I’d like to have some meaningful discussion on a supercity for Wellington. Judging from the feedback on the Auckland Supercity, the main gripe is the consultation process and using urgency to pass the legislation. Wellington has the WCC, the Porirua City Council, the Hutt City Council and the Upper Hutt City Council.
I don’t see any need to have an Upper Hutt City Council or a Porirua City Council. Upper Hutt could be part of Hutt City Council and Porirua part of Wellington if there were a compromise. Councils have programmes they wish to follow and this needs a good rating base and a certain level of home ownership. Porirua and Upper Hutt don’t have the rating base that Wellington does so at present (and Hutt)
Labour should support the one-city or two-city idea as it means that the combined rating base would be shared and more services could be provided to those in need. There’d have to be a suitable ward system and election system and decent consultation.
Not sure about Kerry Prendegast’s position on the SuperCity but I don’t think she’d be keen on sharing the spoils.
Very pleased to see more of the health spend actually being spent on health outcomes.
Cudos to the government for getting the private sector involved in reducing the public surgical waiting list. Common sense has prevailed, needless suffering will be reduced, our tax dollars will be better utilised, our meagre medical staffing resources will be more efficiently used.
I see Social Development is now following Justice in cutting hundreds of jobs. Makes a bit of a LIE of J. Messiah Key’s pre-election promise that your National Government would cap, not cut, public sector employment levels.
Just lies, lies, lies, and more lies; that’s all the right ever have… (as baiter might say)
[DPF: And then $50 billion got wiped out of the economy. When will you lefties realise borrow and spend will doom you at the next election]
@ Ratbiter – in case you hadn’t noticed, from the time the Prefu was released (PRIOR to the election, i.e. DURING the campaign) to the incoming Government’s briefing from Treasury the economy tanked. Would you prefer TWO decades of deficits?
Just imagine if that same famous company had moved its manufacturing offshore years ago, they would still be in business today.
One of the few good things to come out of this economic downturn is the realisation that we are wasting our time manufacturing something that can be made at a tenth of the cost offshore.
i am not employed by kiwirail…however Jim Bolger is the chairman…ex national prime minister…but went on holiday and found a lady sitting at his desk when he came home….
frieght volumes are budgeted to increase 2.2 times more than currently…current congestion costs are estimated to be up to 900 million dollars a year for auckland currently..only building more roads shall only increase these costs….
building more roads increases the congestion….motorway to wellsford means more people may live further from auckland and travel….
local government budgets major cost component are related to roading….
we can stick our head in the sand…and keep building roads while ignoring other modes of transport…and put our economic future at risk….
the savings if any with the super city is insignificant when auckland congestion costs are taken into account….
the private sector has had a few goes at rail…however never delivered….
Before Wellington rushes were angels fear to tread, consider this from the Cordillera Institute in Canada which has examined all the recent top down amalgamations in Canada and North American and found them seriously wanting, For example:
How Have Other Consolidations Fared?
To this day, we have yet to find a single merged municipality anywhere in Canada which outperformed its predecessors. And, from our discussions with those who have investigated mergers in the U.S., the experience has been much the same. Yet, despite the dismal record of mergers here in North America, I retain an open mind on the question. On a number of occasions, I have invited our readers to alert us to examples of merged municipalities — forced or voluntary — which have improved the productivity and accountability of their predecessors. Over the years, a number of candidates have been submitted. However, when the layers of the onion were peeled back, the bottom line was the same. That said, we have very little information comparing the before-and-after-merger performance of municipalities in Australia, New Zealand, or the U.K. So, I urge our readers in those jurisdictions to bring any potential candidates to our attention. In the interim, the question remains …
Why the Difference Between Projections and Reality?
In theory at least, it would seem that the economies of scale and their resulting savings should be there. And, there have been many studies produced by reputable firms which project significant savings if mergers occur. The only problem is that these projected savings never seem to materialize. This is not a slap at the consultants who did the studies. As a former consultant myself, I understand how an exhaustive study that showed potential annual savings of $400 million could be used by others to promote a merger which, in fact, resulted in no savings. And, it generated transition costs which are said to have exceeded the amount of those projected savings. That example is the 1998 Toronto amalgamation. The reason for the 180 degree difference between the projection and the actual is the product of the decisions made by those — both elected and employed — charged with mandating the merger and those charged with carrying it out. Cost-benefit analyses are rarely able to quantify this factor. Nor do most terms of reference given to consultants even request that input. So, the most comprehensive and diligent studies can be rendered valueless if policy-makers and central planners follow a different script. In Issue 01.26, there are more explanations of why municipal mergers have failed to measure up.
Notice how the MSM has climbed aboard the anti-referendum wagon on smacking? Fairly Fucked Media NZ’s papers are hammering the cost of the referendum. The Christchurch Press, today for example, is focusing on on the woman in whose name the referendum petition was submitted and says if she does not withdraw the referendum it will cost the country another $6m.
The MSM probably cost taxpayers as much as that a year with about a dozen Government-funded institutions offering journalism training, let alone the other skills of media workers such as sound engineering, electronics engineering, graphic arts etc?
Of course none of this would have arisen if National hadn’t joined Labour in trying to white ant the referendum. This issue just might make John Key look like a reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.
For goodness sake let people have their say. It seems MPs aren’t happy with ignoring referendums (referenda), they want to wipe them out.
Jack5, the referendum may let people have their say, but how on earth will anyone be able to know what was said? There will be as many interpretations of the results (mostly biased one way or the other) as there are of the question.
You are well off the mark here MNIJ. Psychopaths generally control their temper better than most normal people. They are cool, calculated creeps. When they are cruel and vicious, they act in a cold-blooded way.
Also psychopaths are such slimy bastards they would be unlikely to bash their kids — that would draw too much attention to themselves and hinder projects of more widespread mayhem.
Cerium: you continue the Labour-National-Green obfuscation line. If citizens can raise enough signatures to have a petition, let them have it. Worry about implementation (and interpretation if necessary afterwards).
It seems rather smug, superior, and even head-up-arse to suggest ordinary citizens are incapable of formulating questions on important matters.
Well it does seem a bit like the attitude of feed them bread and circuses (rugby stadiums and subsidised state TV and radio) but ignore them otherwise as too stupid to know what is good for them.
I dispute your view that no-one else shares the following opinion: that politicians trying to squash this referendum and generally ignore referendums (referenda) is an arrogant, superior, smug and head-up-arse attitude on the part of those politicians.
There will be at least several thousand who vote no in the referendum I expect.
Jack5 11.05am: I dispute your view that no-one else shares the following opinion: that politicians trying to squash this referendum and generally ignore referendums (referenda) is an arrogant, superior, smug and head-up-arse attitude on the part of those politicians.
I didn’t express a view anything like that.
If we want to try and influence politicians we need clearly expressed issues. I think the current referendum is anything but clear. What will the “several thousand who vote no” be saying? Any of:
I don’t like virtually all parents being labeled as criminals.
I think any smacking kids is ok.
I think some smacking of kids is ok.
I’ll belt my kids if I want to.
I feel guilty because I have smacked my kids.
The government can’t tell me how to be a parent.
I’m pissed off with Labour.
Sue Bradford is a wanker.
I didn’t understand the question.
My pastor told me to vote no.
I’m against anything that involves the government.
I’m voting no to nanny state.
I’m voting no to PC.
I think the question reads: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
It’s clear enough. Easy enough to decide yes or no. If citizens want a referendum on that and raise sufficient signatures let them have it. Why not? They pay for Parliament. They pay for the referendum. They pay the MPs’ salaries and perks.
Why should an axis comprising MPs, leftists, liberal centrists, Greens supported by state-owned and foreign-owned news media become some sort of censor as to what wording is fit for a referendum?
In truth, their campaign is just part of a campaign to shut down the debate on state intrusion into families.
Given that I am more than happy to have a crack at Key when he fucks up I think I should praise the man when he gets it right, well done Mr Key, now please make more decisions like this and less of the pinko type.
Jack5, that question may be clear to you, but it is not clear to many. The MSM have woken up to that belatedly. Even Larry Baldock has suggested that it really means “vote yes if you want the law to stay as it is, vote no to change it back to what it was”. With that flexibility in interpretation it could be made to mean anything.
Is your interpretation of the referendum “should the state intrude into families”?
No, I don’t interpret the referendum meaning anything beyond the words expressed of the question that presumably will be on the voting paper.
I believe that some, perhaps many or even most, of those who oppose the referendum, stand for more state intrusion into families. They believe that the State, through civil servants, can handle many things better than parents, from sex education to discipline to inculcating beliefs about many matters whose teaching has traditionally been the preserve of parents.
However, that’s not what I will be thinking about when I vote in the referendum. I will be simply answering the question on the ballot paper.
I believe referendums (referenda) in general are more important and significant under MMP that they were under the previous First Past the Post electoral system. With an electorate MP, you can reject that MP in a subsequent general election if you disagree strongly enough with that MP’s conscience vote, perhaps even if you generally agree with the party of that MP.
In conscience votes, list MPs, as under MMP, do not answer to voters. How do you express disagreement with them over conscience votes? You can’t. Only the party hierarchies that rank list MPs can have any active response to their conscience votes.
I see referendums/referenda as one way of retaining some citizen power v. party power, which has increased under MMP.
Jack5 12.25: I see referendums/referenda as one way of retaining some citizen power v. party power, which has increased under MMP.
I agree with this – as long as we have an effective referendum system and as David Lange predicted, our CIR is not.
I believe that everyone who votes yes or no wants a degree of “state intrusion into families”, from pre-natal care through maternity, Plunket, kindergarten, school, doctors, police and fire protections ambulance etc etc.
And everyone doesn’t want state intrusion when it gets up their noses.
No state can keep all of the people happy all of the time. And no family wants to do without the state.
Thanks Owen McShane (12.37 post) for bringing in the Greens.
They have been at the ruckus about smacking by parents and laws against it. They were also the core strength of the campaign for the switch to MMP.
I can’t speak for Mr McShane, of course, but deduce that perhaps he was implying the number of people who signed the petition for the referendum outweigh the number who backed the Melon Green/Bradford stirrers who caused the law change that prompted the referendum call.
Cerium: Is it the state’s job to keep us happy? Should it be like a kindergarten teacher keeping us happy?
Jack5, the law we have now, the law that is the subject of this stupid and pointless referendum, is not the law that Bradford proposed.
Bradford wanted the repeal of S59. What we have is a re written S59. A re written S59 passed by the overwhelming majority of our representatives, very few of whom were sent packing at the last election.
IF this is such a major issue, why isn’t Larry Baldock PM?
Oh, by the way Phool, you just name-call because you hate having your “predictions” shown up. Happy to run through them anytime you claim to be an expert on anything (other than sucking on the taxpayers’ collective tit).
Shouldn’t be. But that is what a lot of people want, from those think they are owed permanent financial assistance to those who think crims should be permanently removed….
Jack5: Should it be like a kindergarten teacher keeping us happy?
….and those who want their kids to be happy at kindergarten.
Almost everyone wants the state to intrude into families who kill their kids.
Most people want the state to intrude when families badly treat their kids.
A lot of people want the state to intrude when families deliberately hurt their kids “too much”.
Some people think families shouldn’t deliberately hurt their kids at all.
The last two are the big grey area that the debate is about.
It is not about intrusion of the state. It is about the degree of intrusion versus the degree of hurt.
I just happen to know that’s the label you try to pin on me.
My friends wouldn’t describe me as weird or stalking. I can only imagine how they’d describe someone like you – who claims the DPB on spurious grounds while apparently having unlimited time to blog. What did Glubbster make of you:
Essentially your credentials are not exactly inspiring, especially for a 57 year old. I almost feel sorry for you but you dont blog like in any genuine way so I’m not sure you deserve any sympathy. You are an outsider aren’t you, the kind of guy who expects people not to like him and has limited social skills & therefore has few friends.
And, boast if you like, but you weren’t the first one to identify the global financial crisis. I did note on this thread that, when challenged by Reid, you couldn’t discuss the global financial crisis in any detail at all. So you obviously don’t understand the global financial crisis you claim to have predicted! And about those election predictions (national election and Mt Albert by-election) – how did they turn out for you?
Sue Bradford had a private member’s bill passed, not a piece of Green legislation. Some in the party went all out. Some argued against. The thread I point to is one of at least 50 or so that have been devoted to this issue over the past couple of years with similar arguments made.
All irrelevant now. The law we have permits smacking and it permits smacking with a baseball-bat between the eyes if it is done to prevent disruptive behavior… the only forbidden smack is a correction. The vague nature of the initial law is retained in the current law and there is no real advantage to either. The interesting thing is that NOBODY is telling anyone that smacking IS legal under specified conditions which cover most of the conditions we’d normally do it anyway.
WRONG. As per usual, the international anti-Western left get it wrong and side with the socialists. Par for the course, naturally.
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that Manuel Zelaya, a power hungry Chavez stooge, attempted to hold a referendum deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. When Zelaya instructed the Army chief, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, to carry out the logistics of the referendum (including getting ballots – from VENEZUELA), he refused due to its illegality. He was then duly sacked and Zelaya and a bunch of “citizens” (see “paid thugs”) went and stole them from the army base. Things come to a head, and Mr Chavez-Zelaya is overthrown and power transferred to the head of Congress and fellow Liberal Party member, Roberto Micheletti, who will serve out the remainder of Zelaya’s term until the elections in November. Just because you are “democratically elected”, does not mean you are democratic. Just ask Ahmedinejad.
I wouldn’t mind a military coup against Gordon Brown, actually.
Goodness – should I be flattered to be the target of your vitriolic abuse?
So far on this thread you’ve accused me of being Terry, and of editing Wikipedia entries (which I have no idea how to do). Ever get sick of making shit up?
And, as for blowing it out of my arse, why can’t you admit that you got those election predictions (national election and Mt Albert by-election) horribly horribly horribly wrong. I think you’re the one with foot-in-arse.
..and hey..you must be a piss-poor lawyer..eh..?
the evidence here is you couldn’t argue yr way out of a brown paper bag..
I’ll let people who know me judge my legal skills; a drug-fucked wreck like you is hardly in a position to judge. Oh, and your talents are what exactly? Smoking dope and sucking of the public tit. Anything else I’ve missed?
If, by chance you’re reading this thread, could you please let Philu know that you’re not me and I’m not you. Then could you confirm that these were your words:
Phil, ever since you lost very very badly indeed in the inaugural EWO contest [*], you’ve been bitter toward Mr Nomestradamus and taken every opportunity to attack him. You never made a point of it before that event, and the timing is striking.
You claim to have an MA from Auckland University (a claim which some Kiwiblog commenters have questioned) and yet your debating style is shallow. Pathetic even. Have you got no life that you need to make up nicknames for Kiwiblog commenters and try and bait them on a daily basis? Shouldn’t you be looking for a real job instead?
You repeatedly accuse me of stalking you. I’ll let others be the judge of that claim. How fascinating, though, that you repeatedly make ad hominem remarks about me on threads I haven’t even commented on – like on this thread. I have to agree with Reid when he says you’ve got a sore-loser complex.
You’re not exactly a poster child for drug reform. I’ll content myself in that I’ll never smoke dope and turn out like you, and I’ll certainly be encouraging my child not to turn out like you.
i post under my real name..”terry”…im man enough to use my real name…
hey honestly i know someone else with a masters in politics….he does the weather on morning television…did childrens television..what now…and won dancing with the stars..and has someone called gok wanting to marry him….
i dont have honours or the like… i have to many friends and other activities to occupy my time…being too overly educated can be a sign of social failure…..all brains but can not function in the real world…
Terry at 7.47 a.m.
If the railways had somebody to subsidise them like the road transport industry have to subsidise them, then rail freight would be dirt cheap compared to road transport.
Now if that comment gets you, consider this;
“If a mini motor car travels over a strip of McAdam road, twenty four thousand times it will do as much damage to that strip of McAdam road as a 40 tonne truck travelling over that piece of road ONCE.
QUESTION ONE How much road user charges does that truck pay for that one journey?
QUESTION TWO How much road user taxes, included in the cost of petrol, does the owner of that mini car pay for the 24,000 trips over that piece of road?
Phil, I would have thought you’d be able to tell the difference in syntax between Nome and I.
I’m not a mere persona, phil, I started blogging before KB was born, on Kiwipundit. As I recall, Nome came along in the last few years. reid is my real christian name and I’ve in previous posts revealed my real email and my real residential location – just google the gaza threads last Christmas. You’re welcome to meet with me if you’re ever in Wgtn. Let me know if you want contact details.
Please in future, never conflate Nome and I as an argumentative tactic, it just diminishes the quality of your own contributions. I personally think they add a dimension. I’m not sure what others think.
Just another thing Phil, I think that you need to think about the fact this is a public forum, which means we all benefit from the input given from all.
That means, it’s not a fight between the most insulting.
It’s an intellectual contribution.
Nome amongst others have highly specific insights to offer and it’s a shame for them to be diverted by you onto peripheral matters which they feel honour-bound to defend but which nevertheless, diminishes their ability to contribute to the greater good.
..it is quite strange how you pretend to like them..there..
..and then you come here..and piss on/jeer at them..”
philu, I do like SOME of what SOME greenies have to offer, bjchip would be a good example, but I strongly state my position in oposition to them on frog blog when I don’t agree.
Most people are not opposed to true sustainabilty phil, when you break it down it equates to not sh!ting in your own nest!!
One thing I am totally opposed to is the majority of the greens social agenda, and I have never been two faced about that.
I am involved in quite a “green” profession so I am naturally drawn to discussion on green issues, I just don’t share the extreme socialist agenda.
Maybe you should try agreeing with your “enemies” once in a while phil, you may gain a bit more credibility.
I used to enjoy Kiwiblog more than I do now. Certain commenters like F E Smith bring a lot of informative content to the discussion table. I try to bring something to the discussion table too, where I feel I have something to contribute; but as you say, Philu’s persistent personal attacks across multiple threads (and he accuses me of stalking!) is something of a hindrance.
Unfortunately, some commenters – the likes of Philu – tend to be disruptive and spoil the enjoyment factor for me (and I suspect for many others). Reading back over this thread, Philu has completely trashed it with ad hominem attacks, generally petty name-calling, on a number of commenters (not just me – but I’ve been singled out for particular mention, apparently) – and in the process has ruined a couple of interesting lines of discussion.