Auckland Mayoral Contenders
Aaron Bhatnagar has a useful post on all the Auckland Mayoralty contenders. Aaron is a mate of Banksie, but his post is pretty balanced on them all. Well worth a read.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Local Body Politics
August 4th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Aaron is in denial.
The number one reason why Banks lost is the same reason all the other Mayors only lasted one term – rates rises. They can prattle on about keeping rates rises down but when your rates go up 30% in one year and at several times the rate of inflation make this fall on deaf ears. Banks is the best of a bad bunch this time but he’d better keep the chequebook in the pocket.
The only hope for auckland is to elect a C&R Now council to force an end to the rises.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
any mention of the $350 million dollars of ours banks pissed away..?
by..in his privatisation fervour..
the floggong off of our airport shares for $150 million..?
shares now worth over $500 million..?
did he touch on that subject..?
or is he just hoping we have all forgotten..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“The enigmatic and controversial “Porn King” (Steve Crowe) will undoubtably be a breath of fresh air in the Mayoral race.”
Really?? I think he will bring it a fetid stench. “Enigmatic??” Vomit.
Gawd. Fancy sucking up to this lowlife creep at the same time as he claims to share Hobson ward’s “true blue common sense values”. Hobson fathers mothers and families will really be impressed.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Porcupine – you are wrong. I have addressed your comments on my blog.
Phil – the 2001-2004 council retired debt (caused mostly by Britomart) with the proceeds of the sale of half the AIAL shares. This put the city in excellent financial health, with money to buy infrastructural improvements through a strategic asset fund. Noted left-wing commenter Brian Rudman agrees with this assessment that selling the shares back then had merit (20/6/07). Sadly, the fund has been spent by the current crop of left-wingers in charge of the city, so much of it on wasteful and low priority activity. There’s no more money left for future improvements, hence why water users are being gouged by the City Vision team you support.
As for the sale of the remainder of the shares, I note Banks has said in Saturday morning’s Herald that if the public consultation is against selling, he’ll listen.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Don’t be silly Redbaiter. I have no time for Steve Crow. He’s funding a ticket to stand against me and my C&R colleagues. Grow up a little, and you might realise that I don’t have to be nasty to my opponents to get my message across.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Chickenfeed compared to what the labour central government wastes phil u. Remember Wananga? Remeber $20bn in extra spending with no noticeable improvement in social indicators?
Perhaps we should all vote for Hubbard so he can continue yearly “one off” 10% rates rises for “infrastructure”
August 4th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
aaron..
the shares were worth $150 million then..
now over $500 million..
and this in your mind..in hindsight..was a ‘good thing’ to have sold them then..?
this is rightwing ‘good managment/financial practice’..?..eh..?…
(hope your old man has good accountants/management in place when he hands the family firm over..eh..?
a few decisions like that on your part..and there will be no more family firm..)
you are setting new benchmarks in ‘attempted-spin’ there aaron…
(heh-heh..!..)
and procupine..in its’ little mind..also thinks this is all hunky dory..
“cos’..cos”..they’re worser..!..”
feckin’ idjit..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Phil, I’ll quote directly from Brian Rudman, noted left-wing commentator, from his 20 June 07 column
“As for the shares being a savvy investment, too golden to quit, commentators over the past day or so have been quick to argue how much richer, for example, Auckland City would have been if Mayor John Banks and his allies had not sold half of Auckland’s shareholding back in 2002. But that’s a bit like someone saying, I wish I’d held on to that Ponsonby villa I sold in 1996. If I had, I’d be rich now.
The point surely is to sit down with your budget adviser, consider your outgoings and your incomings and decide whether you can afford a huge investment ticking away across town, while you’re sitting around in sackcloth and ashes with Mercury Energy threatening to cut the power and sewage spewing into the harbour every time it rains.”
And the position of Bhatnagar family financial advisor is not available to you.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Mr. Bhatnager, I think that you’re a good candidate who has lots of good ideas and I wish you the best of luck. I don’t know why tho that you would jepoardize so much of your support within the Hobson electorate by writing in such glowing terms about such an example of human refuse. Of course you don’t have to be nasty, but hell, neither do you have to kiss his arse.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
i also notice aaron that you ‘talk-up’ the porn guy..
(‘enigmatic’..heh-heh..!
he’s about as enigmatic as false tits..)
while you are very deprecating of the abilities/qualities of john hinchcliffe..
bfm has on-line..an interview mikey havoc did with hinchcliffe..
prior to hearing that interview..i had never considered hinchcliffe..
that has now changed..
listeners to that interview will hear a very intelligent human being..
one who obviously has the best interests of us/auckland to heart..
and one who is very aware of the challenges facing our hodge-podge/mess of a city..
and what needs to be done about them..
and there is one fact about hinchcliffe that really sticks in my mind..
is that he has already done what we need doing..
that is that he is the person who took over a collection of pre-fab buildings ‘hodge-podge’/mess’ that was the auckland institute of technology..
and turned it into aut..a campus almost gleaming with modernitiy/efficiency..
and a campus far superior to what used to be it’s ‘better’..auckland university..
now..it is not too much of a stretch/analogy to see auckland now..
our ‘hodge-podge’/mess’..
as how the aut was before hinchcliffe worked his magic..
and i see hinchcliffe as the person who has the intellectual clout/skills/experience do that for us/auckland..
this is why he is my choice for mayor..
(go and listen to that on-line interview..
make up your own minds..
and just totally dismiss the dismissals/putdowns of the (logically-challenged) bhatnagar..
he is not worthy to shine his shoes..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 4th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Redbaiter – I’d appreciate it if you didn’t mention Steve Crow’s buttocks in front of me again.
I’m sure Hobson voters would see the disclaimer at the top of the post where I am upfront about which Mayoral candidate I’m supporting. It’s not Steve Crow, and I intend to defeat his council candidates at the ballot box later this year.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Steve Crow buttocks !! Steve Crow buttress !! I hope Steve dies of A ?
Great role model for kids a f##king scumbag porn king for mayor , wonder when Mr Brown stands in ChCh ?
What a cess pit country !!
August 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
You missed one:
Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand to contest 2007 Local Body Elections:
The Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand (www.ddp.co.nz) intends fielding a number of candidates for the 2007 Local Body Elections.
Party Leader Kelvyn Alp, and Deputy Party Leader Steve Taylor will be contesting the Manukau and Auckland Mayoralties respectively. A number of DDP representatives will also be contesting Local Body Election positions around the country, and will be named shortly.
Two key policy platforms that DDP intend to promote are the introduction of “Binding Initiated Citizens Referendum” (BCIR), and “Representative Recall”.
“Binding Citizens Initiated Referendum” (BCIR) is a Direct Democracy principle of governance whereby voters have the opportunity to enforce a majority directive mandate on Local and Central Government, and veto unpopular Government initiatives.
“Representative Recall” is a Direct Democracy principle of governance whereby voters can remove an incumbent representative from office at any time if the representative is voting against the wishes of the people they are deemed to be serving.
“The principles of Direct Democracy are a long overdue antidote to the ongoing “silencing of the majority” of Representative Democracy in both Local and Central Government”. The Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand aims to return sovereignty to the New Zealand people, as opposed to having our sovereignty hijacked by self-interested minority lobby groups who seem to delight in steamrolling the majority” says Mr Taylor.
Please go to http://www.ddp.co.nz for more information.
Kind Regards,
Steve Taylor,
Deputy Leader,
Media Spokesman,
Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand
http://www.ddp.co.nz
August 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Steve Taylor:
So, what, your organisation doesn’t understand the principles of representative democracy or, you do, and you want to get rid of it?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
No triple D – just balance the equation somewhat.
Steve Taylor
August 4th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
how did you go aaron , on farra column, did you sort them out, i hope so, hubbard was boring even from here,
August 4th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Phil – you seem to be able to know future prices on the stockmarket with remarkable prescience. Got any tips for me mate?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Steve, we’ve already got the system where people who don’t toe the sychophantic party line get bumped – unless you have proper check and balances that is a very dangeraous policy. Are you advocating that no-one can be bumped unless there is a referendum or election or that your party decides who gets bumped?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Sorry Porcupine – which system would that be where those who don’t toe the line get bumped? It took 6 lies to Parliament, the media, and the public before David Benson Pope was “bumped”. Now the entire Public Service is under a cloud as a result of a certain Mr Mark Prebble – there is your “system” for you – unelected officials tainting the democratic waters.
I need more information on what it is you believe is “a dangerous policy” before I can respond. It might save some time if you go to the DDP website, and click on the FAQ’s section – it addresses a number of alleged criticisms of Direct Democracy, none of which appear to stand the test of scrutiny. Surely you cannot be saying that the will of the people is dangerous to democracy; nor that binding referendum and representative recall is dangerous to society?
Steve Taylor
August 4th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Sorry, that web address again, Steve, was it mobrules dot co dot nz?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
It’s alright, Steve, I got the right address
So, I go straight to the FAQ section, as you suggested, I’m thinking, “yeah, I’d like to browse these Q and A” but can I? Oh, no, the great Direct Democracy people don’t want visitors to their site just hopping around looking up shit themselves, selecting the question they want answering. Oh, no. You have to wade through a pre-prepared presentation of questions and answers all nicely stacked and packed. Oh, the road to perdition is paved with such good intentions…
August 4th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hey, Steve
You say voters wouldn’t get bored with participation because they already do polls and stuff like that…but that’s not quite the same, is it? Polling only ever effects a tiny (but statistically valid) group of people. It’s a little bit of a leap to suggest that this experience validates the entire electorate routinely getting motivated to participate in democratic activities.
You say the risk of tyranny by a minority is low because it hasn’t happened overseas. Yeah, fine. But that’s hardly a stunning defence, is it? How would the SYSTEM prevent tyranny by the minority? What are its safeguards? Are there like caps or minimum voter turnout required?
If a small group of motivated voters managed to get a majority and vetoed an Appropriations Bill or some other confidence matter what would happen?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Steve, we already have Representative Recall. It is able to be exercised every three years.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:53 am
gooner..go short..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Guys, your objections are about 120 years out of date – have a closer look at Switzerland, and around 21 US States who have successfully integrated Direct Democracy. The current NZ system doesn’t prevent tyranny by the minority because of the bastardisation of MMP (goodness me, complaints about this issue alone make up most of the posts on Kiwiblog). It is also a leap to suggest that NZ has “Representative Recall” under the present system – when a candidate can be booted out of the Electorate, and yet return to Parliament anyway on the MMP list. That is not Representative Recall, it’s Representative Recycling! Waiting for 3 years to do so is hardly fair on the Electorate, is it?
Triple D: can’t see how its an issue that the material on the website is well organised?
I suspect the biggest objection to DD will be from the established politicians – as Theodore Dalrymple says “hogs will not slaughter themselves”.
Seems to be working well in Wanganui?
Steve Taylor
August 5th, 2007 at 8:46 am
I’ve always thought binding petitions would be beneficial.
Phil, would you mind linking that interview? Apologies if you already have and I missed it.
August 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am
david s.
sure..
http://www.95bfm.co.nz/default,18,bcasts.sm?cast=3854&start=10
(it is in two parts..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Steve:
The FO rates party campaigns that is will hold rates rises to the rate of inflation
They win overwhelmingly
They all have a dream to pring prosperity to Glen Innes by building a giant transport/theatre complex
The ratepayers get their notices where some of their rates have gone up 40%
Oh but we didnt promise to hold rates based on land inflation to the CPI
One member objects to this but the party decides to bump him/her
Does s/he get a referendum
Also be very careful what you wish for with a constitution – will it be a racist/seperatist constitution or will it uphold democracy?
August 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“Surely you cannot be saying that the will of the people is dangerous to democracy; nor that binding referendum and representative recall is dangerous to society?”
Possibly yes. The “will of the people” in practice is just majority rules, which ignores that the majority at any given time might be wrong, deluded, badly informed, or just plain stupid. Binding referendum’s may still pass laws and policy that are wrong. The “majority = right” of direct democracy is a flawed idea.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Shawn: you cannot logically propose that those who exercise wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge to elect representatives cannot also exercise wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge to vote on electoral issues.
Porcupine: Did the community ask for the theatre, or was it imposed upon them?
Steve Taylor
August 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
P.S: The fact is, the majority are right a majority of the time.
Steve Taylor
August 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Porcupine: A Constitution would further guard against the possibility of a BCIR outcome that might undemine universal rights eg freedom of association, freedom of expression, etc
Could you give me an example of a current Constitution that is racist / seperatist in nature?
Steve Taylor
August 5th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Yes the local community asked for the theatre and the global community voted for low rates increases.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
No, but most of the discussions around the issue of a constitution focus on the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding documant and wish to enshrine it in special laws and a special say for Maori (ie to entrench the iwi elite in the constitution). This of course is at fundamental odd with democracy.
The other issue is that NZ is the size of a middling city so all we really need is a board of 12-20 people to run it. Many of our problems at present stem from the ludicrous expense of our democracy, or the expense of making it look like we have public consultation. Base on their passed track record many here will be very suspicious that you groups ideas are just going to add another layer of expense to an already overburdoned system. Sounds good in principle but the devil will be in the implimentation.
Cheers.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Porcupine:
You and others would be welcome to talk with Party Leader Kelvyn Alp, myself, and a number of other DDP members and visitors every Wednesday night 7.30pm – 10.30pm in the DDP chat room. DDP are very open to rebuttle, critique, discussion, and debate. What we are proposing is not complicated, and not expensive – simply neccessary.
Steve Taylor