Not waving, drowning
So, who'd be in Winston's Italian leather brogues right now? The Green Parrot Emperor is on a hiding to nothing in Tauranga, the Winston First party vote is looking like the Whanganui mudflats at low tide (so that's where the "man for a change" billboard pictures were shot), and his only hope for a coalition partner fast disappearing into the sunset.
But wait, Winnie, all is not lost. Far from giddy political heights of a late night at Bellamy's and even farther from the excitement of blue rinse bridge clubs of Tauranga, the spirit of Winston First thrives in Wanganui, World Capital of Direct Dumbocracy.
This loyal adherence to a policy no one wants puts us in mind of Hiroo Onoda - the valiant but misguided Japanese soldier who took more than 29 years of splendid solitude on a godforsaken island called Luban to finally accept that the Sun God Emperor had become a white dwarf and the Greater Winston Co-Prosperity Sphere was a dead Peking Duck.
Just a kamikaze flight from those Whanganui mudflats, the Diva of the Ditch proudly but misguidedly flies the Winston First ensign, looking for all the world like a latter day Onoda shouting "Direct Democracy for All" and "We shall never surrender".
Then suddenly, amid the flax bushes and miniature chilli plants camouflaging Mount Guyton there fluttered last week the flag of victory and hope, planted in reckless disregard of their personal safety by those two fearless soldiers for the anti-imperial cause, Lieutenants McGregor and Dahya.
As the flag of Direct Dumbocracy fell still, a new breeze stirred among the chilli plants and a new cry was heard, one to which the Boy King appeared to have no answer. Why not ask the people of the Empire whether they really want to have an Emperor at all?, called the brave Lieutenants of the people's army.
So, 60 years and a few days since the formal surrender of Japan on September 2 1945 the loyal and not-so-loyal subjects of the Boy King await the answer to this most apt and vexing question.
Comments on this post are now closed.
80 comments:
It'll be interesting to see what sort of party vote Winnie picks up in Whanganui this election as people are realising that what they were "sold" in October was Winston First policy in disguise.
Speaking of which, I figure the billboard pic shows Winston left high and dry, at the last minute, without a candidate in Whanganui and looking to see if he's got any mayoral doo-doos stuck to his shoe.
What a silly statement. Peters might have promised direct democracy but he didn't deliver when given the opportunity. Michael Laws is.
And on the referendum projects, I noted that the mayor said they would be funded from asset sales. It was in all the literature that was delivered to my household. I wouldn't moan about it now that he's doing as he pronmised!
I wouldn't moan about it now that he's doing as he pronmised!
So why didn't Unsworth have his $1.25 million by July 1 then?
"So why didn't Unsworth have his $1.25 million by July 1 then? "
And why hasn't he been roasted for claiming that he would have it?
John Unsworth isn't running the Splash Centre project. It's like the proposed Sarjeant extension - Council pays, council takes responsibility, council manages.
I've read nowhere that John Unsworth was to get $1.25m - more nonsense from stupid people. Hell, according to my council minutes they haven't even approved the final designs.
Correct. Unsworth was the project promoter, not the manager. He wants council to take over the project having got it this far,.
I see you've given up on the broken mayoral window sh*t then, LawsWatch. Rumour with malice aforethought.
If that's the case why did Unsworth say in River City Press he'd have $1.25 million in ratepayers money by July 1 then? C'mon Michael answer the question.
It's in River City Press June 9 issue page 2.
I think you've got it wrong, LawsWatch. Don Brash, not Winston, is emerging as the No 1 role model for our Michael:
1. Don said it's okay to lie (for a good right wing cause)
2. Don thinks he might remember being advised to buy his way to the treasury benches
3. Don's not good under pressure. Last week Michael started talking about the Cooks Gardens Trust Board when he really meant the Sarjeant TB, today Don starts raving about the dangers of National
4. No tactic is apparently too dirty for his "supporters"
Look, I've made an "executive decision" to repost this worthwhile contribution to the Splash Centre debate here, in case it gets overlooked.
I think it needs to be read in conjunction with this (from an email dated 29 April written on Laws instructions):
In response to your specific enquiry re operating expenditure the following is provided
"Mayor Michael Laws says that the information provided is sufficient. The additional operating expenses of the two major projects (i.e. the Sarjeant Gallery and Splash Centre Extensions) would need to be borne by the organisations responsible for running the facilities and not by the Council. Council's contribution is the capital funding and proponents of some projects may need to cut their cloth as a consequence"
Ian McGowan
Deputy CEO
Here's the relevant post from Rob Vinsen said...
Anonymous said...
Look, I'm on your side on this one. I voted for the splash centre but I have to admit I didn't really think about where the money would come from. I guess there was just so much hype from ML that I thought it was taken care of.
Well, I voted for it #1 also. But it did'nt need a $50,000 referendumb to tell us that its a much needed amenity- the last Council had already allowed $1.5M for it this year. Laws has fudged the real cost though- Keith Hindson's report to Council back in December( I have a copy) quoted the increased cost to ratepayers as going from the current $335,000 pa to $865,000 pa. He said that the current community facilities rate of $300 will increase by $54. When I asked Laws at his public meeting why he did'nt reveal this to voters in the referendumb, he lied and said that the figures were inflated by the promotors of the project and "he would'nt allow it to happen". It is an interesting stat when you consider that the increased running cost of the Splash Centre is almost the total annual cost of the Sargeant Gallery. I believe the effect of the Splash Centre extension on rate demands should have been revealed prior to the referendumb..I am most disappointed that not one of the current councillors has gone public on this, and that the Chron never reported this meeting of the Economic Cttee in December where the Splash Centre project was presented by designer Denis McGowan, Danny Jonas ( Pool Manager) and Hindson.
Yes, but I seem to remember someone anonymous (who sounded an awful like the mayor himself) saying here on LawsWatch that it was assumed the council would take over the capital works and the ongoing running costs from Mr Unsworth and Co.
So he do we believe, or rather which version of the ML truth do we believe ... no don't answer that!!
This splash centre saga is a bit like a racehorse romping
home in the Mayoral Referendumb Stakes, under the mayoral
whip, then being taken in for drug testing and being found
out.
We rely on the Chron and the so-called independent, thinking
councillors to be our race stewards and ask the hard
questions of the owner, Mr Unsworth, et al, but once again
they seem to be asleep on the job.
So how about it, Mr Maslin? Why not get one of your ace
reporters to find out what the hell is going on?
Dear Lord, LawsWatch
why are you all so obsessed with H-O-R-S-E-S?
Dear Lord is an odd sort of phrase,
Speculation is all that he craves,
Computer bombarded tosser,
He's three times proved loser,
Liability Laws what a shame.
TAPLOL
I see TADPOL is back to his no talent poetry. Must be from Wanganui where you poor bastards have to go because the rest of the country has given up on you ever entering the 21st Century.
Some misinformation on this blog regards the Splash extension.
The council have made it very clear that the responsibility for MANAGING the project rests with the council.
The responsibility for RAISING THE ADDITIONAL MONEY rests with the Working Party which includes John Unsworth.
Postscript: If your information source is ever Rob Vinsen just remember the guy gets his info wrong often, hence all that hoo-ha over pensioner flats still hanging like an albatross.
Every time you call Laws a "liar" you distance yourself from being taken seriously.
There are different viewpoints and given that you guys in here hate him and think that everything he does is bad, then you lose perspective.
LawsWatch - you look really dope over the so-called smashed window.
Apology, man.
Are you thick, Vinsen? (Don't answer that - we know).
The mayor gave you an HONEST answer when he said council wouldn't let the running costs of the new Splash extension escalate to that. They'll obviously redesign the extension to fit within their budget and within their running costs which included a super-duper deluxe version.
No wonder you're unelectable.
Every time Laws quotes a "fact", it later turns out that his "facts" are self-serving spin. Your suggestion that this is somehow trivial says something about you.
Let me give you a considered response to Rob V's strange posting, if I may.
All capital projects have an estimated cost that you advance when seeking funding from central or local. Those costs usually escalate over the life of a project and the Sarjeant extension is a good example. It went from $6.5m to $8.3m once all the research was completed.
The Splash sponsors have come up with a project that originally was going to cost $1.8m. They then added a number of extra bits and had professional fees etc taken in and that ended up as $4.5m.
The running costs of the Splash were also estimated to rise to $830K pa (Rob V is right) if all the various ideas were incorporated into the design.
Now, this is one of those curious circumstances where both Rob V and the mayor are right. The mayor is entitled to say that the extension must not cost more than $4.5m and with running costs of not more than say $500K.
That means the plannning will need to fit the financial guidelines imposed by the primary cashier - ie council. That's not "lying", Ron. That's cutting your suit to fit the cloth and frankly I'm reassured by that commitment.
Anon really talked shit when he said:
"They'll obviously redesign the extension to fit within their budget"
uh huh. "Redesign" costs money, spinner. Where's that money coming from?
One other matter should be clarified and that relates to an earlier posting.
Lawswatch had the facts wrong with regard to the reasons relating to the plyboard square attached to the outside of the mayor's office. I believe that the author is a responsible person so a correction is the proper response. We cannot always be right.
(Sigh). Yes, of course re-design costs money but not as much as proceeding with the wrong and over-budget design.
Is 'Joan', Joan Street?
If so I'd like to know how she ended up writing a Vision policy (according to Joan) that clearly had the intention of destroying the Sarjeant gallery extension?
Give anon a spade, because she tossed:
"the wrong and over-budget design."
From her enormous experience of architectural design.
A very astute series of observations in response to Rob's points - thankyou. It has lifed the ya-boo-sucks nature of debate here.
Anonymous said...
If that's the case why did Unsworth say in River City Press he'd have $1.25 million in ratepayers money by July 1 then? C'mon Michael answer the question.
It's in River City Press June 9 issue page 2.
An earlier poster has characterised Rob Vinen as a "loser", which is unfair.
But I'm a relative newcomer here so I don't quite appreciate local politics. From what people tell me, Rob won a council seat in 1998, lost it in 2001 and just failed to get elected to Horizons last year.
Given his business credentials, then why? Was he too young, or ahead of his time?
Can't speak for the mayor but there are a number of possibilities as to Unsworth's reported remarks;
1. He didn't say theml;
2. He was misquoted;
3. He was wrong.
You choose.
All I can ay is that council is giving away my money to the extension I hope they make sure they're in charge, and not some lawyer.
Isn't it true that the Splash promoters have only raised $500K themselves & that was one cheque from Powerco? That's not all that brilliant a result given they need $1.5m more.
Anon waffled:
"...there are a number of possibilities as to Unsworth's reported remarks..."
Let's let UnsworthWatch answer that, shall we? Meanwhile, how does Mickey Mayor intend to fund his contribution to John's established commitment to the Splash Centre?
The anonymous poster sounds like the same person who spent about an hour and a half on the phone to me seeking my candicacy for Vision - and then denying publically that he had done so. Just what's with the comment about the pensioner flats ?
What I have written is in the minutes of the Strategy Meeting of 15th December on the Council website. But I confess I did get one thing wrong - I thought it was the Economic Cttee. My point about ML lying remains as it was the report prepared by council officers that revealed the extent of the increased costs, not the "promotors" as he told the meeting, and he knew that.
I too, am confident that the costs to the ratepayer can be reduced, especially as the budgeting did not allow for increased door charges, but my point that this debate about increased costs associated with the extension should have occurred prior to the referendumb remains. This project must proceed with everyone knowing what it will cost- if information is not revealed there will be a backlash.
Joan
you forgot c) just a little naive
Sounds harsh, but honestly isnt really meant as a criticism. Realistically you are too nice for politics. Sometimes a hard line stance is needed and tough decision made, from an outside perspective you appear to try to walk both sides.
You also dont state if you felt the gallery extension was financially viable for the Council, which was a corner stone of Vision policy and support from day one. You must have signed on knowing this.
Also big question, did you officially spit the dummy on Vision BEFORE or AFTER the election result left you out? Some dates would be nice.
" how does Mickey Mayor intend to fund his contribution to John's established commitment to the Splash Centre? "
My guess would be the Egypt painting plus the McCahon plus a couple of other jewels from the Sarjeant's crown.
"The anonymous poster sounds like the same person who spent about an hour and a half on the phone to me seeking my candicacy for Vision"
Thanks for being so candid Rob. It's a pity you didn't take him up on it and ride in with his Vision dollars. That would mean there would be someone with a bit of integrity and guts there within the party calling him to account, instead of the stuffed dwarves he's ended up with.
There's obviously significant, and valid, disagreement on the costs - and the responsibility for those costs - of the Splash Centre.
One of the major concerns we have on any referenda (not just those run by this particular Council, either) is the difficulty of ensuring an informed public. The commenter who said "this debate about increased costs associated with the extension should have occurred prior to the referendumb remains. This project must proceed with everyone knowing what it will cost- if information is not revealed there will be a backlash" was spot on.
So... anyone who has emails, letters or other documents relating to the costs of the Splash Centre (both capital and ongoing) is welcome to scan and email them to lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com and we will post them (or links to them) here.
Lawswatch-could you provide a link to the minutes of the Strategy Meeting 15th Dec 2004 please. A further interest in these minutes is the comments re the need to produce working drawings and final costings prior to having a referendum - and Mayor Laws proposed the motion to do so. It would have been a curly one for him if the public had rejected the Splash Centre idea.For a $4M job the working drawings would have been , I guess, $150,000.
Vinsen, you're such a loser.
Stop whining because a) you keep losing elections & causes and b) the mayor and his team are smarter and more popular than you. Stick to Mainstreet and stuffing that up.
Noone believes Laws or his Vision team wanted you - why would they want an electoral loser & liability.
Here's a challenge - the same M-Anyon failed. Try producing one letter, one e-mail of Vision wanting you. Just one will be fine.
Yes, Rob.
The allegation has been made, and now the proof is required. The Vision team obviously prefers to use e-mails so that shouldn't be hard for you to produce this 'invitation'.
From memory, Annette Main and the mayoress Leo were elected to Horizons as Wanganui's reps, so I don't think Rob is a loser so much as out-petticoated.
Just out of curiosity, I checked the council referendum website on the Splash Centre - the same info that went out to all households with the voting papers.
It outlines the capital contribution as $1.25m for each year equalling $2.5m - and then says this:
*The additional operating expenditure of this project will need to be borne by the Splash Centre and not the Council. Council's contribution is the capital funding and some projects may need to 'cut their cloth' as a consequence.
What's Rob Vinsen up to? That makes it very explicit. It's not the mayor lying, Rob. It's you.
"The additional operating expenditure of this project will need to be borne by the Splash Centre..."
I think that's a deliberate mis-representation. "Will need to be?" Or else what? Ratepayers are going to end up paying for this, not to mention the inevitable blow-out in building costs. Mickey has no basis for his assertions, no analysis to determine whether expecting the Splash Centre to find its own $800,000 is reasonable. He's lying.
Oh, and Mickey, I'd never vote for Rob Vinsen, but I believe what he says over your lies any day.
But if anyone needed any more evidence of Vision's malice, they need look no further than Bob Walker on the Chron. letters page.
Gosh you're thick.
The bit you deliberately missed related to the project needing to "cut its cloth".
The whole council unanimously signed off on the info package for the referendum, dumbo. Your hatred of The Man is affecting your reading ability.
"Will need to cut its cloth"? How? More lies. No backup for these assertions, no Council resolution to support any of it. Laws is lying.
Don't you just love Lawsmob screeching at Rob Vinsen to produce a record of a telephone call. Are you people stupid, or just dishonest?
It's good to see our fulltime mayor up so early this morning seeing attending to the needs of his constituents.
I wonder whether his household's other dedicated servant of the people is also putting in the hours. As he reminds us this morning ...
"the mayoress Leo was elected to Horizons as one of Wanganui's reps"
From what I've heard being elected on the diVision ticket was about the most distinguished part of her Horizons career.
Can LawsWatch follow up and perhaps put in an official information request for her attendance records at Horizons meetings.
And in view of Laws' screaming about local council salaries and total payouts, is it true she's actually being made more than the WDC ocuncillors?
There are none so stupid as the Laws-haters.
You keep forgetting that EVERYTHING to do with the referendum - incl the information package - was formulated & signed off by a) the Referendum Working Party (incl Crs Westwood & Hughes) & b) then unanimously by council.
So it's a gargantuan conspiracy - Carol, Matt & Rob (now there's a ticket for the by-electon) - the WHOLE council incl all the senior staff are in on it.
Better call 'Investigate' magazine!
"being made more ..."?
Who's the illiterate?
Only one result counts.
1. Mains
2. Brookhammer
Loser. Vinsen.
Tell me ain't so, Robbie. Beaten by 2 sheilas.
Still waiting for the letter or e-mail, Rob V. You've made the assertion ... provide the proof.
Ooops ... it didn't happen. Liar.
"MAYOR TO STAR IN NEW TV SHOW"
Don't you hate it!?!
He's not a loser like the rest of you.
A fair question to JOAN STREET in an earlier thread.
"Did you jump [from Vision] before
or after the election?"
Like your comment on that, Joan.
A couple of fair questions to ML (and/or the Chron) from earlier postings:
1. Why did John Unsworth lie in the the River City Press about the council commitment to providing $1.25 million for his swimming pool by July 1?
2. Why haven't you hung him out to dry for telling porkies about funding commitments for capital works projects?
3. Is the funding on track for the end-of-2005 deadline?
A borrowing we will go,
A borrowing we will go,
To pay for a swimming pool don't you know,
A borrowing we will go.
Anonymous said...
"being made more ..."?
Who's the illiterate?
Only one result counts.
1. Mains
2. Brookhammer
Loser. Vinsen.
Tell me ain't so, Robbie. Beaten by 2 sheilas
Should'nt Walker be after Vinsen, was'nt he a distant fourth? Stick to the debate knitwit- why has Laws not made a press release on the costs to the ratepayer of the Splash Extension ( he does on everything else), and dont tell me the Splash Centre promotors will pay these anymore than the original Splash Centre promotors are paying the current $335,000 pa.
Leonie Brookhammer 5,551
Rob Vinsen 5,132
Bob Walker 4,856
Yeah not many votes between 2,3 and 4 but it's rich for Laws to be slagging off Rob V when his own little luvvie Bobbie came in even further down the track.
Anon 9:11 AM, September 06, 2005 said:
and dont tell me the Splash Centre promotors will pay these anymore than the original Splash Centre promotors are paying the current $335,000 pa.
There are more parties than just Ml and Unsworth. Counil represented by ML has undertaken to put $2.5m in over two years when the project is fully funded. (plans and final specs to be confirmed).
Unsworth runs a group who have VOLUNTEERED to raise money from the community. Didnt see Matt or Carol on any fundraising committees apart from SOS (sarcasm over substance).
The pool is then run under contract and it is this group (Sport Wanganui) who will need to find operational costs. They can come back to Council (but have been told not to expect anything), they can increase user charges, they will have more users anyway. They can increase services, better gym, health spa, shop, food, drinks etc etc. In fact they have already done a very intensive survey on users needs and expectations already.
Good point. when was the last time Dull dutton or COC's Carol (love that acronym) did anything for anybody, except hate?
"Counil represented by ML has undertaken to put $2.5m in over two years when the project is fully funded."
Huh??? Flip flop alert!
What does fully funded mean?
and
How does this fit with Unsworth claiming that he'd have $1.25m by July 1?
You should ask Mr Unsworth but on all the public info I've seen, he's in error. More likely though he was speaking figuratively.
I'm amused that after dicking RiverCity Press some bloggers here now regard it as the authoratative source!
speaking figuratively ... now that's an interesting concept. Would you now say, perhaps, that Mr Cairncross was "speaking figuratively"?
no, Cairncross lied.
He said he had funds that he didn't. So did Milbank.
Unsworth is lying, cretin. He said the council had committed $2.5m, half of that before July 1.
Unsworth, Millbank and Cairncross were guilty of nothing but honest enthusiasm for their projects, which led to unfortunate turns of phrase. Michael splits these hairs like a schoolboy debater, but when it comes to the substansive issues, he's nothing but a dead dog around Wanganui's neck. Unable to lead, or see past the end of his own nose, grown as it has to rival Pinnochio's. So he sends Bob here to spew his hate, which is the only thing Bob is good for.
They can't change the Council minutes, though, and they say that the Splash Centre cash isn't there. They go on to say some very interesting things about where it is coming from. Mr. Unsworth's public fundraising drive had better get busy.
Spin Mickey spin.
"The pool is then run under contract and it is this group (Sport Wanganui) who will need to find operational costs. They can come back to Council (but have been told not to expect anything), they "
Anonymous who made this comment would appear to be seriously deluded. This is news to me, and I'm a Board Member of Sport Wanganui. Sport Wanganui contracts to the WDC to manage the Splash Centre( subject to competitive tender)- if costs rise the contract price will rise. Sport Wanganui's estimates of cost based on the new design are in the Strategy Cttee minutes of 15th Dec-I suggest you read them.
Bob said...
...hatred...
which is his favourite thing in the whole world.
Hey Rob. How did you get on the Sport Wanganui board. Obviously it was an appointed position, not an elected one!
Joan, you're alive! great.
Now tell us ... did you leave Vision BEFORE or AFTER the election?
Yes, pretty standard abuse from Bob in the Chron. this morning Joan. Vision really need a new chairman, I think. It simply isn't appropriate for a party chair to make the kind of remarks he's been making regarding arts supporters. But then, as you point out, with Michael displaying his bigotry as you describe, Bob seems a perfect Vision mouthpiece.
It must be awful for the other members of his team, but then, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Yes, Joan Street only seemed to discover her "conscience" after she wasn't elected. Happy to take Vision's money up until then, weren't you dearie? A real well-poisoner.
Joan, you must be so relieved to not have to deal with these malicious scum anymore.
Yeah, come on Joan, tell us about their campaign tactics.
Did Michael ask you to do anything you considered dishonest during the campaign, Joan?
They don't play nice in here, do they Joan?
In fact, they play perfectly horrid.
Poor Joan - caught in the crossfire & the friend of none. It will take more than waving an SOS placard to convince us that you're genuine.
Don't be too hard on poor old Bob Walker. He does after all tell us just how he is able to reach the bizarre and slanderous conclusion he dribbles on about in his Chron letter. In fact, as he says, anyone with an IQ not far above ten is capabable of this sort of thinking. He ob viously qualifies and that makes him probably the only Wanganui citizen capable of conceiving it, let along understanding it.
That's also about the limit of IQ for anyone willing to get sucked in and stay sucked in by Michael Brian Laws. So I'd say he is also uniquely qualified to be the key man behind diVision.
Actually, the really weird thing about Mr Walker's letter is that he calls on what he calls "these idiots" to back Cr Higgie in her efforts to develop arts in the city.
And the catalyst for this piece of crap was the Laws press release bylined by the Chron in which he set out to undermine Nicki's efforts to win the trust of her new "friends" and convince them to help fundraise for restoration work on the Sarjeant's collection.
She's the one, remember, who stood up last week and said they should have the chance to do some fundraising before sales were contemplated. Yet there was her boss on the front page white-anting her.
So, Bob. Looks like time, yet again, for you to bang some heads together in the diVision caucus instead of making a laughing stock of yourself in the letters page.
Speaking of the Chron, I see they appear to have dropped the question "What would you change about Wanganui" from the First Person feature on page two.
Could that possibly be because the first thing that sprang to mind for a good proportion of ordinary Wanganuians was "The Mayor" or "The Mayor and Council"?
Can't you just imagine the phone call (or was it an email?) from the Diva to Mr Ed that led to this readjustment of editorial policy on this fearless organ?
Joan, are there any Vision tactics you think we ought to be aware of going into the by-election?
Joan, what was it that Michael doubled? You said you paid your $2,500. Did Michael double everybodies contribution? That would have him spending $20,000 just to donate to the team. It must have been nice to have such a rich backer. Did you ever feel that his generosity compromised your integrity in any way?
Joan, tell us about joining Vision: they forgot to add new membership information to their website, and now it's disappeared completely. Did you have to fill in a form, did Michael call you over for dinner & wine? What gives?
nicki higgie doesn`t read the blog-a pity
Post a Comment