GWRC are the ones who destroyed the great bus service we used to have in Wellington, so they are important. They have increased their rates 28% in three years. Some people worth rating highly:
Wellington constituency
Glenda Hughes, Simon Woolf, Leigh Catley, Daran Ponter
Kapiti
Penny Gaylor
Porirua
Chris Kirk-Burnnand, Roger Watkin
Lower Hutt
David Bassett, Ken Laban
Upper Hutt
Steve Taylor
Karen Chhour: So does the Minister agree with John Tamihere when he says his charity and Oranga Tamariki are in a partnership and not a contract, and if Te Whānau o Waipareira is struck off the Charities Register, will the Minister guarantee that this partnership will end?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What the member needs to do is cross the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from her pākehā world into the Māori world and understand exactly how the Māori world operates. It’s no good looking at the world from a vanilla lens.
Once again we have a Labour Maori MP denigrating another Maori MP and effectively stating they are not a real Maori because they don’t agree with them. They did it to Simon Bridges and now to Karen Chour.
From Karen’s maiden speech:
Life got so bad that, by the age of nine, I didn’t think I was going to survive to the age of 10. It was around this time that I ran away from home and cried out for help. …
I was bounced from pillar to post, and, by the time I was 14, I had moved schools seven times. I could not keep up, so I did what so many have done before, and I simply dropped out. I got a job and I saved what I could, and eventually I moved into a flat and became completely independent. I worked graveyard shifts at McDonalds while I tried to continue my education by day, doing a course. I drank a bit, I cried a lot, but I was doing OK.
I, myself, have been on the receiving end of bullying for some of these very reasons. I was judged when I was younger, sometimes very openly, about just being another Māori dropout that would never get anywhere in life.
Yet Kelvin claims she isn’t a real Maori, implying she grew up in some privileged Pakeha family!
By coincidence a near identical thing just happened in the UK. A UK Labour MP described Conservative Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as “superficially black”. This wasn’t even in Parliament but at a forum at a conference.
The UK Labour MP has been suspended from the Labour caucus for what she said. So the UK Labour Party is more ethical than the NZ Labour Party!
National made increasing immunisation rates a national health target and got the rate up to very close to 95%. Labour abolished the targets and look at what has happened since for two year olds:
This is a major failure which will see potentially horrible health outcomes for those kids not fully vaccinated.
What do you think would make more of a difference to Maori health outcomes – having a Maori Health Authority or having 90% of kids vaccinated instead of 67%?
The ODT reports:
A 91.75% majority vote to change Playcentre Aotearoa’s constitution has been overruled by some of the organisation’s roopu (governance bodies), Playcentre insiders have revealed.
A 91.75% majority vote to change Playcentre Aotearoa’s constitution has been overruled by some of the organisation’s roopu (governance bodies), Playcentre insiders have revealed.
One parent, who asked not to be named, said the nationwide vote on Saturday morning was designed to change the parent-led child care education organisation’s constitution to a “trust deed” so — among other issues — more of the funding it received would go to local playcentres, rather than “98%” going to the administrative body, which operates a bulk-funding model.
In the vote, parents and employees at 366 of 400 playcentres voted yes in favour of change.
A massive 92% vote in favour. A huge mandate for change. But …
However, before any change could come into effect, a separate vote from the organisation’s roopu needed to be considered.
The organisation’s six roopu are “governance bodies within Playcentre Aotearoa, consisting of whanau Maori, to give whanau Maori an equitable voice in Playcentre governance”, which require at least five of the six roopu to agree in order to achieve a consensus.
Four roopu voted in favour and two against, but the two-thirds majority was not enough to carry the change.
Welcome to co-governance! Two votes get to veto 366 votes.
This is the future the Government wants for Three Waters. One Iwi can veto and over-rule 22 South Island Councils.
How Grant Robertson can stand in Parliament and is unchallenged by the opposition when he claims New Zealand’s Covid response was world leading.
1. For total cases – we are now 49th – ahead of far more densely populated countries like Ireland and Hong Kong.
2. For cases per million we are now 46th – ahead of the UK, Ireland, Singapore, USA, Sweden, Finland – and many more.
3. Even in terms of deaths per million – mainly through the mild Omicron – we have made it up to 123rd place and are heading towards the world average. Australia has fewer deaths per million.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Has anyone asked why – when the MoH knew that the mRNAs did not prevent transmission by April 2021 – that they remained the key intervention. How many people got the “two shots for summer” and became over-confident? Then got sick and passed it on to vulnerable people.
Why don’t these questions get asked?
The full results are here.
Party Vote
13% (+2%) undecided.
Preferred PM (unprompted)
Preferred PM (prompted)
The three main contenders for the Wellington Mayoralty are incumbent Andy Foster, Paul Eagle backed by Labour and Tory Whanau backed by the Greens. One of those three will win, so what matters in this STV election are where they are ranked in relation to each other. Rank the one you most want to win highest, the one you can tolerate second and the one you least want to win last.
All three candidates are decent people, and would bring different strengths to the job.
On policy grounds alone, I have the most in common with Andy Foster. But the Q+A poll had him in third place, so how his voters second preference may decide the election. The Council under Andy has achieved quite a bit, but it has been hamstrung by constant infighting and a lack of unity. Now a lot of this can be laid at the party blocs, but not all of it. The fact that two of the CR Councillors are not backing Foster suggests there is more to it than party politics.
Paul Eagle is endorsed by Labour, but not an official Labour candidate. That is good as it means he is not bound to do what the Labour Party orders, unlike those standing on the ticket. Paul is a former Deputy Mayor and was known to be good at working with Councillors from both the left and the right, which is why he has support from both Labour Party Councillors and some of those on the right. Paul would be the best chance of having a Mayor who can unite the Council.
Tory is endorsed by the Greens. Now on policy grounds I could never back her, but I should say she does come from the sane faction of the Greens. Now yes it might be a very small faction, but it does exist. She actually has a corporate background before getting involved in politics, and is a good person.
Now, as with all Councils, the Mayor is just one vote. Here’s some thoughts on some of the ward candidates.
Northern Ward
My No 1 pick is Tony Randle. I have known Tony since university but that is not why I am so excited he is standing. Tony is an expert on public transport. He is hugely pro public transport but even more hugely pro good analysis. Whenever NZTA or GWRC or LGWM puts out a business case for something, Tony gets hold of the detailed work sheets and literally picks up all their errors, their misguided assumptions etc. The ability of WCC to scrutinise transport projects would be hugely enhanced if Tony is a Councillor. If you want public transport decisions based on reality, not fantasy, then Tony is your person.
I also know John Apanowicz. He has been a good community board chair and would be a sensible voice on Council.
For the third slot, both John Peters and Rachel Qi have been recommended to me as sensible people who would focus Council or doing core things well, rather than drowning us in rates and debt.
If you are left leaning incumbent Jenny Condie is diligent. And Ben McNulty is standing for Labour which means I won’t rank him in the top three, but he is from the more sensible side of Labour and would be more rational than some of his colleagues.
Onslow-Western
Diane Calvert is an incumbent and extremely hard working advocate for her area. I don’t agree with her on all issues, but she is a good Councillor who should be re-elected.
I don’t really know them but Ryan Bothma and Ray Chung both strike me as moderate and concerned about keeping rates affordable. If I was in this ward, I’d have them in my top three.
I should mention Labour Councillor Rebecca Matthews. I disagree with her on the vast majority of issues, but I do admire her staunchness in voting for housing rules that will make housing more affordable for future home owners. On that issue she has been a good champion.
Lambton
Nicola Young is a star, and a superb Councillor. She is principled and will defend her own corner – sometimes a sole dissenting voice. But she is also able to work across ideological lines and has developed good relationships with Labour Councillors etc. She is an easy No 1.
Jane O’Loughlin has really impressed me as a candidate. She has done an excellent blog on the problems with the proposed light rail for Wellington (goes to the wrong place, is too short etc). If you want Councillors who can put reality ahead of fantasy, she would be a good pick.
Karl Tiefenbacher seems to be sensible based on his bio, and again if you want affordable rates a good third pick.
I like Iona Pannett, and if it was a decision between her and Tamatha Paul, you have to back the one who was deselected by the Greens for exercising independent thinking.
Eastern
Tim Brown and Steph Edlin would both be great Councillors. I know Steph well and she would bring rational analysis to the Council, rather than ideology. Tim Brown has had a great business career with Infratril and Wellington Airport and WCC would be lucky to have someone of his calibre on the Council.
I like Aaron Gilmore’s policies, but suspect bad publicity will make it hard for him to come through. Rob Goulden also has good policies.
Sarah Free I have known since I was a child, as I was best friends with her sister. Sarah has also been unendorsed by the Greens. She has been a diligent Deputy Mayor and done her best to make the Council work, and while we disagree on policies I think she is a good Councillor.
Southern
I grew up in Island Bay. It still distresses me to see what the terrible cycleway has done to Island Bay. Cycleways are great when done well. The one between Kaiwharawhara and Petone is gong to be amazing, but the Island Bay one is terrible for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
Two independents stand out as worth supporting – Paula Muollo and Inoke Afeaki.
Te Whanganui-a-Tara Māori
Labour’s Matthew Reweti is the clear choice between him and Green’s Nīkau Wi Neera.
DNYUZ reports:
Meg Smaker felt exhilarated last November. After 16 months filming inside a Saudi rehabilitation center for accused terrorists, she learned that her documentary “Jihad Rehab” was invited to the 2022 Sundance Festival, one of the most prestigious showcases in the world.
Her documentary centered on four former Guantánamo detainees sent to a rehab center in Saudi Arabia who had opened their lives to her, speaking of youthful attraction to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, of torture endured, and of regrets.
Film critics warned that conservatives might bridle at these human portraits, but reviews after the festival’s screening were strong.
“The absence of absolutes is what’s most enriching,” The Guardian stated, adding, “This is a movie for intelligent people looking to have their preconceived notions challenged.” Variety wrote: The film “feels like a miracle and an interrogative act of defiance.”
So this is a film which humanises four terrorists. Not exactly my cup of tea, but sounds worthwhile as understanding the complexity of individuals is usually a good thing.
But attacks would come from the left, not the right. Arab and Muslim filmmakers and their white supporters accused Ms. Smaker of Islamophobia and American propaganda. Some suggested her race was disqualifying, a white woman who presumed to tell the story of Arab men.
Sundance leaders reversed themselves and apologized.
Abigail Disney, a grandniece of Walt Disney, had been the executive director of “Jihad Rehab” and called it “freaking brilliant” in an email to Ms. Smaker. Now she disavowed it.
The film “landed like a truckload of hate,” Ms. Disney wrote in an open letter.
Ms. Smaker’s film has become near untouchable, unable to reach audiences. Prominent festivals rescinded invitations, and critics in the documentary world took to social media and pressured investors, advisers and even her friends to withdraw names from the credits. She is close to broke.
So because she is white, the woke jihadists made the film untouchable. They are the same ones that think actors can never play someone of a different gender identity, different race etc.
The cowards like Sundance and Abigail Disney who loved the film then cowed to the mob and decried it and apologised for it.
The one film festival that still ran it is one in NZ – yay we are less insane than the rest of the world.
The Herald reports:
The bill, which is likely to be debated by Parliament next month, has two measures: ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship for broadcast sports, and block appeals of councils’ local alcohol policies.
Swarbrick said she felt they were two uncontroversial proposals which were strongly backed by evidence. They would give councils more control over alcohol availability in their areas and prevent young people from being exposed to the “normalisation and glamorisation” of drinking. …
Within Labour, MPs have expressed support for the proposal to prevent councils from facing constant, endless appeals when they try to introduce their own alcohol policies. But there is concern among some of its MPs about the ban on alcohol sponsorship.
Actually I think the worst part of the bill is around the local alcohol policies. The sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 only allows appeals against Local Alcohol Policies if it is “unreasonable”. What this means is that the Council needs some evidence that the restrictions they propose will reduce alcohol harm. This should be pretty simple.
But Council after Council has failed to do this. They think the Act allows them to place whatever restrictions appeal to them, regardless of any evidence that it will reduce harm. And so they pass LAPs, and then get them struck down because they have no evidence to back them up. And as a society we should demand that Councils have evidence before they restrict citizens from being able to do something they want to, such as buy alcohol conveniently.
I’ll give an example, which I have first hand experience of. Some Councils put into their LAPs a policy that supermarkets can’t sell alcohol after 9 pm. They have no idea whether or not that will reduce harm, but they have been persuaded that the more restrictions you have, the better it is.
The supermarkets hire Curia to survey shoppers at a dozen supermarkets who are shopping between 9 pm and 11 pm, who have purchased alcohol as to whether the alcohol is for consumption that night, or later, and why they are shopping at that time. The vast vast majority say they are purchasing it for later consumption, and are merely buying it as part of their weekly shop because that is most convenient for them as they have kids etc.
So the supermarkets have evidence that the LAP will not reduce harm. It merely inconveniences peoples doing their weekly shop. The vast majority of people at a supermarket at 9.30 pm buying alcohol are not halfway through a party and needing to top up their supplies.
So the supermarkets present their evidence, and they wait for the Council to produce their own evidence that their LAP will reduce harm. And the Council doesn’t. It just ignores the evidence, and then has a tizzy fit when the supermarkets appeal.
And what Chloe’s bill does is reward councils for ignoring evidence by making their decisions, no matter how irrational, unappealable.
It is an appalling bill. All Councils have to do is show their LAPs are reasonable. This is not a high barrier.
Oliver Hartwich writes in The Australian:
Good journalists do not start with a message but with a question.
This makes the New Zealand government’s “Public Interest Journalism Fund” (PIJF), set up in mid-2020, a questionable exercise. For local media to apply for a slice of the available NZ$55 million, they first need to sign up to supporting a list of political causes.
The standard funding agreement to access the PIJF contains a section titled “New Zealand Identity and Culture and Public Interest requirements”.
“You will use best endeavours to ensure all Content reflects and develops New Zealand identity and culture,” it states.
It then asks journalists to ensure, among other matters, that content “actively promotes the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.”
If you are unfamiliar with New Zealand politics, this requirement may sound innocent. Who would object to good race relations? No-one, hopefully.
However, the wording makes it clear that the actual agenda goes well beyond an acknowledgment of the Treaty of Waitangi as an historic document of constitutional significance. It demands that journalists accept the government’s interpretation of the Treaty and then promote it actively.
The problem is that the meaning of the Treaty is a contemporary political issue, and there is more than one political interpretation. Therefore, the expressed requirement to take a side necessarily collides with journalists’ professional ethos, irrespective of their personal stance on the Treaty.
The government paying journalists only on the condition that they agree to spread the government’s message on the Treaty creates an obvious challenge for journalism in New Zealand.
Hartwich gets the heart of the problem – the $55 million is conditional on media organisation’s agreeing with the Government’s view on the Treaty. This is repugnant. Polling by Curia has shown a massive 59% think the PIJF undermines the independence of the media. Only 24% of Kiwis support retaining the PIJF.
I hope the next Government will scrap it entirely. However there may be a case for funding reporting on court cases and local councils. But this would need to be done with no conditions around the Treaty and through some sort of neutral body not appointed by the Government of the day.
For sport around the globe the last week has been incredible.
First of all the retirement on Roger Federer at 41 years of age and with 20 grand slam singles titles in his resume. A few years back (2003) I was wandering in Melbourne and as I walked past the gate to the Rod Laver Arena the billboard said, “Davis Cup – Roger Federer vs Mark Philippoussis and Marc Rosset vs Leighton Hewitt.” I checked my watch and they were playing that afternoon/evening. I checked at the box office and bought one of the four remaining tickets for this Davis Cup clash. Davis Cup is known for the explosive parochialism of the crowds. Federer was so good, truly a class above, that when he had demolished Philippoussis, in straight sets, he received a standing ovation. Truly a sporting GREAT and seeing Borg and McEnroe farewelling him as the greatest a few days back was special.
Yesterday in Wollongong was the men’s race at the world road cycling championships. Again I have been lucky to attend one of the events (Richmond, Virginia in 2015) along with 650,000 others. The world champs is a grueling one day event of over 260km – ridden in big laps that drives everything to a frenzy over the six hours it takes. It is never slow or easy and every nation’s team is strategizing the whole day through. A twenty-two year old from Belgium, Remco Evenepoel, rode away from the remarkable field of athletes to ride most of the last thirty kilometers on his own and win this highly prestigious race. Incredible. Our media chose to concentrate on another cyclist being arrested when after hours of being disturbed the night before the race by kids banging on his door – he told them to shove-off and push them on their way. The race took over six hours and these people are stunning examples of what humans can do.
As that race was finishing in Australia the Berlin marathon was starting with over 45,000 runners from 120 countries and a million spectators. In terms of a winner all interest was in 37 year old Eliud Kipchoge from Kenya. His resume is the running equivalent of Federer’s tennis one. Yesterday he ran so superbly that for the first 25km he was tracking towards a sub-2 hour certified marathon (he has bettered that time in a tailored time-trial). In the last 17km he slowed a tiny amount but still set a new world record of 2:01.09 – and managed to look like he been up the driveway to check the mail.
New Zealand has adopted a fortress mentality with our response to covid and become very introvert. It is good to know that the world has moved on and great people have gone back to doing extraordinary things.
So – as you spend your day mourning the loss of Queen Elizabeth the 2nd. If you want a pick-me-up please look up those three events above.
The ODT headline:
The gauntlet for drink-drivers is getting narrower, Dunedin police say, after hundreds of motorists were breath-tested in the city yesterday.
Constable Nick Turner, of Dunedin, said their impairment team tested 700 drivers during their shift yesterday.
During one checkpoint in Brighton at 4.30pm, 24 drivers were found to have alcohol on their breath, which suggested people were having a beer before driving home, Const Turner said.
None of the drivers was found to be over the legal alcohol limit.
This should be a good news story. 700 people were tested and not a single one was over the legal limit.
It’s great that the 24 people who had a small amount of alcohol in their system knew to only have one or two drinks, to remain safe.
Two polls have both shown Wayne Brown now in the lead for the Auckland Mayoralty.
A Curia-Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance poll from 11 to 18 September had Wayne Brown 2% ahead of Efeso Collins, and a Kantar-Q+A poll from 16 to 20 September has Brown 6% ahead. The Curia poll had Viv Beck withdraw halfway through the polling period while the Kantar poll was taken entirely afterwards (they also did a poll before hand, but redid it once Beck withdrew).
This confirms it is clearly a two horse race now between Brown and Collins, with Brown in the lead.
Collins is a very decent guy, and he would be more independent than Goff was. Yes he is Labour and backed by Labour, but he has been quite independent in how he voted on Council. If you were to have a Labour aligned Mayor, he would be a better choice than Richard Hills whose only mission as Mayor would be to help get Jacinda re-elected. Collins is not just a partisan hack.
That is not to say that I agree with his policies. I don’t. Free public transport is a monumentally stupid idea. The reason is simple – it will increase usage of public transport, but massively decrease quality as there will be no money to pay for extra capacity etc.
Brown has a formidable reputation as a very competent change manager, and if elected he is promising to upend the status quo. This is a good thing, as the vast majority of Aucklanders think the status quo is terrible. But there are question marks over his ability to take people with him – and the Mayor is only one vote.
Most promising is Brown has pledged to reduce the staffing bill for the Council, especially at the top end. It is pretty much impossible to keep rates increases low, unless you focus on staffing, as that is by far the largest cost. If Brown is elected, I suspect there will be a massive turnover of staff at the second and third level.
I would certainly vote for Brown if I loved in Auckland. If anyone can get the CCOs under control, it will be him.
For meaningful change, one needs to change not just the Mayor, but also the Council. Below are the candidates worth voting for, if you want a Council less likely to sign off huge rates increase. Inclusion here is not an endorsement of everything they do – it may be simply they are the lesser evil 🙂
Marina Nemat at CNN writes:
Mahsa Amini is dead because she let the world see a few locks of her hair. She was 22-years-old, beautiful, and full of hope and promise. She died in the custody of Iran’s morality police. She was neither the first, nor will she be the last.
Iranian officials claim she died after suffering a “heart attack” and falling into a coma (she was detained for allegedly breaking rules on wearing the hijab). But Amini’s family – and demonstrators across the country – aren’t buying it. Watching dramatic images of protesters burning their hijabs, cutting their hair and violent confrontations with security forces, shows how little has changed since my own teenage years at the hands of police and Revolutionary Guard brutality.
She was murdered by the regime because she showed some hair. Barbaric.
I was one of those who spoke out against the regime and paid the price – though not as dearly as some of my fellow activists. At the age of 16, I was accused of being an anti-revolutionary and sent to Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.
Even now, decades later, every night when I go to bed, I think of my cellmates. Many are dead, executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s. And those who survived, like me, were tortured in prison. Guards and interrogators, all men, tied us to bare beds in small, windowless rooms that stunk of sweat, urine, and fear, and they lashed the soles of our feet with lengths of cable – heavy, hard, and cruel. It hurt so much that I could not even scream. I was later led to a mock execution, threatened, and raped. I was practically a child and so were many of my cellmates.
Makes the Taliban look civilised.
The recent election in Sweden saw the Sweden Democrats gain 11 seats and about to join Government for the first time. In 2010 they entered Parliament with 20 seats and now have 73 seats.
Many people have wondered why so many people in Sweden now vote for a party that is seen as hard right.
Well the reason is pretty simple. Guess how many bombings there have been in Sweden since 2018? Most people would think maybe 1 or 2, perhaps half a dozen. I mean a bombing is a major event, you would expect to hear about.
The answer is around 500!
Paulina Neuding writes at Common Sense:
Yesterday morning, Swedes woke up to news of a kind that has become all-too familiar: During the night, powerful bombs exploded at apartment buildings in two different towns in southern Sweden.
One person was severely injured in Åstorp, where a witness told the press: “People screamed and cried. It felt so unreal.” A resident told Radio Sweden that his 7-year-old had come running into his bedroom screaming, as the blast made their apartment shake.
In Helsingborg, the explosion was so powerful that, according to the police, cars parked nearby were destroyed. It is still unclear if the bombings are connected to each other, or who is behind them.
Since 2018, there have been almost 500 bombings—yes, bombings—in what is known as one of the most stable societies in the world.
There’s not just a bombing problem. There are shootings, too.
Sweden, which has a population of around 10 million, has the highest per-capita number of deadly shootings of 22 European countries. Forty-seven people have been shot dead so far this year, which, while far from American levels of gun homicide, is extreme for Europe. Other European countries have come to look at Sweden with horror.
Around 100 bombings a year and a fatal shooting every few days.
Among shooting suspects, 85 percent are first- or second-generation immigrants, according to the newspaper Dagens Nyheter, as immigrant neighborhoods have become hotbeds for gang crime. National Police Commissioner Anders Thornberg has described the violence as “an entirely different kind of brutality than we’ve seen before” and his deputy, Mats Löfving, says that 40 criminal clans now operate throughout the country. Spreading fear are “humiliation robberies,” targeting children and youth, in which victims are subjected to degrading treatment by assailants, such as being urinated upon. Just this week, four men were sentenced for robbing, beating and urinating on an 18-year-old, who was also filmed by his tormentors.
I am a big fan of immigration, done well (as generally done in NZ). But immigration done badly where integration doesn’t occur can be very harmful, and this has happened in Sweden.
In response to Sweden’s increasing problems with gang violence and social unrest in immigrant suburbs, the government’s strategy for many years was to deny how serious the situation had become. In the meantime, those people who noticed the problem—many of whom were working class—and spoke out about their diminished safety were accused of racism by leading politicians, the mainstream press, and the cultural elites. Only one political party did not: the SD. And in election after election, they gained more and more popular support.
If the moderate centrist parties won’t confront an issue for fear of being called racist, then the parties further away from the centre who do confront it will gain support as people think there is no other option.
Many immigrants have integrated well into Swedish society, but too many have ended up in segregated suburbs, where unemployment is high and crime is rampant. In an area like Malmö’s Rosengård, for instance, labor force participation among adults is less than 50 percent, and 21 percent of households rely on social welfare.
Again integration is key.
When stories started appearing about gang-rule and attacks on people going into immigrant neighborhoods, sometimes referred to as “no-go zones,” a government agency started a PR campaign to rename them “go-go zones.” The government had help from left-leaning Swedish media. In 2015, the editorial page of Dagens Nyheter, for instance, said that people expressing alarm about crime were “safety-deniers,” and compared them to climate deniers.
Laughing at the PR campaign – could imagine that happening in NZ also.
Josie Pagani writes:
Fifty-seven per cent of voters in Wellington want their city council to fix their ‘’pipes and water infrastructure’’. It’s their highest priority.
Two per cent want more cycleways, the lowest priority.
The council has reflected voters’ preferences by agreeing to spend $226 million on more cycleways. However much it might have spent on fixing pipes, they continue to eject effluent on to the streets with metronomic regularity.
Voters don’t dislike cycleways. They are over the priority placing they get compared to other civic enhancements.
Exactly. We need a Council that will focus on core services and facilities such as water, playgrounds, libraries, parks etc and less on white elephants.
The annual Herald Mood of the Boardroom has occurred and as usual I summarise the scores CEOs give to key politicians. While CEOs are not representative of all NZers it is interesting to see how their scores have changed from last year and which MPs are seen as better and worse performing.
A huge decline for most Ministers this year, with some saying it is the worst Government since Muldoon.
Scores are on a 1 to 5 scale so 3 is middle.
Amazing that the Labour Deputy Leader is rated bottom. Could you imagine Don McKinnon, Michael Cullen or Bill English being outside the top 10, let alone bottom?
And could you imagine Helen Clark or John Key being rated only 12th best performing Minister?
Also very amused that the Minister ranked highest by CEOS, and by a large margin, is Greens co-leader James Shaw. That won’t help him when the Marxist faction come again for him next year.
The largest drops are:
hil Twyford will be glad he has Kelvin there to make him look good.
They also rate Ardern in a number of different areas:
So Ardern has shot up for her handling of security and intelligence, but massive drop in political performance and large drops in all other areas.
Simon Wilson and Bernard Orsman have given their ratings for the incumbent Auckland Councillors. I’m amazed so many got 8/10s or higher because if they were all so brilliant, then why does the Council have only 20% or so of Aucklanders thinking they are doing a good job. Seems a mismatch.
Anyway here are their ratings (averaged), for those interested.
Those who vote with Goff seem to all get rated very highly and those who don’t, very poorly.
The Herald reports:
Finance Minister Grant Robertson remains committed to passing legislation to create a state income insurance scheme before next year’s general election.
Every working Kiwi will see their take home pay slashed under Grant’s plan. It’s a $3.5 billion tax hike which will see workers pay up to $1,800 a year so people made redundant can get paid up to $400 a day to not find a job.
The only way to stop this massive tax hike will be to vote them out next year.