Goodbye Hubbard

[Robert Taylor]

Pretty much all Citizen & Ratepayers. centre right all the way.

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/coun...esults2007.asp

Banskie is already making Clark squirm, wonderful!

[Finn]

Banskie is already making Clark squirm, wonderful!

Yeah, I was watching her on the news laughing my head off. I quote, "He's not even sworn in yet. Lets wait until the dust settles."

Helen, I won't make any difference you stupid old hag.

[jrandom]

A family member of 'Banksie' is an old personal friend of mine, and from what I've heard, I feel comfortable with the hypothesis that JB is a total cunt.

I strongly suspect that that might be what Auckland needs right now. It's time someone stood up and started sending a few "fuck you"s in Wellington's direction.

We shall see, we shall see...

[Skyryder]

Council decisions can be reveresed. were any contracts entered into? if not banks can change whatever he likes.

I would be very surprised if a contract of some description was not entered into.

There's an article on this in the Chch Press today. The money seems to be on Banks.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Banks wants taxpayer money spent on an upgrade that is an Auckland facility.

Aucklanders in the main are ones who will be useing Eden Park so why should taxpayers pay for this.

If Clarke had the same attitude to Auckland roading upgrades as Banks has to the Eden Park Upgrade, the rest of New Zealand would not paying for it with the petrol tax.

Skyryder

[Toaster]

Hubbards cereals are cheap compared to Bank's. One of Banks major campaign planks was 'no' to ratepayers money on the Eden Park upgrade. As this was legaly 'approved' by Hubbard's Council any reneging on this agreement could cost the Auckland ratepayers more in DAMAGES and litigation costs than the upgrade.

Auckland you have been suckered good and proper

Skyyrder

Yes well that is true. I live well north of the city in a rural area... we have no public transport system at all... yet they want us to pay for a 10c/L pertol tax when we have no alternatives and won't get an alternative.

Too many councils, too many fees and consent fees are absurd. Auckland needs central focused planning to make it a better place rather than all this fractured dis-jointed half-arse crap.

[idleidolidyll]

Jumping for joy over here for 2 reasons. Firstly, this cretin is out and more importantly, it's a win for the Centre Right. Lefties take note, we've had enough of your bullshit, lies, incompetence and corruption.

Go get em Banksy!

funny!

do you really think right/left had much to do with local body elections? rotflmfao!
local politics is about personalities, simple recognition or a specific policy like water rates rises than about right/left/fascist/anarchist politics.

What REALLY made me laugh was John Banks on Eden Park:

He said he had no intention to assists a wealthy corporation like the Rugby Union or the RWC. Instead he stated that his responsibility was to the ordinary Aucklander.

Hilarious! Maybe he HAS changed.

[Usarka]

Aucklanders in the main are ones who will be useing Eden Park so why should taxpayers pay for this.

The government (read taxpayers) & the nzru have contracted to bring the world cup rugby over and need a stadium to host it.

Aucklanders dont want it, so were not going to pay for it.

simple really.

[Skyryder]

Then how much are Komrade Klerke and the Politburo's u-turns and failed promises going to cost? For example; reneging on the promise to change the tax-rate thresholds?

Hubbard's council say they were going to give money. Bank's council say they're not. Cullen said he was going to change tax-rate thresholds, and a year later he says he's not going to after all. Perhaps you'd like to point out how one is different to the other?

One is a U turn on policy. There is no simularity, nor did I suggest one.

If the Auckland City Council have entered into a contract, and I say 'if' as this has not come out as yet, then Banks won't be able to change a thing without it costing Auckland 'bigtime.' There's a lot of ifs and buts yet to be sure. Will be interesting one way or another.

Lancaster Park can always be used for plan B in the next world Cup.

Skyryder

[jrandom]

If Clarke had the same attitude to Auckland roading upgrades as Banks has to the Eden Park Upgrade, the rest of New Zealand would not paying for it with the petrol tax.

Auckland residents pay a greater proportion of the total petrol tax take than is spent on Auckland roads.

Next please.

[Usarka]

Lancaster Park can always be used for plan B in the next world Cup.

Nope, nowhere near enough hotel beds in Chch.

[MisterD]

Aucklanders in the main are ones who will be useing Eden Park so why should taxpayers pay for this.

If Clarke had the same attitude to Auckland roading upgrades as Banks has to the Eden Park Upgrade, the rest of New Zealand would not paying for it with the petrol tax.

Skyryder

Are we? It'll be 60% gone to corporate sponsors of the NZRFU before the rest of the tickets go into a ballot. Why should Akld ratepayers foot the bill for Clarke & Mallard's self-publicity? They bought the cup, they can sign the cheque.

I'm right with Banks on this, spend money to upgrade local infrastructure, railway stations around the ground etc, but the stadium? No.

Question for you Skyryder: How much of the produce of the rest of NZ leaves through Ports of Auckland?

[Skyryder]

Auckland residents pay a greater proportion of the total petrol tax take than is spent on Auckland roads.

Next please.

I was not talking about 'proportion' but the fact that an additional petrol tax has been imposed on all NZ for Auckland's roading upgrades.

Skyryder

[Sanx]

One is a U turn on policy. There is no simularity, not did I suggest one.

If the Auckland City Council have entered into a contract, and I say 'if' as this has not come out as yet, then Banks won't be able to change a thing without it costing Auckland 'bigtime.' There's a lot of ifs and buts yet to be sure. Will be interesting one way or another.

Lancaster Park can always be used for plan B in the next world Cup.

Skyryder

And Cullen entered into a verbal contract with the New Zealand Public to lower the tax rate thresholds. A verbal contract can be enforced in NZ. Usually though, this is rather difficult as you have to prove that someone said something. In this case, the fact he said it is pretty well documented and as it was in a Budget speech, recorded for posterity. Would be interesting to see someone try to enforce it too...

[idleidolidyll]

And Cullen entered into a verbal contract with the New Zealand Public to lower the tax rate thresholds. A verbal contract can be enforced in NZ. Usually though, this is rather difficult as you have to prove that someone said something. In this case, the fact he said it is pretty well documented and as it was in a Budget speech, recorded for posterity. Would be interesting to see someone try to enforce it too...

nope, not quite right

he never said he WOULD lower taxes at any particular time (please correct me if I'm wrong with suitable references); he said that IF economics allowed for it, he'd consider the idea

the 'suggestion' of lowering taxes is not a contract even in the verbal form