”
Dark hair, smouldering eyes ??
October 14th, 2004 at 10:10 am
Mr Darcy is also a character in “Bridget Jones Diary”
October 14th, 2004 at 11:01 am
I am quite certain that it is Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to which you refer…
October 15th, 2004 at 8:06 am
You are probably right. Im a total dolt for not checking more accurately.
It seems far more closer to the misty eyed, sentimental rubbish that Aaron wrote in his blog after his shattering defeat on Saturday.
A Mr darcy who thinks he’s General MacArthur as well
October 15th, 2004 at 7:17 pm
Such bitchiness from Ztev. You aren’t an old girlfriend of mine are you?
Besides, if you don’t like my blog, why do you read it?