Wednesday, October 28, 2009

If only Labour were right

Phil Twyford, (Labour's list MP with a non-existent profile) says of the government's Auckland mega council plans:

"Council-controlled-organisations are to be established for water, transport, community services (including libraries and community houses), land development, the waterfront, and economic development. Each of them will report to a council-owned holding company."

The HORROR. Like electricity, the railways, NZ Post, Air NZ all under Labour. Too many function though surely?

It's not enough though, Phil is concerned that if his train is late, he wont get a swift response from the Mayor - because the Mayor gets involved in day to day activities right?

"If the trains aren't running on time, or the footpaths aren't being maintained, the mayor will have to talk to the CEO of the holding company who will have to talk to the CEO of the council-controlled-organisation. who will have to talk to the contractor who is delivering the service."

Um, well given the government owns Kiwirail, and the ARC already contracts a private company (Veolia) to run the trains, how would that change Phil, given that's the arrangement that was in place when Labour set it all up?

However he presents the best claim next, he's scared his little friends will be lost:

"This is corporatisation gone mad. There will be nothing for the elected politicians to do. I don't know why people would bother standing for office under this model. It will be impossible to hold the politicians accountable because they won't have the power to deliver.

Phil Twyford said a rump CEO of the Auckand Council would be left to administer corporate functions like information technology, human resources and finance, and public relations."

I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm convinced it isn't true, but if it is..

speed the day. I'll take back most of what I said about the mega city proposal.

If it can stop local politicians in Auckland from meddling in operations, from pushing their own little agendas at the expense of ratepayers, from even turning up to council meetings, it will be a great step forward.

Shame it's almost certainly vacuous hyperbole.

UPDATE: Let's remember how trains in Auckland are run at the moment...

The ARC has a council controlled organisation, called ARTA (set up under the last government) to CONTRACT OUT management of the passenger rail service, which it has done so to a company called Veolia. A private company. Veolia runs the trains, ARTA owns the trains (Kiwirail owns some too which are leased to ARTA), Kiwirail owns the tracks. Kiwirail is an SOE, effectively another arms length commercial organisation. So anyone complaining about the trains in Auckland going to a local politician would see that person following quite a trail of organisations down the line.

The Labour Party is complaining about the trains being just LIKE that, yet set the trains up to RUN like that.

So is Phil Twyford so stupid that even he doesn't bother to research the governance arrangements in Auckland for rail transport set up by the last Labour government before complaining about the current government doing what he says, is the same thing?

13 comments:

Redbaiter said...

What, no comments at all to any of your posts. I wonder if that is because like me, most people find their sanctimonious and preaching tone somewhat insufferable.

..and of course, like all the other yellow backs over at Not PC, you're flat out abusing Redbaiter under the protection of Mother Cresswell's censorship, but are far to cowardly to ever try dissenting with Redbaiter anywhere where you might have to stand alone, and your bigotry might be countered.

Another contemptible amoral progressive without an ounce of scruples or honour. In fact, you don't even know what I'm talking about do you?

libertyscott said...

You keep wondering, you might find it good for your blood pressure. I had 306 unique visitors yesterday, I'm not too unhappy about that. I get several comments a day. If you don't like it, then fuck off, I couldn't care less. Why should I? Your language is destructive, not constructive.

Who is cowardly? The man who uses other people's blog to abuse them, or the people who write their blogs and then receive abuse from an angry little name caller? Pot calling Kettle black you are. Maybe you could do some original writing, then people might think you're more than what you seem.

Name one instance of bigotry, and for a change, be civil. I'm more than happy to disagree when I have reason to do so, but I find your angry abusive name reminiscent of an unhinged adolescent. It wins no arguments writing like that.

Go on, prove me wrong.

Redbaiter said...

"You keep wondering, you might find it good for your blood pressure."

There is nothing wrong with my blood pressure. Never has been, never will be. My criticism of progressives (like you) is always carried out completely dispassionately. "Angry" is just another false allegation that only a lamer would repeat.

"I get several comments a day."

About 0.15 comments per post. Not exactly Kiwiblog is it?? Only vanity that keeps you going right?


"The man who uses other people's blog to abuse them"

What you in your typically brain damaged progressive state of mind call "abuse" is in fact legitimate criticism. Its no worse in terms of sentiment than anything you or any other Progressive might offer. You just use different language, that is all. Your intent is often far more vicious.


"Name one instance of bigotry."

Your arse-licking and cowardly comment at Not PC where you know I am denied right of reply. Pure subjective rot designed to ingratiate you with Mummy Cresswell. Sickening in its fawning sycophancy.

Here is the bottom line. Not PC uses his blog to attack Christians and Conservatives and expects to remain free of criticism for this and to also remain free of any counter argument. Ever heard of "you reap what you sow"??

He has misrepresented myself as a spammer and the reason he decided to moderate his blog, when it was not me and he knows that damn well.

He has written words on his fake Redbaiter blog and attributed them to me when he knows I did not ever write those words or hold such sentiments.

He encourages lame cowardly suckholes like you to attack me in the most vicious terms on his blog and then denies me any right of reply.

He makes vicious attacks on Conservatives and then denies them a right of reply.

He allows other to post messages under what they perceive to be my "real name", an act that would normally be one of gross yellow backed deceit. In all my time on the internet, impersonation has always been regarded as the most cowardly act out there.

Here's a clue. It applies to you and Mother Cresswell. You don't want to be called a coward then don't act like one.

I do not claim to be any paragon of virtue, but I would never lower myself to attack anyone who has been denied right of reply.

Never in any argument have I ever employed the methods that Mr. Cresswell has employed. Not even when I had to shut my forum down for endless posts of filth and depravity from the left.

That is called a code loser. Or morals. Or a sense of fair play. Or honour. Never sink as low as those you despise. Always be true to yourself.

Look those concepts up sometime. Try and understand what they mean, and one day you might be able to drag yourself from the gutter of Progressivism and cease trying to drag every other citizen of NZ down there with you.

libertyscott said...

""Angry" is just another false allegation that only a lamer would repeat." Insult number 1. You insult with a happy smile on your face?

You are seriously that unaware of how your writing comes across. If you can't tell this, then maybe find your own way to ask anyone you trust.

"About 0.15 comments per post. Not exactly Kiwiblog is it?? Only vanity that keeps you going right?"

Insult number 2. I write because I enjoy venting, and apparently a couple of hundred people a day enjoy it too. I don't give the slightest moment of thought about what you think about that.

"What you in your typically brain damaged progressive state of mind call "abuse" is in fact legitimate criticism. Its no worse in terms of sentiment than anything you or any other Progressive might offer. You just use different language, that is all. Your intent is often far more vicious."

Insult number 3. You've proved my point. Calling someone brain damaged IS abuse, nothing more. Again you lack serious sense of self awareness. The use of language is critical to communication. I don't get banned even though I regularly engage on leftwing blogs I disagree with, and occasionally really annoy them.

"Your arse-licking and cowardly comment at Not PC where you know I am denied right of reply. Pure subjective rot designed to ingratiate you with Mummy Cresswell. Sickening in its fawning sycophancy." Insults 4 and 5. No, it isn't bigotry to just not like how someone writes. It is judgment. I don't always agree with PC, I have no reason to ingratiate myself, we haven't even met in years.

"Not PC uses his blog to attack Christians and Conservatives and expects to remain free of criticism for this and to also remain free of any counter argument" I don't know if that is true, but if it is then it is his choice. You have every right to not like that, but no right to use his blog if he so chooses. Set up your own and respond in kind. Idiot Savant blocks all comments, removes links to my blog when I fisk his nonsense, but he doesn't go round whining about it. NZ Conservative seems to do a fine job of allowing debate, in a very civilised way too. I have engaged in heated debate there, but always with due respect. I happily engage with Christians and Conservatives.

It's very simple. You do sometimes (even often) make some good points. You completely excoriate this by deliberately denigrating those you disagree with. It fails miserably to achieve anything other than piss people off because it looks like the rantings of a wingnut.

In other words, I can see why PC did what he did. You typically do not debate by simply arguing points, but by peppering it with accusing people of being cowards, lame, brain damaged and the like.

Just like you have here.

So you have a choice. You either write arguments and debate like a civilised person would, face to face, or you rant and rave and call people names, like an angry adolescent.

If you do the former, you may find a lot are willing to engage, listen and focus on points of disagreement. If you do the latter, you shouldn't be surprised if people tell you to fuck off and not come back.

Imagine owning a shop telling people who enter what you have for sale, and if they say they aren't interested, you tell them they are useless cowardly braindamaged idiots. They wont even bother to come in again.

I assume PC just got sick of this. Perhaps the "left" on your forum felt the same way.

Finally, I asked you to be civil, but you apparently can't be. You have acted like the unhinged adolescent I suggested before.

Redbaiter said...

You have to be nuts right. Or one of us has to be. For I cannot see how the hell you could possibly write such sanctimonious bullshit when you started all of this off with a completely unprovoked attack on Redbaiter on Not PC.

In the remote chance that I could be guilty of the charges you level, and I am convicted, you should have been through the same court and likewise convicted long before me.

That is your and Mr. Cresswells error you see. You set yourself up in your pathetic little kangaroo courts with your crooked juries and your bought judges, and convict peopele against all objective evidence. And the mindless mob, those stupid knuckle dragging phonies that proliferate at Not PC cheer you on like senile and geriatric knitters at the guillotine.

If you are not to be convicted yourself of malicious intent, and cowardice and hypocrisy, explain why you felt the need to leave that comment on NOT PC where you know I cannot reply? What good was ever going to come of it?

libertyscott said...

It's very very simple. I posted what I did because of the behaviour you have demonstrated NOT on your latest post, but the two before (and seen elsewhere on several occasions).

I'm pleased you can post without personal attacks. It was entirely my point, I have no other beef with you.

My comment at Not PC was entirely about that.

You have just proved me wrong, you can be a civilised debater (although the third paragraph was a rant).

Now can you actually admit that your style typically expresses near permanent anger, peppered with personal attacks, and that this might be why YOU have been singled out?

It may also be why "the mindless mob" as you call them give you not an inch of the benefit of the doubt, because they too simply see crap being dumped when you post.

Like I said, I think you sometimes make some very valid points - but it is all ruined by style.

Redbaiter said...

"It's very very simple. I posted what I did because of the behaviour you have demonstrated NOT on your latest post, but the two before (and seen elsewhere on several occasions)."

Don't you get it?? You cannot criticise people for what you perceive as slinging mud when you sling mud yourself.

All of your comments here promote the hypothesis that my perceived insults are unnecessary, when if there was ever a time when they were totally unnecessary it was when YOU wrote the words YOU did on Not PC (knowing I could not reply there.)

Either "abuse" (as you call it) is justified or it is not. If you say my behaviour justifies your abuse, then I can of course say the same thing myself.

How can you, who so often projects the value of rationality, fail to see the gaping subjective hole in your logic.

I'll tell you. Your whole mindset is totally poisoned by the credo of Progressivism. You cannot understand concepts such as borders to behaviour. To you, moral realitivity is the essence, and anything is permissable if you can convince yourself it is justified.

My credo is different. It is traditional.

I say that when nobody is watching, then is the most important time to act with decency.

A gentleman never makes use of his advantage.

Will you ever see that difference?

These are concepts that have been completely submerged by the tidal wave of Progressive ideas and their assault on our culture, our morality and our public behaviour. Ideas that you subscibe to as enthusiastically as anyone, and that allow you to write utterly illogical hogwash here without being aware of how absurd it sounds to someone who is not a Progressive.

libertyscott said...

Quid pro quo. We end up being in a cycle of "you did it first" now which is fruitless. However, you do now know why people get pissed off at you.

You do have a point hidden in your labelling and claims of moral relativity, which of course I don't have. It is that people should operate from a starting point of mutual respect when they debate, and that only deteriorates when one initiates force against another directly or by defamation.

Playing the ball not the man tends to work. I've seen too often that you do both, but the latter comes across so aggressively that more than a few ignore the former.

If you can admit that this has been your behaviour, given it is not hard to find the evidence, then I'll remove my post from the Not PC thread. You'll be a changed man.

You changed in this comments thread alone, and I actually value the perspective you bring, when you stop throwing around names and labels.

I know I'm not completely innocent from this, but I try to avoid it. It is the exception rather than the rule.

Redbaiter said...

"We end up being in a cycle of "you did it first" now which is fruitless."

Not correct. It matters not who did it "first". The issue is your criticism of Redbaiter for unnecessary abuse when you are guilty of it yourself. The issue is your belief that only YOUR abuse is justified and excusable.

That said, it galls me terribly to be using the word "abuse" so frequently, as I regard it as an expression that has had its meaning incrementally changed by Progressives, who have done so with the long term objective of using it to limit political criticism, just as charges of 'racism' are used to limit criticism of multiculturalism (for example) or "homophobic" is used to limit discussion of homosexual issues.

The term 'abuse' now is levelled at anyone who does not buy into Progressive concepts. Given this actuality, I make no apologies for my behaviour on Not PC or elsewhere.

Not PC promotes nasty and insulting ideas concerning Conservatives and Christians. Ideas that are incredibly offensive. Much more offensive than any swear word or simple epithet like "dumbfuck". (for example)

Because Mr. Cresswell is a Progressive, he is unable to understand how offensive his ideas are.

Over at Kiwipolitico, Pablo posts messages that are vile, cowardly and often complete distortions of reality, yet he would reject immediately any accusation of impropriety because he always expresses those vile ideas in language that is perfectly politically correct.

As with Mr. Cresswell, Pablo's progressive mentality prevents him from understanding what it is that makes him so offensive to some people.

As for taking down your post on Not PC, that is of course entirely your decision.

My own view is that all of those posts, and Mr. Cresswell's obsessive censoring, and the cowardly nature of the messages, wins me greater support from the more rational members of the blogosphere, and they're the people who matter.

The smug supercilious simpering MG driving twit may think he is winning, but in the long term, he is losing.

I consider that in the time I have been writing on the internet (almost 10 years) I have managed to have an influence on the average NZ's thinking as it relates to leftism.

The next step is to achieve the same national change of attitude in relation to Progressivism. I will achieve that change, and being censored on some weak and cowardly pissant blog professing false concerns with liberty is not going to stop me.

Anonymous said...

Serious bitch fight. I'm fairly new to reading blogs and have no idea what this is about. You both seem right wing yet are at it with a vengeance. Perhaps an explanation for people such as myself? Ian

libertyscott said...

Ian: Redbaiter was banned from another blog (Not PC). He is a conservative and disagrees with some libertarian views, and was offended by them. The language he used to criticise this was vehement and offensive to some. The debate is ongoing. You might learn more if you search the name Redbaiter on other blogs, but as far as I am concerned the topic is closed on my blog.

Andrew B said...

The guy is mentally deranged (but then he is a mystic), Scott. I wouldn't bother with him.

And as you said, if only they'd privatise all those functions...

StephenR said...

Something you said on Kiwiblog:

"Some will argue for the “good old days” when the ARA ran its own buses, subsidised them through rates directly (no bother with competitive tenders), and Auckland bus patronage plummeted over a 20 year period whilst subsidies grew and grew."

Do you knokw where would one find this data? I know a few people who've asked why why don't just go back to council running things - we're young-ish so weren't really around when all this was going on...

cheers