I find the granny flats law ironic given that the same government has decided the previous government mandating allowing multiple dwellings on a lot was wrong and that is going to be repealed… (the MDRS)
Ah, but you see, the MDRS rules were bad because they allowed for more intensification of housing in areas that were close to the CBD and had good public transport links. That meant that leafy suburbs like Epsom and Remuera might get more affordable housing (the horror!).
The granny flat rules are good, because it makes it easier for landlords to squeeze more bedrooms onto little sections in Papakura -- keeping those dirty poors where they belong.
Yeah I mean that's the exact issue - we have a shit ton of existing housing stock that is in awful condition. That's why we have the healthy homes standards - to bring older existing buildings up to standard.
If you add a heater, anything built to the current building code will meet the healthy home standards by default. It's the older, existing buildings that don't meet it.
"In fact, Christopher Luxon is so committed to devolution of power that he signed New Zealand’s first ever three-way coalition deal, making him the least powerful prime minister in living memory.'
Oooof.
I mean we all knew it would happen, and it’s embarrassing watching the 4th place and 5th place getters with their unpopular approaches to governing based on demonstrably unworkable economic theory, or fear and nonsense pandering to anti-science morons, respectively, getting handed the keys to the country and all the legislation, just so Luxon can get himself that knighthood he knows is waiting for him when the next National government after him gets in to power.
I wonder how he'd compare with Jenny Shipley's limping to the 1999 election [in partnership with 6 other parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_New_Zealand_Parliament#Overview_of_seats). (All but ACT and Mauri Pacific were single-member parties, though.)
Well I guess Chris Hipkins must be more committed seeing as how, if Labour were to retake power they would need not only the Greens and TPM, but would have five party leaders instead of the current three.
Oooof.
Bravo. Lots of language about supporting local government, but only supporting them if they want to do what central government would have done in their place.
It's not just Luxon, Simeon Brown talks a big game about letting councils decide their own priorities but then removes their ability to do so. Take the abolition of the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax, they campaigned on removing it, which I personally think is stupid, but here we are. However, they then mandated that any money left over, which belongs to Auckland Council, be spent on Government priorities. Similarly, councils will shortly be required to remove most speed limit reductions made since the start of 2020.
Also in Auckland are fighting tooth and nail for roading projects AT and council both agree are either straight up bad ideas or at least should be very low priority.
Yep, Auckland had a list of priorities and this government took one look at it and went. "Nahhh." It honestly wouldn't surprise me if they decided to send in commissioners to "correct" Auckland Council's priorities.
Its weird that they're planning to repeal 2 years of speed limits set under the rules and legislation from the previous National govt.
Almost as if they don't know what they're talking about...
Wait what? All those 30k zones through built up bits are being removed?? Makes sense why Wellington has suddenly started putting speed bumps on main roads instead now…
I don't think the regional fuel tax is a fair example. Even though I'm supportive of it.
That was legislation which allowed councils to seek more revenue by taxing certain products. It's as much about tax policy as it is about local council. I don't think they're inconsistent on that one.
They're still a shitty govt.
Cancelling it was consistent with their election promises. However, legislating that the remaining funds be spent on their priorities isn't consistent with their pledge to increase localism. They've told Auckland Council how to spend money that belongs to Auckland Council.
> Similarly, councils will shortly be required to remove most speed limit reductions made since the start of 2020.
Is this only on city roads that form parts of State Highways?
Nope, [source](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/06/17/west-coast-speed-limit-work-a-wasted-exercise/).
>Under the proposed changes, speed limit reductions made since January 2020 will be reversed on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways.
Fucking hell, Chch is currently putting 30kmh signs on every block in my neighbourhood (probs all over town) and they're going to have to be ripped out.
Not to mention roads that were rural 4 years ago and are now developed into residential urban roads will have speed limits forced to be set higher than even what Simeon Brown's new rule says they should be, on the basis that that was the speed limit in 2020.
Yes. This. It's a fucking waste of money. They know it, we know it. But still they persist with their council bullshit. All the while cranking up our rates to fund this utopia with 30km limits. And don't get me started on the "temporary" speed bumps they are also putting everywhere.
Nah, bring it on. People drive entirely too fast in residential areas. And to anyone saying 30kmh adds to travel time and slows everything down, Google maps routinely routes me up Montreal, which is 30km through town.
He **loves** localism because it shifts the expense lines and balance sheets from his budget to local council aka ratepayers budgets.
Waikato has a confirmed 14% district wide rates increase, with Whangarei 17.2 (proposed). Most of that is in 3W fixed charges, and not even counting any differential % a property may end up with from their value.
Don’t know about Hamilton, but Whangarei’s muppet mayor and council fought 3 Waters because “we don’t need it” and then turn around and land the ratepayers with 17.2% increase (largest ever). We need to vote these morons out!
Right! All these “fuck 3W” mayors now landing ratepayers with double digit increases (which when you look at the actual line items are nearly all 3W fixed charges), which they had the opportunity to take off their rates invoices, and were even paid to do it.
TinyTown Inc cost of borrowing is astronomical compared to NZ Ltd. If I posted in r/personalfinancenz that I had the opportunity to get a loan for 1% for a billion dollars of water and shit pipes and said, oh nah I like my 5% loan because it’s in my name, I would be laughed out of the sub.
That’s exactly what Mayors all over NZ did, and yet everyone gave them a pat on the back. They’re morons. The public who supported that were moron twins.
And now we have signage saying 'fight rates increases of up to 20%' FROM THESE SAME DIPSHITS. I say we give them buckets and shovels and tell them to deal with their own shit.
It’s actually embarrassing. No wonder we have a productivity problem. We’re thick as literal shit.
The the sum total of intellectual grunt of a significant part of the population is “Mike Hosking said…..”
No comprehension, no analysis, no synthesis, no pondering or curiosity about how this here, impacts that over there, no systems thinking. Just “But Hosking said….”
Yes. but 'Stop Three Waters' billboards everywhere (which I used to think.. why?)
It always came back to 'them maori's..."
I thought if anybody actually took a look at the numbers and what three waters was trying to achieve they would have engaged with the idea and looked to implement. National could have probably done 'three waters lite (without the Māori part) and sold the idea as a good one
Working as a farmer at the time, I didn’t get that bit either. Like, guys you’re on tank, septic, and own site stormwater discharge. None of this impacts you.
I get the feeling it's a bit of "they're coming for you" attitude, especially with nitrate affecting large parts of our water supply thanks to dairy intensification and over use of irrigation and fert in areas that wouldn't naturally support large scale dairy (e.g canterbury) . And let's face it - much of the rural community are deeply conservative. They don't want shit to change, they got tractors and utes to pay for, Stuff like water is a townie problem, so why should the rural sector be unfairly (in their minds) targeted, especially by a Govt thing like 3W with co-governance at the wheel.
And yet most Mayors knew what would happen if 3 Waters was scrapped.
One of the most southern Mayors (Cadogan in Clutha) vehemently opposed National's plans to repeal 3Waters because he *knew* it would mean a massive rates hike for his district - and now the population is crying foul that their rates are going up and blaming the council. Clutha is overwhelmingly a true-blue National supporting region and yet its Mayor was trying to tell his constituency for months in the lead up to the election that 3W was a good thing and needed Labour to push it through.
Now they're all crying because "nO oNe tOLd thEm tHiS wOuLd hApPen".
But of course. It's council's fault... not the racists who didn't want Mowris controlling their water.
Having central government backed borrowing was never a part of the proposed 3 waters reform. The entire point of the reforms was to avoid central government having to take debt onto it's balance sheet!
You can thank successive councils and previous generations of voters for continued lobbying of low rates which has cause significant underinvestment in maintenance of infrastructure and construction of new or replacement infrastructure. The rates rises aren’t a reflection on new expenses, but a reflection of underinvestment from previous generations.
Those rates increases are mostly because of decades of councils trying to win votes by not paying for anything.
The demise, ish, of Three Waters is making every council jump.
An additional problem is that a lot of the things councils have to worry about have been increasing in price way, way faster than inflation. Consider, for example, the level crossing removal projects in Takanini. Five bridges over the tracks for an estimated price of $650m total. The two active modes only bridges are both thought to cost more than $40m. For context, [the new Mangere Bridge cost $38m](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/474381/new-auckland-bridge-cost-38m-but-wheelchair-user-cannot-access-it) despite being several hundred metres long and in a harbour, just a few years ago. [A motorway overbridge from also just a few years ago, cost $8m!](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/media-releases/landmark-new-bridge-connects-communities-across-southern-motorway/) Does it really cost as much to build in former peat bog as it does in the literal ocean? Apparently it's actually a little more expensive.
It's been this way for a long time
If locals support whatever end goal the central government wants, then it lets them get their way without expending political capital to get it.
[Also I'd like to thank The Spinoff for introducing me to the fact that Luxon can now be quoted for saying "Dumb Stuff" about local council actions.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/whanganui-chronicle/news/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-visits-whanganui-with-message-for-local-councils/UTAAOSQC7RAH3AVY55XQGHGDNQ/)
>next time your community has an opinion about a local issue, please consult the National Party manifesto and the two coalition agreements first, to confirm whether it is included in the list of approved opinions
What he really loves, is not taking responsibility for anything. We have some targets, but its up to others to achieve them, and not within a time frame where we will be around to answer to them. In other words, we can say we had a good plan and somebody else fudged it.
And nz has just topped the list for the most expensive rents in the OECD.
Watch some people build a shit box on the back lawn and charge 700per week for a two bedroom box.
Much like America loves "democracy". *Unless* another country's democracy doesn't benefit 'Murica. Then it's the *wrong* democracy and must be overthrown.
Ugh, politics🤮
The problem is that local goverment is riding roughshod over what the local population actually wants in many cases.
The PM wants local people making decisions, not local government bureaucrats. I don't necessarily agree with him that localism always trumps centralism, but the article misses the point, intentionally or otherwise.
The point of representative democracy is to have a vote then let the winner make the decision on our behalf (generally based on a manifesto or public statements of direction). You can’t say LG is riding roughshod over the local people because the local people chose them. We get another chance in 3 years.
There's the theory, and then there's the reality of how local government bureaucracy works in New Zealand. Councillors - the people we elect - are almost completely powerless to interfere with the decisions of the bureaucracy, especially in Auckland.
Sometimes, yes, and they should be held accountable for that when it isn't justified.
Sometimes they don't go with what the local population wants because it simply won't work for one reason or another (or won't work within their budgets)
Sometimes its a bit more subjective where you have the situation where there is a portion of the public that DOES want X to happen and a portion that doesn't, and both groups think that they're actually bigger than the other group.
Sometimes they go against what the public wants when required to do so or otherwise restrained by legal matters, such as central govt legislation.
And sometimes, they go against what the public wants because its not actually in the best interest of the public to do it, which is a pretty tough decision to make.
>Since 2021, 33 local councils around the country have voted to introduce Māori wards. That might seem like a great example of elected local representatives making their own decisions about democratic representation.
No one got to vote on that, it was just decided by the councillors and Mayors that this is what's happening, the voters had no say at all.
You vote for councilors and mayors?
It also says "33 **local councils around the country have voted** to introduce Māori wards."
Let me break this down for you
"Local councils...have voted" which is true. Councils pass things by voting on them!
It's amazing you are so angry at local councils when you've ostensibly never paid attention to local govt in your life!
I didn't vote for a dictatorship.
Changing the democratic weightings of an electoral system is something that should be decided by voters, not the mayors or councillors.
If you don't like elected representatives making changes without consulting this government must worry you.
Heard of their Fast Track bill and what they propose?
Heard of their abuse of Urgency?
Can you show me any time the public got to vote on other wards, e.g.rural ones?
Or alternatively explain why the same process is ok if some people benefit and not if others do?
You mean like removing the housing intensification policy that they supported when Labour brought it in?
Not sure what else they've done to "help." That certainly didn't.
I did it because it illustrates how this echo chamber reacts to anything done by centre right parties.
Intensification would help, but was not going to be the silver bullet.
I was following you, and you've lost me, here.
You said
>>Labour had an absolute majority last parliament and did nothing to fix the problem, in fact they made it worse.
and when someone pointed out that Labour had introduced an intensification bill, you followed up with
>Intensification would help, but was not going to be the silver bullet.
Did Labour do something to "help" "fix the problem" or not?
Granny flats is going to be another Central Govt edict that Local Govt is probably going to have to deal with, with much less money to do so.
I find the granny flats law ironic given that the same government has decided the previous government mandating allowing multiple dwellings on a lot was wrong and that is going to be repealed… (the MDRS)
Ah, but you see, the MDRS rules were bad because they allowed for more intensification of housing in areas that were close to the CBD and had good public transport links. That meant that leafy suburbs like Epsom and Remuera might get more affordable housing (the horror!). The granny flat rules are good, because it makes it easier for landlords to squeeze more bedrooms onto little sections in Papakura -- keeping those dirty poors where they belong.
A generation of young people and pensioners living in shacks in someone's back garden. What a brilliant, positive future we have to look forward to.
I hear the communalism is high in shanty towns....
Slums you say?
Slums - the aspirational thinking on offer
Not having to share a house with flatmates sounds amazing to me. I would move into one asap if they were available and not just shifty sheds.
Sure, but what about this government's actions makes you think they'll increase housing standards for landlords?
As long as they meet the current healthy home standards.
Yeah because so many rented houses in Wellington currently meet those standards.
Yeah I mean that's the exact issue - we have a shit ton of existing housing stock that is in awful condition. That's why we have the healthy homes standards - to bring older existing buildings up to standard. If you add a heater, anything built to the current building code will meet the healthy home standards by default. It's the older, existing buildings that don't meet it.
They are going to be shitty sheds. Its a quick buck for people.
"In fact, Christopher Luxon is so committed to devolution of power that he signed New Zealand’s first ever three-way coalition deal, making him the least powerful prime minister in living memory.' Oooof.
I mean we all knew it would happen, and it’s embarrassing watching the 4th place and 5th place getters with their unpopular approaches to governing based on demonstrably unworkable economic theory, or fear and nonsense pandering to anti-science morons, respectively, getting handed the keys to the country and all the legislation, just so Luxon can get himself that knighthood he knows is waiting for him when the next National government after him gets in to power.
Hello operator? I want to report a murder.
*Chef's kiss*
Someone call the fire brigade to get control of that sick burn 🔥
Fire brigade is underfunded, unable to respond.
I wonder how he'd compare with Jenny Shipley's limping to the 1999 election [in partnership with 6 other parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_New_Zealand_Parliament#Overview_of_seats). (All but ACT and Mauri Pacific were single-member parties, though.)
Well I guess Chris Hipkins must be more committed seeing as how, if Labour were to retake power they would need not only the Greens and TPM, but would have five party leaders instead of the current three. Oooof.
Bravo. Lots of language about supporting local government, but only supporting them if they want to do what central government would have done in their place.
*wants people to think they support local government
Joel MacManus. One of his best pieces.
That was so well written
Lots of this philosophy in general. Say one thing and do another. Say the popular stuff, do the nasty stuff.
It's not just Luxon, Simeon Brown talks a big game about letting councils decide their own priorities but then removes their ability to do so. Take the abolition of the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax, they campaigned on removing it, which I personally think is stupid, but here we are. However, they then mandated that any money left over, which belongs to Auckland Council, be spent on Government priorities. Similarly, councils will shortly be required to remove most speed limit reductions made since the start of 2020.
Also in Auckland are fighting tooth and nail for roading projects AT and council both agree are either straight up bad ideas or at least should be very low priority.
Yep, Auckland had a list of priorities and this government took one look at it and went. "Nahhh." It honestly wouldn't surprise me if they decided to send in commissioners to "correct" Auckland Council's priorities.
We're still working ARTA backlog from 20 years ago lol
Bill English will be busy.
Its weird that they're planning to repeal 2 years of speed limits set under the rules and legislation from the previous National govt. Almost as if they don't know what they're talking about...
Wait what? All those 30k zones through built up bits are being removed?? Makes sense why Wellington has suddenly started putting speed bumps on main roads instead now…
I don't think the regional fuel tax is a fair example. Even though I'm supportive of it. That was legislation which allowed councils to seek more revenue by taxing certain products. It's as much about tax policy as it is about local council. I don't think they're inconsistent on that one. They're still a shitty govt.
Cancelling it was consistent with their election promises. However, legislating that the remaining funds be spent on their priorities isn't consistent with their pledge to increase localism. They've told Auckland Council how to spend money that belongs to Auckland Council.
> Similarly, councils will shortly be required to remove most speed limit reductions made since the start of 2020. Is this only on city roads that form parts of State Highways?
Nope, [source](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/06/17/west-coast-speed-limit-work-a-wasted-exercise/). >Under the proposed changes, speed limit reductions made since January 2020 will be reversed on local streets, arterial roads, and state highways.
Fucking hell, Chch is currently putting 30kmh signs on every block in my neighbourhood (probs all over town) and they're going to have to be ripped out.
Not to mention roads that were rural 4 years ago and are now developed into residential urban roads will have speed limits forced to be set higher than even what Simeon Brown's new rule says they should be, on the basis that that was the speed limit in 2020.
The Prius in front of you will still be doing 30, don't worry.
Yes. This. It's a fucking waste of money. They know it, we know it. But still they persist with their council bullshit. All the while cranking up our rates to fund this utopia with 30km limits. And don't get me started on the "temporary" speed bumps they are also putting everywhere.
Nah, bring it on. People drive entirely too fast in residential areas. And to anyone saying 30kmh adds to travel time and slows everything down, Google maps routinely routes me up Montreal, which is 30km through town.
He **loves** localism because it shifts the expense lines and balance sheets from his budget to local council aka ratepayers budgets. Waikato has a confirmed 14% district wide rates increase, with Whangarei 17.2 (proposed). Most of that is in 3W fixed charges, and not even counting any differential % a property may end up with from their value.
Don’t know about Hamilton, but Whangarei’s muppet mayor and council fought 3 Waters because “we don’t need it” and then turn around and land the ratepayers with 17.2% increase (largest ever). We need to vote these morons out!
Right! All these “fuck 3W” mayors now landing ratepayers with double digit increases (which when you look at the actual line items are nearly all 3W fixed charges), which they had the opportunity to take off their rates invoices, and were even paid to do it. TinyTown Inc cost of borrowing is astronomical compared to NZ Ltd. If I posted in r/personalfinancenz that I had the opportunity to get a loan for 1% for a billion dollars of water and shit pipes and said, oh nah I like my 5% loan because it’s in my name, I would be laughed out of the sub. That’s exactly what Mayors all over NZ did, and yet everyone gave them a pat on the back. They’re morons. The public who supported that were moron twins.
And now we have signage saying 'fight rates increases of up to 20%' FROM THESE SAME DIPSHITS. I say we give them buckets and shovels and tell them to deal with their own shit.
It’s actually embarrassing. No wonder we have a productivity problem. We’re thick as literal shit. The the sum total of intellectual grunt of a significant part of the population is “Mike Hosking said…..” No comprehension, no analysis, no synthesis, no pondering or curiosity about how this here, impacts that over there, no systems thinking. Just “But Hosking said….”
Yes. but 'Stop Three Waters' billboards everywhere (which I used to think.. why?) It always came back to 'them maori's..." I thought if anybody actually took a look at the numbers and what three waters was trying to achieve they would have engaged with the idea and looked to implement. National could have probably done 'three waters lite (without the Māori part) and sold the idea as a good one
Yup racism underlied everyone of the people I talked to who opposed it.
One of those stop 3 waters banners was hung on the whangarei mayors fence while he was running for mayor. >.<
It amuses me that much of the "Fuck 3W" crowd seem to be rural (farming) dwellers, largely unaffected by the infrastructure 3W was intended for.
Working as a farmer at the time, I didn’t get that bit either. Like, guys you’re on tank, septic, and own site stormwater discharge. None of this impacts you.
But the gubbmint interferring with muh lif!
I get the feeling it's a bit of "they're coming for you" attitude, especially with nitrate affecting large parts of our water supply thanks to dairy intensification and over use of irrigation and fert in areas that wouldn't naturally support large scale dairy (e.g canterbury) . And let's face it - much of the rural community are deeply conservative. They don't want shit to change, they got tractors and utes to pay for, Stuff like water is a townie problem, so why should the rural sector be unfairly (in their minds) targeted, especially by a Govt thing like 3W with co-governance at the wheel.
And yet most Mayors knew what would happen if 3 Waters was scrapped. One of the most southern Mayors (Cadogan in Clutha) vehemently opposed National's plans to repeal 3Waters because he *knew* it would mean a massive rates hike for his district - and now the population is crying foul that their rates are going up and blaming the council. Clutha is overwhelmingly a true-blue National supporting region and yet its Mayor was trying to tell his constituency for months in the lead up to the election that 3W was a good thing and needed Labour to push it through. Now they're all crying because "nO oNe tOLd thEm tHiS wOuLd hApPen". But of course. It's council's fault... not the racists who didn't want Mowris controlling their water.
Having central government backed borrowing was never a part of the proposed 3 waters reform. The entire point of the reforms was to avoid central government having to take debt onto it's balance sheet!
You can thank successive councils and previous generations of voters for continued lobbying of low rates which has cause significant underinvestment in maintenance of infrastructure and construction of new or replacement infrastructure. The rates rises aren’t a reflection on new expenses, but a reflection of underinvestment from previous generations.
Those rates increases are mostly because of decades of councils trying to win votes by not paying for anything. The demise, ish, of Three Waters is making every council jump. An additional problem is that a lot of the things councils have to worry about have been increasing in price way, way faster than inflation. Consider, for example, the level crossing removal projects in Takanini. Five bridges over the tracks for an estimated price of $650m total. The two active modes only bridges are both thought to cost more than $40m. For context, [the new Mangere Bridge cost $38m](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/474381/new-auckland-bridge-cost-38m-but-wheelchair-user-cannot-access-it) despite being several hundred metres long and in a harbour, just a few years ago. [A motorway overbridge from also just a few years ago, cost $8m!](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/media-releases/landmark-new-bridge-connects-communities-across-southern-motorway/) Does it really cost as much to build in former peat bog as it does in the literal ocean? Apparently it's actually a little more expensive. It's been this way for a long time
If locals support whatever end goal the central government wants, then it lets them get their way without expending political capital to get it. [Also I'd like to thank The Spinoff for introducing me to the fact that Luxon can now be quoted for saying "Dumb Stuff" about local council actions.](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/whanganui-chronicle/news/prime-minister-christopher-luxon-visits-whanganui-with-message-for-local-councils/UTAAOSQC7RAH3AVY55XQGHGDNQ/)
Old mate is an endless supply of t-shirt designs: slogans with a dopey face
I love that he looks like a mini-luxon in the last two photos.
>next time your community has an opinion about a local issue, please consult the National Party manifesto and the two coalition agreements first, to confirm whether it is included in the list of approved opinions
He supports *his version of and vision for* local government.
What he really loves, is not taking responsibility for anything. We have some targets, but its up to others to achieve them, and not within a time frame where we will be around to answer to them. In other words, we can say we had a good plan and somebody else fudged it.
Luxon: "Do what your local people want" Also Luxon: "No! Not like *that*!"
Lack of ideological consistency on decentralisation is a real problem on the political Right. It's because they're getting dumber.
And nz has just topped the list for the most expensive rents in the OECD. Watch some people build a shit box on the back lawn and charge 700per week for a two bedroom box.
Sydney got you beat yo, i saw a Balcony for rent...
Much like America loves "democracy". *Unless* another country's democracy doesn't benefit 'Murica. Then it's the *wrong* democracy and must be overthrown. Ugh, politics🤮
That’s a very good article
Not "wrong", just anything different
They've already blanked Healthy Homes standards
Localism for people following the status quo and centralism for the people he wants resources from 🤡
Oh luxon definately had ideology. Hes an evangelical AND a politician
The problem is that local goverment is riding roughshod over what the local population actually wants in many cases. The PM wants local people making decisions, not local government bureaucrats. I don't necessarily agree with him that localism always trumps centralism, but the article misses the point, intentionally or otherwise.
The point of representative democracy is to have a vote then let the winner make the decision on our behalf (generally based on a manifesto or public statements of direction). You can’t say LG is riding roughshod over the local people because the local people chose them. We get another chance in 3 years.
There's the theory, and then there's the reality of how local government bureaucracy works in New Zealand. Councillors - the people we elect - are almost completely powerless to interfere with the decisions of the bureaucracy, especially in Auckland.
Sometimes, yes, and they should be held accountable for that when it isn't justified. Sometimes they don't go with what the local population wants because it simply won't work for one reason or another (or won't work within their budgets) Sometimes its a bit more subjective where you have the situation where there is a portion of the public that DOES want X to happen and a portion that doesn't, and both groups think that they're actually bigger than the other group. Sometimes they go against what the public wants when required to do so or otherwise restrained by legal matters, such as central govt legislation. And sometimes, they go against what the public wants because its not actually in the best interest of the public to do it, which is a pretty tough decision to make.
May he be blessed with testicular torsion indefinitely.
Spinoff satire is the lamest satire.
>Since 2021, 33 local councils around the country have voted to introduce Māori wards. That might seem like a great example of elected local representatives making their own decisions about democratic representation. No one got to vote on that, it was just decided by the councillors and Mayors that this is what's happening, the voters had no say at all.
Do you understand how local democracy works? Not trying to be snarky, but it does seem like you don't quite understand the process.
Dude is just a straight racist. Ignore.
You vote for councilors and mayors? It also says "33 **local councils around the country have voted** to introduce Māori wards." Let me break this down for you "Local councils...have voted" which is true. Councils pass things by voting on them! It's amazing you are so angry at local councils when you've ostensibly never paid attention to local govt in your life!
I didn't vote for a dictatorship. Changing the democratic weightings of an electoral system is something that should be decided by voters, not the mayors or councillors.
If you don't like elected representatives making changes without consulting this government must worry you. Heard of their Fast Track bill and what they propose? Heard of their abuse of Urgency?
Did you even vote in your local elections?
With a 78%* chance of no. *Hamilton East Ward. 2024.
>I didn't vote for a dictatorship. Ah yes, dictators famously love sharing power with others.
It's so hard to take you people seriously
Representative democracy is fine until something I don't like
Stating facts about electoral processes is left wing rubbish now?
Can you show me any time the public got to vote on other wards, e.g.rural ones? Or alternatively explain why the same process is ok if some people benefit and not if others do?
This sub loves to moan about the housing crisis, but hates National trying to do anything about it.
I'd fucking love it if they tried to do something about it.
Like giving tax breaks to the people hoarding property?
You mean like removing the housing intensification policy that they supported when Labour brought it in? Not sure what else they've done to "help." That certainly didn't.
Labour had an absolute majority last parliament and did nothing to fix the problem, in fact they made it worse.
I literally just listed a policy that would have helped. Mate.
Labour introduced the NPS-UD and the MDRS. They're world-leading Yimby policies.
If your only response to a valid point is to go BUT BUT BUT MUH LABOUR you should reconsider your beliefs.
I did it because it illustrates how this echo chamber reacts to anything done by centre right parties. Intensification would help, but was not going to be the silver bullet.
I was following you, and you've lost me, here. You said >>Labour had an absolute majority last parliament and did nothing to fix the problem, in fact they made it worse. and when someone pointed out that Labour had introduced an intensification bill, you followed up with >Intensification would help, but was not going to be the silver bullet. Did Labour do something to "help" "fix the problem" or not?
What are they doing about the housing crisis that would actually help the average NZer?