Large lead for Labour candidate in Auckland Central

Auckland Central is the electorate where Nikki Kaye beat Jacinda Ardern twice after defeating Judith Tizzard in 2008.

Kaye is stepping down. A poll from Newshub/Reid Research Labour candidate Helen White, who lost to Kaye last election, well in front, with National’s late selection Emma Mellow 16% behind, closely followed by Green MP Chloe Swarbrick.

  • Helen White (LAB) 42.3%
  • Emma Mellow (NAT) 26.6%
  • Chloe Swarbrick (GRN) 24.2%
  • Jenny Marcroft (NZF) 2.2%
  • Tuariki Delamere (TOP) 1%
  • Felix Poole (ACT) 0.9%
  • David Seymour 1.9%
  • Other 0.9%

But: 20.7% of voters still undecided

That’s a different David Seymour.

Jenny Marcroft has effectively been dumped by NZ First, being dropped to 17 on their party list.

For the new poll, Reid Research interviewed 532 people in the Auckland Central electorate via landline, mobile, online and on the street in the first and second weeks of September. The results were weighted to match the electorate’s demographics. The margin of error is 4.2 percent.

That’s a small sample size.

And here are the single electorate party results:

Party votes for Auckland Central in the 2017 election:

  • National 39.15%
  • Labour 37.71%
  • Greens 13.87%
  • NZ First 3.87%
  • TOP: 3.14%
  • ACT 1.05%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Central_(New_Zealand_electorate)

The current result looks roughly in line with recent poll trends based on the last election spread.

Newshub: Auckland Central poll puts Labour’s Helen White way out in front

Leave a comment

47 Comments

  1. John J Harrison

     /  19th September 2020

    This portends the end of the Greens who many regard as economic vandals.
    Fantastic !
    If Labour win the seat it will be one less from their list.
    But the back pocket effect of the National tax break has still to be taken into account.
    With Labour now promising an increase in the minimum wage and a doubling of sick days they are ensuring a continuing gutting of SME’s .
    Central AKL won’t appreciate that, particularly when that electorate resembles a ghost town.

    Reply
    • I don’t think it will make difference what National do John. National’s tax scheme will mean nothing to many Kiwis who stand to gain little from it. I think it would have been better to make the first $20,000 tax-free. Although, Labour have failed to deliver in Auckland they will still win the vote there. St Jacinda is responsible for saving thousands from dying in NZ, which is what the majority believes. The result will be a Labour landslide. I think it is a good election to lose frankly.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  19th September 2020

        Yeah, but National supporters consoled themselves with that thought last time, when the allegedly brand-damaging toxic Winston Peters anointed Ardern as PM. Which highlights a number of political maxims, such as

        ….the driving force in politics is, as per Harold Macmillan, “events my dear fellow, events”, and was that description ever true with Covid!

        …the purpose of a political party is always to win,

        …and losing becomes a habit and the cause of leadership changes and resulting instability.

        Hard to see who the next National leader will be. Yet I doubt National, already denuded of much of its talent and charisma from the halcyon days of the Key-English-Joyce triumvirate and in dander of becoming a rump who will need at likely six more years to renew before they can regain government, will have the discipline not to ditch Collins. Indeed age and “her time and her generation has past” will get the blame for a catastrophic loss.

        You are right, this is Labour’s election to lose.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  19th September 2020

          Labour will hike costs and difficulty of doing anything. Paper pushers will flourish. Government contracts and built assets excluding retail and small business will soar. Rural land, agriculture and SMEs will slump. Emigration will reverse post Covid.

          Reply
    • Duker

       /  19th September 2020

      “If Labour win the seat it will be one less from their list.”
      Helen White is on a winnable position on the list- 48

      Reply
  2. Kimbo

     /  19th September 2020

    The Greens should still make 5%. They usually also do much better from the overseas votes, suggesting they are younger and attracted to the Green “brand”, rather than keeping up-to-date with specifics on the ground in NZ. Like, say, Metiria Turei and the benefit fraud/Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon expulsions controversy in 2017, or James Shaw and the Taranaki private school funding thing this year, the worst of which may have blown over by Election Day.

    But if it does begin to get dire, the Greens could do what Rodney Hide did in 2005, and switch from campaigning nationwide, and put all his eggs in the winning-the-electorate option. There was a massive and unexpected turnaround then as right wing voters understood the need to vote tactically to preserve the ACT presence in parliament. And Keith Locke, who swore it would never happen walked “naked” down Broadway, Newmarket.

    And here we are, 15 years later, and despite lots of hard times and more downs than ups, and three iterations of the incumbent, the Epsom ACT MP has leveraged off the Parliamentary platform, including David Seymour championing the Death with Dignity Bill, and got them over 5% again in the polls leading into a General Election. Highly unlikely that would have happened if they had exited in the especially dark days of 2005, 2011, 2014 and 2017 when ACT still won Epsom despite being party-vote road kill. Indeed, ACT would have almost certainly have become a footnote in NZ political history, like Social Credit, the NZ Party, or United-Future.

    Arguably the Greens’ brand is more resilient, and they might actually benefit from a time of renewal in the Parliamentary wilderness. But either way, tactically it should be a no-brainer for the luvvie liberal Labour voters of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby, whose high incomes and resulting soaring property values drove out the working class Pacific Islanders, Maori and Irish Catholics of generations past in those neighbourhoods: Labour for the party vote, and Swarbrick for the electorate. I mean, ffs, it is win-win for their “progressive” values.

    But then the “old money” on the other side of the CBD around Epsom is usually a bit more detached, clinical and calculating about life and the choices which determine how it pans out including when it comes to voting, compared to the more “empathetically” (emotionally and tribally?) swayed liberals.

    Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  19th September 2020

      Mind you, and it likely highlights the difference in mentality and “loyalty” between National and Labour voters, if Swarbrick did look like winning the seat, the vote for National’s Emma Mellow would likely collapse and a whole lot of otherwise National supporters (who will still vote blue for the party list) would hold their nose in the polling booth and pile into…Labour’s Helen White!

      Is the same reason National’s party vote collapsed to the low of 20.93% that it did in the 2002 General Election. To deny Clark’s Labour the option of forming a Government with the Greens only, some otherwise-National voters supported NZ First or United Future with their party votes.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  19th September 2020

        Polls at that time dont agree with you , Greens seemed to climb as labour dropped
        national was in mid-low 20% before United Futures climb

        Reply
      • Fight4nz

         /  19th September 2020

        “ are younger and attracted to the Green “brand”, rather than keeping up-to-date with specifics on the ground in NZ. Like, say, Metiria Turei and the benefit fraud”
        I am fascinated with the meal that is invariably made of this by the right. It horrified the green vote and she was dumped by the party.
        “ Epsom is usually a bit more detached, clinical and calculating”
        Is that why Key outed by the Panama Papers does not generate any horror with his vote? Or English deleting evidence from his phone? Collins as a principle Dirty Politics participant?
        No horror. A very temporary admonishment for Collins. Just no actual moral fibre?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  19th September 2020

          “admonishment for Collins”
          More like it was a contrived way to ‘rehabilitate her’ based on Cactus Kate suddenly discovering something else

          The core of the action was this
          “In the email Mr Slater talks about a campaign which involved leaking information to and from the New Zealand Herald, to undermine Mr Feeley.
          Mr Slater wrote: “I also spoke at length with the Minister responsible today [Judith Collins]. She is gunning for Feeley. Any information that we can provide her on his background is appreciated.
          “In one post on October 21, 2011, Mr Slater wrote: “Ms Collins has said she will be making her views clear when she next meets Mr Feeley. That is not an experience he will relish. She is not called Crusher for nothing.”
          https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/253409/the-blogger,-the-minister-and-the-sfo

          The Collins book added more details about NZ Heralds involvement in Slater and Collins actions ( which RNZ deliberately left out !)
          “It further alleged that Slater was working directly with Herald reporter Jared Savage, that Cathy Odgers (aka blogger Cactus Kate) was talking with Fran O’Sullivan of the Herald and Jock Anderson of the National Business Review”

          “On 2 September, the Oamaru Mail wrote that ‘it is now understood that the email that Mr Key released on Saturday was forwarded to a Beehive staffer by Slater’s friend Cathy Odgers’.”

          Mor laughs coming up
          “I was very upset with Cameron Slater for his foolish and untrue statement of three years before, and I phoned him and told him so. He apologised and I believe sincerely so. He said he had no idea when he wrote that email five years before that one day someone would send it to the PM’s office, right before an election, when a wound needed to be cauterised.” LOL
          https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300041192/resign-or-be-sacked-judith-collins-book-extract-reveals-john-keys-ultimatum

          The result was that a red herring was released by Odgers that they knew would formally exonerate Collins when a ENQUIRY WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO ASK CERTAIN QUESTIONS

          Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  19th September 2020

          @ Fight4nz

          I am fascinated with the meal that is invariably made of (the Turei benefit fraud) by the right. It horrified the Green vote and she was dumped by the party,

          Personally I couldn’t care either way what Turei thought was a clever campaign announcement or what she had done decades before. But no, it is you who have made a “meal” of analysing the details and nuance of what happened, in what order and why.

          Turei’s announcement didn’t initially “horrify” the Green vote, indeed their polling support went up significantly straight after, likely at Labour’s expense from beneficiaries and their sympathisers

          https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labour-20-year-low-greens-surge-new-poll-ck-205869

          …only to prick like a ballon when Labour replaced their leader, and Stardust/Jacindamania became a thing

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95623550/greens-coleader-metiria-turei-resigns-and-jacinda-arderns-popularity-soars-in-new-poll

          …and then Ardern threw Turei under the bus by her out of any cabinet she (Ardern) led

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97077173/when-jacinda-ardern-knifed-metiria-turei-she-changed-the-election-for-good

          So, no, ultimately more a left wing Labour (and Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon) “meal”.

          In contrast, the overseas vote for the Greens was above the NZ resident polling day percentage. Hence the Greens, like a very Election, will be making a strong pitch for Kiwis overseas to vote.

          And on the matter of the competing ethics of Turei’s benefit fraud vs the Panama Papers, et al, I think the voters of Epsom reciprocate your contempt. Personally? Not worth my time factoring either into my voting equation. Nonetheless if it gives you the consolation with which narrow-minded zealots of all ideological persuasions convince themselves they are on the side of angels, knock yourself out…

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  19th September 2020

            The big reveal about the panama papers was really the small change Key made to tax legislation which canned the limit on ‘tax free donations’
            That was the mechanism used by these NZ registered Offshore trusts were able to transfer money by the supposedly ‘unrelated party’ Trust to the beneficiary mega millionaire all the while saying transfer of money ‘ it was fully tax paid in NZ”
            It was a version of the Cook Islands Wine box transactions, where cheques were passed around the table in an Auckland office and the pretence was it went through the Cook Is and ‘became’ tax free transactions ‘ – for which the Cook Is government got a tiny % ( better than nothing)

            Reply
          • Fight4nz

             /  19th September 2020

            You didn’t read the article you posted?
            It states several times that Green poll results had plummeted and “the tipping point came on Monday night when two Green Party MPs broke ranks with their colleagues and said they would leave the party if Turei didn’t resign.”
            If Ardern had a part to play this doesn’t conflict with the premise that the left have scruples. And as your words confirm the right’s (yourself included) only scruple is to condemn any threat to their personal wealth, ie “ the voters of Epsom reciprocate your contempt. Personally? Not worth my time factoring either into my voting equation.”
            And how do you square that last statement with the implication earlier that overseas Green voters were somehow derelict in their selection not taking into account issues on the ground, which you are now deeming trivial?

            Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  19th September 2020

            And didn’t you read the first article that when Turei made the announcement at the Green Party’s 2017 campaign launch, their support surged by over a quarter from 11% to 15%?! The resulting burst bubble wasn’t so much due to any “ethical” considerations, but

            1. Ardern’s ascending to the Labour leadership

            2. Bourgeois Graham and Clendon disrupting the facade of unity (which you mentioned), and

            3. Ardern making it impossible for Turei to continue

            So irrespective of the moralising over benefit fraud by right-wing conservatives who were never voting Green anyway, the real reason the Green’s support sank after the initial surge and Turei resigned/was ditched was tactical, not moral.

            But Green voters overseas, less aware of the fast-moving events on the ground but cognisant of the feel-good brand, voted in higher numbers for the Greens. Hence their support went up once the special votes, including over 60,000 overseas were counted, and they gained an extra seat.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97204595/greens-rely-on-special-votes-to-get-golriz-ghahraman-into-parliament

            But sorry, where do you get the idea I think those overseas Green voters were “derelict”?! I’m making no moral judgement on how they, you, the people of Epsom chose to cast their vote, nor any attendant morality. I’m just observing what (imho) is, not saying what should be.

            Again, I don’t care in the sense that it is their business whom they voted for and why. Hence moralising over Turei’s alleged benefit fraud or benefitting from the arrangements allegedly revealed in the Panama Papers is just trying to guilt people…when they should be capable of making up their own minds about what is right, wrong or pragmatically good. So complaining or moralising about anyone’s voting choicemakes as much sense as shaking your fist at a cloud.

            In 2011, when we had the referendum to retain or ditch MMP I thought long and hard about how desirable it would be for me personally to see the Greens denied of any real option for Parliamentary representation. But then I decided, as much as I disagree with them, indeed find their (imho) continual moralising and public posturing extremely tiresome and usually incredibly hypocritical once you dig down into the details, they and the over 100,000 who (imho) misguidedly vote for them deserved a reasonable chance to be represented in my and their nation’s Parliament.

            Is likely the last favour I do for them, so if you or anyone else lse, whether resident in NZ or overseas wants to vote for the Greens, go for it. None of my business, let alone my place to pass a moral judgement on you or anyone for whatever they vote. Although I get the impression some round here take the “everything is political” approach and are more ready to pass and voice their moral judgement, good luck to them too, including their emotional self indulgence, although it won’t sway me…at all.

            Indeed, don’t even expect a “thank you” for the small unlikely-to-be-repeated favour I once did for Green voters. 😳😂

            Reply
            • Fight4nz

               /  19th September 2020

              So if moral impropriety is not something you consider important in your political representatives, what is?
              And how is it in the 2011 MMP referendum you had any influence that mattered on whether Greens would get represented in parliament?

            • Kimbo

               /  19th September 2020

              So if moral impropriety is not something you consider important in your political representatives, what is?

              Oh, dear. Still trying to play the tedious but all-to-common modern political moral puritan “gotcha” game which seems to make its practitioners incapable of understanding what someone with a different perspective and imperatives is really saying? Hence you mistake the meaning of my words and think that I was calling those who vote from offshore for the Greens as somehow “derelict”. Ok, let’s try and clarify yet again…

              Yes, I do take into account the my morality and the morality of the candidates and parties when I vote, although not the narrow partisan morality that political zealots from all extremes demand is the only way to make an ethical decision. However, despite the ostensible, purported or alleged morality of any candidate and/or party, my prime voting consideration ahead of morality in isolation is…competence. As per Martin Luther, “better to be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian prince”.

              Now, to the matter of the alleged (im)morality of how others choose to vote, I choose to be an agnostic on that matter. I may disagree with their choice, but as it is a personal one determined by so many factors, I do not consider myself in any valid position to call their choice morally deficient unless I have clear evidence to the contrary regarding a specific person, And as I thankfully have no means of knowing how any other individual casts their ballots in the privacy of the voting booth, I can likely never have that evidence for sure. So how others specifically vote is an “is”, not an “ought” imho. Hence my comment about the overseas Green voters was a description of a fact and phenomena, not a moral judgement against them. I would suggest it says much for your state of mind that you thought I meant the latter.

              Instead, and I think this may be where we especially differ and why you have misunderstood what I have said so badly, I prefer to treat the choices of my fellow voters as being made in good faith. Hence, I have little inclination to go down road of judgement revealed in your assessment, “…the right’s (yourself included) only scruple is to condemn any threat to their personal wealth”, against any voter, be they individual or demographic group, especially those who statistically vote contrary to me.

              Now, I realise that places me at odds with those who analyse and practice their politics according to “identity politics”. Indeed, yes!

              Trust that clarifies, but if you want to have another go, knock yourself out…

            • Kimbo

               /  19th September 2020

              And how is it in the 2011 MMP referendum you had any influence that mattered on whether Greens would get represented in parliament?

              OK, so we now need to deal with your humour bypass and inability to join the most obvious of dots? My one vote to retain MMP in 2011 was a mere grain of sand, but a grain nonetheless that contributed to a much larger pile (1,267,954 others to be exact!)

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_Zealand_voting_system_referendum

              …that saw that system of representation retained. And in the 24 years since they were first elected to Parliament there have been 28 Green MPs, only one of whom and for only one term (Jeannette Fizsimmons in Coromadel 1996-99) won an electorate.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand_MPs

              But hey, if you think a return to, say, FPP would produce the same level of Green parliamentary representation, I sure hope you play a key role in their tactical brains trust! 😉

            • Kimbo

               /  19th September 2020

              Correction: Jeanette Fitzsimons was the MP for Coromandel from 1999 to 2002:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanette_Fitzsimons

            • Fight4nz

               /  19th September 2020

              Ironically it is you who projected onto my question the “gotcha”. It was simply a query on what you prioritise.
              Yes, seems you did need to join the “obvious “ dots for me wrt question 2.
              Word to the wise, if you’re inspired to respond further try to cut the unwarranted and poorly conceived pontification to under 4 pages to avoid you yourself being the source of the tedium you so disdain.

            • Kimbo

               /  19th September 2020

              Nope. You. Misunderstood. My. Comment. About. Green. Voters. Right. From. The. Beginning.

              You’re welcome.

            • Kimbo

               /  20th September 2020

              And as I said before, I choose not to ascribe bad faith to others unless I have a good reason. Hence, in your case, having previously said, “…the right…(has) on actual moral fibre?…the right’s (yourself included) only moral scruple is to condemn any threat to their personal wealth”, I’m willing to make an exception and calling “bullshit” when you say you are “simply” querying what I prioritise.

              Furthermore, you have no idea of my “wealth”, abundance, lack or otherwise, you arrogant presumptuous arse, so kindly desist in misrepresenting your intention in such a mendacious fashion.

              Trust that communication is straightforward. And again, I find it incredible that someone who is prepared to make such blanket statements and judgements about those who vote differently from you, is so I’ll-informed about New Zealand’s political processes that you couldn’t work out why the Greens and every other minor party were in favour of retaining MMP.

              Trust the pontification was sufficiently clear and free of tedium.

            • Fight4nz

               /  20th September 2020

              Couldn’t help yourself.

            • Fight4nz

               /  20th September 2020

              Has anybody seen my will to live? 👀😂

            • Fight4nz

               /  20th September 2020

              Incidentally if the choices of people’s votes and their cheerleading to others based on a stance like that in the Turei case, then leads to a government that degrades my quality of life then I will absolutely point out their hypocrisy.
              Your petty name calling and other endless manifestations of your messiah complex are irrelevant.

            • Kimbo

               /  20th September 2020

              Incidentally if the choices of people’s votes and their cheerleading…leads to a government that degrades my quality of life then I will absolutely point out their hypocrisy.

              So when others, according to your assessment, vote for naked self-interest that is immoral,

              …whereas when you choose to measure the effect of their vote on the alleged degradation of your quality of life and you vote otherwise, your voting motives are somehow without self-interest and are moral?! And yet in this matter they’re the hypocrites?! 😒🥱🤣

              And I’m not the one who trundled out, “Just no actual moral fibre”, “right’s (yourself included) only scruple is to condemn any threat to their personal wealth”, But hey, that’s not name calling, that’s just speaking truth to power when democracy maybe “leads to a government that degrades my quality of life”. Join the queue of the rest of us who find that how others vote usually dishes up effects which are negative to our personal circumstances.

              So I’m sure I’m the one with the voice-of-God messiah complex round here.

            • Kimbo

               /  20th September 2020

              I am fascinated with the meal that is invariably made of this by the right.

              Also, I’m fascinated you think there is anything to “call out” here about the “right”, when

              1. As we both agreed it was Kennedy Graham, Dave Clendon and Jacinda Ardern who collectively delivered the coup de grâce to Turei’s political career, and

              2. I was not criticising, praising or in any way judging Turei’s alleged benefit fraud. Like your misunderstanding that I thought overseas Kiwis who cast their vote for the Greens are “derelict”, I was merely recalling the fact of the controversy that surrounded her last election.

              You know, because this thread is mean to be be in part about whether a Green politician will win the critical Auckland Central electorate, and what are the possible factors that may or may not motivate voters in that electorate to do so.

              Yeah, yeah, I know, lots of words, and hey, you’ve got “the choices of people…that…then leads to a government that degrades my quality of life” to call out. 🙄

      • Kimbo

         /  19th September 2020

        @ Duker

        Polls at the time dont agree with you , Green seemed to climb as labour dropped

        You are forgetting that the vote on the left was up for grabs and moving around in a volatile fashion as the support for two warring factions of the Alliance/Jim Anderton’s Progressives shed 4.8% between them and sought for a new home. Hence Labour picked up an extra 2.5% and the Greens, despite losing the insurance of the Coromandel electorate) another 1.84% from the precious election. And that rise in Green support did not go unnoticed on the other side of the political divide…

        national was in mid-low 20% before United Future’s rise climb

        Clear mid not low 20s, which should, as per Collins’ recent polling be absolute bedrock for National…unless other tactical-voting factors weighed in…like, say Nicky Hager, Corngate and the “little creep” interview highlighted the sort of concerns the Greens would bring to the table if they were full coalition partner. Hence the tactical need for another option for Clark as a counterbalance.

        And yes, Peter Dunne’s famous coaxing of the worm that lifted him from national anonymity into the public consciousness finished National off and the vote collapsed even further when it was clear National had no chance.

        But you overlook and as per that graph, that the other centrist option, NZ First, had been rising strongly up to that point, just as National was falling. United Future’s rise just gave National voters a more palatable and principled reason to vote tactically compared to Peters’ populism. But between the two of them NZ First and United Future’s polled 11%, much of which would have been at the expense of the 9.5% National lost from the previous election.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_New_Zealand_general_election

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  19th September 2020

          Yes. Because the polling dates were all over the place there was a big gap until the election. Not sure why as they didnt have the financial issues they have now . Was it audience surveys which dictated the timing , which I think is a big factor now as to why spend on a poll or winning a new car on 7 Sharp ?

          Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  19th September 2020

    Meanwhile Auckland grinds to a gridlocked halt perhaps for weeks because a truck blew over on a bridge:
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12366192

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  19th September 2020

      Seems to be an exaggeration…. could do repairs overnight for however long it takes
      A Bridge of that design with bolted sections isnt dependent on a single steel connection.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  19th September 2020

        No doubt Auckland Transport will divert the traffic onto its bike lanes.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  19th September 2020

          No, they’ll go with Plan A instituted years ago:

          “National leader Judith Collins seized on the chaos with a promise to build a rail and road tunnel under the harbour to provide a second crossing to commuters.”

          The two major parties have been in power for about forever but there’s a ‘problem’ and it’s election year so Collins rolls out the bullshit and bluster. What happened over the years when we had the ‘best PM we’ve ever had’ and the best managers of the economy ever with so many geniuses? What happened to the inspired leadership with foresight?

          You might chide me for it AW but would you have preferred serious consideration and real action directed towards new a flag or transport infrastructure? When it came to legacy a newspaper person cum biographer John Roughan pitched his tent in insignificance. No doubt he’ll be resurrected to cast his blind sage eyes on the latest bridge situation and complain about bike lanes instead of other harbour crossings and lay blame in some red corner.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  19th September 2020

            What about the kaikoura earthquake …single highway and railway …they just closed it for 2 years until fixed.
            San Francisco even lost its main bay bridge for a month , that wasnt a single bridge strut but the whole upper deck fell on the lower in one section. yet they only needed a month..one strut should be ‘ less than a week’ maybe days

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  19th September 2020

              They obviously need your engineering, fabrication and installation expertise, Duker. They seem to be floundering without it.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  19th September 2020

            Considering it had to survive the GFC and fund the Chch rebuild the Key Govt also did a lot of Auckland roading infrastructure as well compared with the previous nine years of neglect. The present lot came in with promises to can everything and play with their trains and bikes.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  19th September 2020

              Considering it had to survive the GFC and fund the Chch rebuild the Key Govt also did a lot of Auckland roading infrastructure as well compared with the previous nine years of neglect. ‘

              Acorn Al gets very,very……furry!

            • Duker

               /  19th September 2020

              Hallelujah
              Collins just says they will start the planning for a new harbour crossing… they will be up against the same building constraints as every other construction project.
              Per haps they will repeat their flawed idea to offload the risk to a Private finance project like Transmission gully but with their favourite Chinese financiers?
              What could go wrong.

            • duperez

               /  19th September 2020

              I get all that. I know it, but the possibility of the Harbour Bridge being closed has been there for years, the dependence on it has been there for years, the growth in the population is continuous and has dramatically escalated.

              Your concern for bureaucracy and lack of thought and planning goes on too. In the circumstances of the bridge situation and election to be coming up, with, “Wow, we need a new harbour crossing, we’ll get onto it when you vote for us,” is beyond bewildering. It isn’t just a condemnation of politicians of course but of the populace.

              Sure this happened and that happened. Let’s do no planning for the future because we’re too busy eating our afternoon tea?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  19th September 2020

              @duperez, always the case with bureaucracy which is happiest doing nothing at lots of afternoon teas and view its customers as an unnecessary nuisance. Like NZTA objecting to a new development because it would use “their” roads, Watercare complaining that Aucklanders use too much water and every DHB complaining that people need too much healthcare. Strangely few private businesses complain about too many customers and most manage to plan to cope with demand.

            • Duker

               /  19th September 2020

              Banks have been complaining that too many customers going to branches ‘ don’t need to’ and could have done it online.
              Telcos have too many customers calling them, so they just increase the wait time on hold and cut you off if the average wait time gets to long.
              Airlines just close the flight early at the airport if too many passengers turn up for overbooked flight, or cancel the flight completely if a pilot doesn’t arrive or even if the plane was ‘only’ half full.
              Don’t let be get started with all the airline customer scams during Covid.

              If you think some businesses don’t want every customer, I can tell you different from getting some to even quote for a job or many a business I was closely associated with quotes were ridiculously high just to get rid of them . It works

    • duperez

       /  19th September 2020

      The timeline of the Harbour Bridge construction shows how far out things have to start.

      Times may have changed but infrastructure developments such as Upper Harbour and Western Motorways are virtually sprinting on the spot only coping with now, not with what’s down the line. The population of Auckland is projected to reach 2 million by 2033. (The ways things go that probably means before 2030)

      Part of the Harbour Bridge being out of commission is a good exercise to show the vulnerability of the town to significant disruption. How would things go if the bridge were totally closed down for a week?

      Reply
  4. PartisanZ

     /  19th September 2020

    Great leadership rubs off …

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  19th September 2020

      On what?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  19th September 2020

        On the Harbour Bridge by the look of it:

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  19th September 2020

          What’s so difficult to replace that…just a few long sections …could be made overnight …if they wanted to fix it in a hurry. The should start tomorrow to make the pieces
          Even send the truck insurance company the bill
          By the looks of it’s one of THREE struts joined at the base ( in other photos) and the top join is with another strut
          Bridge still stands even if the truck took whole strut with it…

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  20th September 2020

          Crikey, the twisted struts of socialism.

          You are a man of many talents, Duker. What about the tensile reset needed for the new piece.?

          ”Even send the truck insurance company the bill.”

          That won’t be happening because of that clause most insurance policies have.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s