Behind the facade
So let's do a little post-modern deconstructionalist critique thereof, shall we Watchers?
Advantage 1: Some savings may be made in administration costs through reducing the number of councillors (telephone/travel/printing etc).
No doubt a few postage stamps will remain unused. And a few less agendas copied. Fewer phone calls? The Mayor prefers to send out his "What to say and how to vote" commands by email anyway. And if anyone thinks there won't be the unseemly scramble to grab whatever ratepayer-subsidised travel is available just because there's fewer hands shooting out to claim it, they're dreaming.
Advantage 2: It may be possible to reduce the amount paid out each year for councillor salaries and reduce the overall salary pool.
Demonstrably wrong. Illegal, in fact. So either a deliberate lie or the much-vaunted "Working Party" couldn't get such a basic fact correct.
Advantage 3: Groups tend to work better with smaller numbers.
Unsubstantiated opinion at best.
Gosh, yes. And an individual tends to achieve a lot more working alone than when he or she is forced to sit in a lengthy meeting to get sign-off on everything. So why 10? Why not the eight originally suggested? Heck, why not Field Marshall Sir Michael Laws, Ruler for Life?
Why run companies with boards? Why not just let an all-powerful figure run the whole shebang, like say Alan Bond or Conrad Black? They'd never stuff it up.
Of course fewer mind applied to a problem means fewer solutions, less diversity, less chance for alternative viewpoints to be heard. But then that was the plan all along.
Advantage 4: The rural community board could play a more prominent role.
Yes it could. But where's the strategy for it to do so, especially now the rural ward is to be disestablished? Without a plan for it to do so, that doesn't even amount to a hollow promise. It's simply baseless speculation.
Disadvantage 1: Fewer councillors may result in each councillor being paid more.
May? Let's state it again: LGNZ and other authorities confirm that the pool for payment to councillors is fixed and unalterable. They will get more. So again, ill-informed at best, blatant lying at worst.
Disadvantage 2: There may be no salary savings overall if the remuneration pool stays the same.
May?! This is perhaps the one incontrovertible fact in the whole issue and they've got it wrong a third time. Or lied a third time. Take your pick.
Disadvantage 3: Councillors would have a greater workload.
We are - gasp - in agreement with the Mayor on at least one thing. For the money they're getting paid there are many councillors who don't do nearly enough to justify it. But many of the offenders are under his leadership. So why not tackle the issue with a diVision wake-up call?
What of course will happen is that the handful of councillors who work hard for the community will now be forced to work even harder, whilst the free-loaders who barely bother to read an agenda and the double-dippers who make a comfortable living getting themselves elected to multiple public offices will continue as always. Unless the Mayor shows some leadership. Well, Mickey?
Disadvantage 4: It may reduce the opportunity for some groups in the community to be represented around the council table.
Yes, it may well. In fact there are many - including this blog - who are convinced that it will. Given that it's acknowledged as a potential disadvantage, where is diVision's strategy for coping with this? Where is the commitment to seeking out and embracing alternative points of view from all in the community? To distilling the opinions of as many residents as possible - after all, we all have a stake in Wanganui, whether we're diVision voters or not - and synthesising the best possible solution regardless of ideology... all right, we'll stop now. We know it's diVision we're talking about, Watchers. We were only joking.
Disadvantage 5: Councillors may have less contact with individuals in the community.
Simple maths suggests less councillors = less contact. That's bad for democracy. A lot of the contact councillors have with people isn't in a formal setting but while they're active in the community in their other roles - shopper, dog walker, pram pusher etc. Rdduce the number of faces and you reduce "face time".
Again, this could be at least partially compensated for by implementing diVision's pre-election promises, such as that of a "Mainstreet mayoral office" in which Mickey, Dotty and the dwarves would regularly sit, waiting to hear what ordinary citizens thought of them. Now that would be fun.
We've claimed the information that went out with the referendum was biased. Perhaps that wasn't quite the right word. We can think of several others: incomplete, poorly researched, misleading, and just plain stupid.
Comments on this post are now closed.
59 comments:
What, you mean Michael Laws has told a lot of lies? Again? As part of a perfect expression of his character? No surprises here then.
Oh dear. Let's have a look shall we? More input from the rural board? Hardly. Since the rural councillors will be abolished, who will the board make recommendations to? After all, it cannot make decisions, only recommendations. So it will have to take stuff to council committees (which will be packed with Visionites elected at large, so therefore mostly fomr the city) that know sod-all about rural affairs. and if it's something Mickey doesn't like, it won't happen.
As for the greater workload for councillors, what about Sue Pep? How many meetings has she attended? How many will she attend when her workload increases? Will she have had enough by then anyway?
Who wouldn't vote for less politicians? Why don't you ask the voters if they want a mayor or not?
Wrong again, LawsWatch - can't you get ANY facts right?
The Council minutes made it clear when the salaries were debated that the new reumeration authority (under David Oughton's chairmanship) would refrain from granting an increase in WDC salaries if the council was united in rejecting one. In the end all the new councilors plus the mayor voted to refuse but all the old councilors put their trotters in the trough. A council can refuse a salary increase if they overwhelmingly resolve to do so and that advice was tabled at the full council.
Face it: you lost. You've tried your tactics for two years and lost everytime whether its been election, by-elections, referenda, Sarjeant extensions, Code of Conduct ... do we need to go on??
You're losers.Not because you keep losing but because none of you creeps ever puts yourself up for election to challenge the mayor and his team. They'll win 2007 again for the same reason that they do have the guts.
"Face it: you lost."
--------
Keep it up Michael but Lawswatch won't go away.
Your one true motive is to make some sort of history and fuck the consequences. Reality Politics!
And while I have your attention... I'm very happy for you and your new addition to the family but: Any chance of less info next time please. You could have delivered the news without the graphic detail and the invitation to view photos of your partners unshapely breast.
"They'll win 2007 again"
Does this mean you plan to stand again Flaws? Chin up bud, that TV and/or NZ First offer will turn up anyday now. You won't have to put up with us for much longer.
"You're losers.Not because you keep losing but because none of you creeps ever puts yourself up for election to challenge the mayor and his team. They'll win 2007 again for the same reason that they do have the guts. "
____________________________
Hi Micheal
Time is on my side...waiting for you to get bored.
Anonymous said...
Wrong again, LawsWatch - can't you get ANY facts right?
The Council minutes made it clear when the salaries were debated that the new reumeration authority (under David Oughton's chairmanship) would refrain from granting an increase in WDC salaries if the council was united in rejecting one. In the end all the new councilors plus the mayor voted to refuse but all the old councilors put their trotters in the trough. A council can refuse a salary increase if they overwhelmingly resolve to do so and that advice was tabled at the full council.
_________________________
I realy think you should get your facts right.
I heard the mayor today announce at the town hall meeting that he was standing for the DHB in the local body elections next year. It's MIckey to the rescue!
Anon at 2.54pm is wrong. Why can't you morons get your facts even half right: I get the council agendas and minutes and all you have to do is read them!
The mayor beefed up the RCB so it reports direct to council and, unlike previous councils, doesn't go thru a council committee. If you read their minutes they praise him for their increased powers. Plus they get a RCB rep on every council committee with full speaking rights which is another Laws innovation.
Laws and his councillors also hold quarterly rural forums which weren't held before the vision team were elected.
What greater workload? Again why don't you read the council agendas? They've actually moved from six weekly to 2-monthly meeting rounds. There are actually LESS council meetings.
Glad I don't have to rely on this blog for my facts. Can I recommend to other readers they put themselves on the council mailing list and theyll get all agendas, minutes etc. Its my only way of getting the entire story and not relying on the Chron, this blog or council press releases. This blog seems curiously misinformed for a blog claiming to have the inside oil.
Where's the PROOOF that more councillors means better decisions? The last council stuffed up royally with the status quo. Mas is right: its not the numbers but the quality of elected reps that counts.
If the referendum was signed off by all of council (ie a mayor & 12 councilors) then doesn't that make them all equally responsible?
Laws is right when he says that the most prominent of the antis were actually on the working party that framed the final Qs and approved the two referendum pamphlets.
Although on bias: as John Maslin wrote in his editorial yesterday - you wouldn't expect thuis blog to be honest either, would you? (The Keeler putdown: "they would say that, wouldn't they?")
Mental Mickey said;
"The Council minutes made it clear when the salaries were debated that the new reumeration authority (under David Oughton's chairmanship) would refrain from granting an increase in WDC salaries if the council was united in rejecting one. In the end all the new councilors plus the mayor voted to refuse but all the old councilors put their trotters in the trough. A council can refuse a salary increase if they overwhelmingly resolve to do so and that advice was tabled at the full council."
And that was done before the representation was discussed, so what the hell has it got to do with this particular issue?
Gaffe of the week:
Rob Vinsen publicly attacks Cr Brookhammer for being absent from a Horizons vote when she's in hspital recovering from a C-section. Way to go, Wicker Man.
Losers? Just because you supported the wrong side in WWII and the recent Balkan conflict is no reason to go throwing your toys out of the cot, dearie.
I realise it must be hard only having Wanganui to play with. Just suck it in.
The only way you get a letter in the Chron. supporting you is if you sign a false name to one you wrote yourself. You're such a winner.
That's without mentioning the fact that you have nothing to show for yourself beyond politics, that most despised of all professions. You're such a winner.
I can't get excited about the referendum information. It was fairly presented and it wasn't misleading. We should just accept the verdict and move on. this attempt to discredit the result is demeaning and making the mayor look like a democrat.
There is an interesting debate on council numbers and total salaries over in the HB regional Council at the moment - see the latest internet editions of 'Hawke's Bay Today'.
By the way, what was Rob V thinking?
Where does the Chronicle get off? Vision lies have been described as defamatory and in breach of the hospital's CEO's employment conditions. The DHB chair has to tell these useless twats to pull their incompetent heads in, since they're too gutless to do the decent thing and resign.
How does the Chron. portray it?
Perhaps Laws Watch could pass the hat around and shout our Mad Mayor a series of sessions with a shrink. His vast output to this blog shows he's obviously in need of a sympathetic ear ... but isn't that what mayoresses are for?
Mas may have outlived his usefulness to Mickey as his ignominious editorial reign fades into the sunset, but he's sure going out with a bang-a-day-for-Mickey.
It won't be long before he's putting his byline on this sort of crap as Mickey's pet fulltime Taupo Quay based senior writer.
Close to $2 million needed to pay for storm damage?
Let them eat water slides and gold plated dunnies, eh Mickey?
Anonymous said...
The Council minutes made it clear when the salaries were debated that the new reumeration authority (under David Oughton's chairmanship) would refrain from granting an increase in WDC salaries .....
*******
Can Mickey please explain just what this has to do with the size of pool after the next election being split 12 ways or 10?
Like so much mayoral propoganda whether here or elsewhere, this is just another rotten red herring with a distinctly mayoral pong.
Where's the PROOOF that more councillors means better decisions? The last council stuffed up royally with the status quo. Mas is right: its not the numbers but the quality of elected reps that counts.
Strange days indeed when we find ourselves agreeing with both random anonymii and that fading ingenue Mr Maslin.
Yes, more brains don't make better decisions if they're not that smart, and previous Councils have, sadly, proven this. Quality, not size, matters (come to think of it, this must surely be a mantra the Mayor has to repeat to himself several times a day, so what's with the obsession with making things smaller? Anyway...)
The problem is when councillors who have the intelligence needed nonetheless abdicate their responsibility for independent thought and action to a tyrannnical foul-mouthed bully boy with a long history of pathological lying. Couple that with the percentage elected who are just beyond borderline retarded and you've got problems. Then it becomes a numbers game - the more councillors there are, the greater the chance a portion will be both intelligent and outspoken.
Not that we're thinking of anyone in particular. This is, of course, purely a general example.
Let's test that hypothesis LawsWatch: that the more councillors, the smarter the decision-making.
2004 elections - the best losers were margaret Campion, mike Green, david Day, David Bennett and Joan Street. who now thinks the collective IQ around the council table would have risen had they been elected?
If Laws does run for the DHB he'll lead a team and win. I would be very concerned if my surname named with an M or an O!
Yes, it is odd that anyone should even mention Cr Brookhammer's absence from a Horizons meeting since it's really just par for the course. If she can't be bothered showing up under normal circumstances, she's hardly likely to front when she's starring on Birth of the Century, is she?
It's a bit rich calling elected reps "borderline retards" then condemning the mayor for his colourful language!
Maybe thats because the retards have the guts to put themselves up for election and then get sufficient public trust to be elected? Unlike all the anonymous-wankers but everyone knows who you are jerks in here.
C'mon LawsWatch. Have you & your loser lot ever won ANYTHING? Even a frozen chook at a school fair would do.
anon said
this is just another rotten red herring with a distinctly mayoral pong.....
Ah, so THAT'S what Mickey sticks down his lycra shorts ... red herrings!
If only the first prize in the city's raffle in October 2004 HAD been a frozen chook we'd all be a helluva lot better off than with the booby prize we got of a strutting crowing bantam rooster and his chorus of plucked chooks.
From:
Good try Mickey but you're full of shite as usual:
The Remuneration Authority sets a total remuneration pool for a council, taking into account factors such as a council's population and operating expenditure,but not the number of elected members. In consultation with the council, it allocates that pool of money to the council's elected members.
Why does Mickey think Wangas is having its biggest crisis since WW2?
Perhaps he's just realised that the fascists didn't win after all. NOw that's a real crisis for a budding Adolph.
Speaking of our little home-grown fascist, he’ll never really look the part till he goes back to his eye-liner tattooist and gets a little black moustache to go with the wild-eyed screaming rants.
And he could bring in John Cleese for a bit of corporate training in goose stepping and stiff-arm salutes for the Vision Divison and Warburton’s Waffens on staff, not to mention his and Chester’s Hitler Youth brigade.
Vinsen reached a new low today.
A new low from Vinsen? What you mean bagging that awful crone for her slack work ethic?
Still, "low" is something you're an expert on, isn't it?
Marty Lindsay says:
"We know all outcomes to date have been non-binding, but if the result is clear I think there's a moral obligation to head down that road. I've been told councillors are elected to make decisions on behalf of ratepayers. That's true but I don't think councillors read the wind correctly every time."
Just so I understand you, Councillor, you're saying the fact that 4 out of 10 people want you to leave Council numbers as they are isn't clear enough for you? Just ride over their views roughshod, while repeating Mickey's lies about saving money to con the rest, eh? You're a waste of space, Marty.
The wind? What the fuck has the latest trend in public opinion got to do with it?
Famous arseholes pushing eugenics over the years:
Adolf Hitler
Slobodan Milosevic
Mickey Mayor
Note that eugenicists are New Zealand's traditional enemies. Note that Mickey Mayor is a eugenicist. Reach the obvious conclusion that Mickey Mayor is a traitor to this country.
60% majority: "Let's cut Councillor numbers"
40% minority: "Why?"
60% majority: "It'll save money"
40% minority: "No it won't - go do some reading."
60% majority: "OK, I did some reading. Agreed, it won't save money. Let's cut Councillor numbers"
40% minority: "Why?"
60% majority: "Michael says so and when we disagree with him he shouts at us and that makes us uncomfortable."
40% minority: "So break his teeth. Why should anyone pay attention to that malcontent liar?"
60% majority: "Good point."
For those pro-Mickeites out there, I have a question. Vision councillors contend that they are exercising the will of the people. They say that 10,000 said reduce councillor numbers and only 7000-odd said no. Therefore, they say, 60 percent of the population want change and 40 percent don't so Yah, boo, sucks to the "Back 40" So what about the other 25,000 people in the district who didn't vote? Add them in and suddenly you get about 25 percent in favour of change, 17 percent vocally against it and 58 percent who seem quite happy with the status quo. 75 percent who either don't care about reducing councillor numbers (the non-referendum voters) or don't want to. So how does 25 percent of the community suddenly become a ringing endorsement of Vision's mandate? Of course, Mickey will say that those who didn't vote don't count, as though their apathy in the face of local government means they are no longer a part of the democratic process. This is bullshit. People have a democratic right not to vote, as evidenced at pretty much every local election in NZ. Perhaps in future there could be an option on voting papers that says "none of the above".
What an absurd argument that the minority must win for some of the commenters here to feel happy!
By that logic, Chester Burrows should not be MP, nor tariana Turia nor Michael Laws mayor because a minority didn't vote for them. Democracy works by having contests of ideas and people and the majority decides the winner.
And if you don't vote, then you let others decide for you. I hope you guys run these arguments before the representation commission - they'll wet themselves with laughter.
Face it: you hate losing, losers.
Bearhunter said...
For those pro-Mickeites out there, I have a question
-----------
Excellent post
Bearhunter, i have an answer.
When there is an election or referendum then all registered voters are entitled to vote. It is always a choice and electors choose the option(s0 that best suits them.
If people don't vote then their opinion is discounted. That is way western democracy works.
If there is a question and the pro-cuts win 10,000 votes to 6,500 then that represents the majority view of the community.
Are all you posters migrants from non-democratic countries?
bearhunter - you're stupid.
There are 30,000 people aged 18 years and over in the Wanganui district. Why would you think the opinion of those who are children or infants should be counted when they can't vote? The turnout at the referendum was 55% - a better turnout than elects US presidents or metro mayors.
None of the above would win every time, Bearhunter.
It's about time this Council started working for the entire community, instead of no-one but Mickey's antedeluvian redneck constituency.
"Are all you posters migrants from non-democratic countries? "
Excellent! The Bob Clarkson "send 'em all back" argument. How refreshing to see the redness of NZ necks remains undimmed. So anyone who doesn't agree with you should be put on a boat back home? Cool. Let's start with the Pakeha population, because most of them disagree with Maori who, if not the aboriginal people of NZ, are here longer than the European blow-ins. This of course will lead to another outburst of bile from the erythrocervical among you, but that is inevitable.
"bearhunter - you're stupid.
There are 30,000 people aged 18 years and over in the Wanganui district."
Nah, not stupid. Brain the size of a planet, actually, but also I have the good grace to admit where I'm wrong. A simple error and one I should have picked up. So it's now 30 percent of the electorate who want change, versus 70 percent who either vocally don't or are happy with the status quo. After all, local pols usually trot out the "they didn't make submissions so they must be happy with it" argument. Including Mickey, if I remember correctly on the anti-gang patch bylaw.
And as for sending me home, please do, I could do with a nice holiday in a country blessed with such things as an enviable economy, decent beer and an actual culture.
If there is a question and the pro-cuts win 10,000 votes to 6,500 then that represents the majority view of the community
__________________________________
Doesn't make it a good idea though, and when the community has been lied to about the effects of cutting councillor numbers, that renders the results utterly invalid. You might as well just've made up the results yourself, Mickey, just like old times.
Can one of the anonymickeys who are placing such great credence on the result of referendums deciding what is right and what is wrong explain why when rural voters vote in the same refererendum more than 3 to 1 against dumping their rural ward - the Vision councillors all ignore this and dump it anyway. Are'nt they being hypocritical just quoting the result that suits them?
...contests of ideas...
___________________________________
All very well so long as the ideas have some truth behind them, as opposed to Michael Laws' relentless lies.
Anonymous said...
Can one of the anonymickeys who are placing such great credence on the result of referendums deciding what is right and what is wrong explain why when rural voters vote in the same refererendum more than 3 to 1 against dumping their rural ward - the Vision councillors all ignore this and dump it anyway. Are'nt they being hypocritical just quoting the result that suits them?
1:14 PM, August 31, 2006
Oh for God's sake, how often does Mickey have to explain this? You are a wrongheaded little person adn you don't count, so your argument must therefore be false.
See? Simple really in the brave new world of de-Mick-racy. Or shoudl that be de-mcokery?
Bearhunter said...."And as for sending me home, please do, I could do with a nice holiday in a country blessed with such things as an enviable economy, decent beer and an actual culture."
mmm, economy, beer, culture ?
I guess Ireland :)
The immaturity of some posters staggers me. No-one seriously believes the referendum information was biased including the councillors who opposed the cutting of their numbers.
There is not one inaccuracy in the referendum information. They don't say "will", they say "may" with regards to savings and salaries.
Here's question: who in here actually voted in the referendum or did you do a Mitchell-Anyon and symbolically light your voting paper?
another question: which glass artist has been commissioned to do the stained glass windows in the council chamber. and who's idea was that??
Well spotted. I am one of those nasty Hibernian types who are trying to overturn democracy here through the introduction of Guinness and Riverdance. Haven't you ever wondered why there are so many Irish pubs in NZ? Hahaha, five more years and it's all ours, I tell you!
Can bearhunter, LW & others explain this so that normal people like me can understand ...
If elections are decided by the people who vote and the government selected by the majority ... if the same principle applies to mayors and local government ... if referenda were OK to decide MMP should be the new electoral system, decide the term of Parliament as 3 not 4 years, and reject compulsory superannuation ... why would the Wanganui Referendum of 2006 with 55% turnout and delivering a good majority in favour of reducing council size, be discounted?
Isn't the truth that a) its because you hate EVERYTHING the mayor promotes and b) because you didn't like the end result? How about some honesty?
Given Bearhunter's views, i'd say an eastern european country with embryonic ideas on voter democracies.
Anonymous said...
Can bearhunter, LW & others explain this so that normal people like me can understand
******
First & foremost, Mickey, it needs to be explained that you are NOT normal. End of story.
Anonymous said...
Can bearhunter, LW & others explain this so that normal people like me can understand ...
Umm, because Wanganui's referendum was of the non-binding variety, thereby giving you the option to say "It didn't count" if the result went against you Mickey-boy.
I find it laughable that ML can use the argument that of there are no submissions on a council proposal (gang bylaw, LTCCP) then that equals acceptance of the status quo, whereas if there is a large amount of people who don't bother voting in a referendum (and therefore presumably support the status quo) they are dismissed from the equation entirely. Personally, I couldn't really give a flying f*** about Wanganui, I just object to seeing manipulative twats use a community to further their own overdeveloped sense of self-importance.
"Given Bearhunter's views, i'd say an eastern european country with embryonic ideas on voter democracies."
Well, unless Ireland has fallen to the Albanian army, no I'm not. But, as for Eastern Europe, I have been there several times, which is a damn sight more than you have, I'll warrant. Comes with having an above-average disposable income and an interest in culture....
"They don't say "will", they say "may" with regards to savings and salaries..."
So, savings "may" result. How?
If the answer is that Crs. will give it away you're dreaming, not to mention proposing that only the wealthy need apply.
Imagine a referendumb where people were asked to vote to re-introduce the death penalty and told it "may" have a deterrent effect. The fact that all experience suggests the reverse renders the argument little better than a lie. Given Mickey's prior and ongoing history of lying and lying and lying, I can only conclude that the inclusion of such a blatantly false assertion was at his bullying insistence.
I would no more take Michael Laws' word for something than I would Taito Philip Field's. History will judge Laws as having a more corrupting influence, though.
I find it laughable that ML can use the argument that of there are no submissions on a council proposal (gang bylaw, LTCCP) then that equals acceptance of the status quo, whereas if there is a large amount of people who don't bother voting in a referendum (and therefore presumably support the status quo) they are dismissed from the equation entirely.
*******
You've hit the nail on the head here, Bearhunter. It's just another example of Mickey's hypocrisy, inconsistency, and bullshit. But don't tell Mas, will you anyone. He's just about to embark on a new career as Mickey's tame reporter and there's no room for him to have any doubts about his master's voice.
The stained glass windows in the council chambers were ML's idea. The first one looks awesome.
Post a Comment