 |
| By late afternoon, tempers fray and vision blurs. Internecine battles break out. Names are called. I remain aloof. *Spoof alert! These Councillors are in fact, amicably chatting. There is no name calling, there is no internecine battle. Tempers are kept. In fact, it's a love-fest. |
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Dairy differential
I was there all of yesterday and I'll be there all of today; on my chuff in the Council boardroom, listening to dairy farmers argue that the cost of protecting the environment from their activities should be borne by all Southlanders, not them alone. It's a constant theme - they want the load shared, because all Southlandes, they claim, are sharing in the bounty their industry brings. The work that's needed to protect the rivers from the effects of dairying, is something we should all pay for, they argue. The cost should not fall to them alone. None have made mention of the $700 000 'sweetener' some of the Councillors voted to take from the Council's South Port dividend and insert into the mix so as not to startle the dairy men and women when they get their first rate demand of the new round, bar one brave soul who expressed reservations about it and the rationale behind its generous inclusion. She called herself a townie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
"Internecine". Powerful words.
Given the divide you suggest, is the theme as constant as you suggest?
I wonder if the $700,000 would exist without the dairy industry?
Yes, it would. South Port isn't beholden to the dairy industry to the extent that they wouldn't be making profit.
The theme's constant alright. You should come in and have a listen :-)
Without decent property rights, what do you expect?
You have transposed the 'l' and the 'f' in the last word.
I would only come if the councillors made fun of your driving.
So am I right to interpret there was no dairy component in the 700,000 profit?
At least I've got your identity down to a few of my original suspects :-)
Why don't you come and talk face to face? I'd appreciate your experienced input.
As to the $700 000, how could you determine that, the fund being derived from a number of 'products and services'. I won't quibble though. Some of it could be.
I don't think there has been a proper in-depth , open discussion around these issues - dairying in particular. We circle each other, but no real contact is made. 'sup to you.
Calling for someone like me, open expressor of opinion, to stand down from any official voting on these issues (I over-heard your discussion), would be a mistake, in my opinion. Mine is opinion, and I'm careful to make it clear that I am open to being convinced by good argument, more so than any other member of Council, in my opinion. That, top me, is what blogging is all about. Others may hide their opinions, I do not.
Gidday Robert,
You have chosen this forum to communicate in. For some reason you would rather I communicated face to face rather than here?
Indeed I could ask you, why do you choose to blog? Why dont you spend your time meeting people face to face? Blogging is your choice. My blogging is a consequence of that choice.
I am interested that you have suggested we circle each other but no real contact is made. Blogging is not real contact? Ok.
With regards to me making some statement about your voting rights, that is an interesting statement? I suspect the only circling going on is you dancing in a circle by yourself? Councils need councillors to vote. If I did make such a statement, I cannot see the logic in it.
You made the comment "convinced by a good argument". That is the problem I have with blogging and councillors. I dont think that it is appropriate that Councillors argue with the public. Pretty simple I think.
poor you. Must be tough. Suck it up.
Actually dairying does has an impact at Southport. How do you think all that Palm Kernal gets landed in NZ. And what about the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fertiliser, yep, both through Southport. And both being two of the biggest loads regularly coming in too.
Anon said: That is the problem I have with blogging and councillors. I dont think that it is appropriate that Councillors argue with the public. Pretty simple I think.
Simple how?
Is it a problem that the public know all about a particular councillors opinions or what is really going on with the local powers that be?
Is it just a little bit to much democracy for your liking?
Do you fear that Roberts blogging may lead to the collapse of local body elections and see him proclaimed dictator for life?
To me, it sounds as though you like the idea of the voting public being kept all nice and ignorant, I don't like that at all.
Simple really.
Gidday, Anonymous (It'd be really useful if you signed your comments with some sort of name, so that I could be sure I'm talking to one guy - up to you though).
I've copied your comment and added my italicised comments.
Gidday Robert,
You have chosen this forum to communicate in. For some reason you would rather I communicated face to face rather than here?
I'm happy to chat here, but I know its a limited format. I'm happy to meet with you. You'd find me less brittle.
Indeed I could ask you, why do you choose to blog? Why dont you spend your time meeting people face to face?
Well, Anon, it's hard for me to visit you, as you are ... anonymous. I don't know where your farm is, nor what you look like. I'm guessing you were one of the well-informed younger farmers who were in the chamber today. It was impressive seeing farmers of your vintage and education in there. Blogging is your choice. My blogging is a consequence of that choice.
I am interested that you have suggested we circle each other but no real contact is made. Blogging is not real contact? Ok.
No it's not. I recognise the limitations.
With regards to me making some statement about your voting rights, that is an interesting statement? I suspect the only circling going on is you dancing in a circle by yourself? Councils need councillors to vote. If I did make such a statement, I cannot see the logic in it.
Clearly, it wasn't you I overheard, though it seemed to me that issue was being discussed. I agree with you, Councillors are there to cast votes on issues. If I've misinterpreted the discussion that I heard from my seat in the staffroom, then there's no issue.
You made the comment "convinced by a good argument". That is the problem I have with blogging and councillors.
I don't understand this.
I dont think that it is appropriate that Councillors argue with the public. Pretty simple I think.Argue? Debate. I understand that you think it inappropriate.Do you find my letters to the editor of the Southland Times similarly inappropriate?
"Anonymous (@11:30) said...
You have transposed the 'l' and the 'f' in the last word."
Very good! "aloof" becomes "a fool".
I like it.
Fascinating Shunda,
That you wrote a post in defense of blogging when it wasn't the long ago that you were so terribly offended by others blogs.
I have said in the past blogging is fine, in my opinion, as long as a councillor doesn't use it to agitate. Councillors are bound by a code of conduct not to act in an agitating fashion with the public.
Simple really.
That you wrote a post in defense of blogging when it wasn't the long ago that you were so terribly offended by others blogs.
Even though I am unsure exactly what you are referring to, my being offended at a blog post is completely irrelevant.
I would much rather know what people really think than have them hide behind the closed doors of my local council.
Quite frankly, we need more councillors like Robert Guyton that take representation seriously. Perhaps it would encourage more public participation.
Though, of course, there are sectors of the community that loath the idea of more public participation...........
Agitate?
Provoke maybe. Provoking discussion certainly, I'll own to that. I'd be a fairly dull host (some say I am) if I didn't stir up a little debate. I guess you're thinking I overdo it, Anonymous.
I don't reckon so, at all.
In terms of the extremes, I think it would be better to compel all councillors to blog, rather than ban them from blogging.
Every idiot that get elected due to a high public profile, rather than any talent for governance, would be exposed very quickly.
Come on folks, think about the mud slinging that goes on in blogs. And disrespect for individuals. Not something that our voted representatives should be doing. Something better suited to extremists.
Agitating is a word you used to describe your behaviour Robert. I can post the link if you want.
Yeah Robert blogging is like a 'gateway drug', fairly soon you'll be slipping into more dangerous forums like Twitter and you will be falling foul all kinds of anti-terrorism laws
Come on folks, think about the mud slinging that goes on in blogs. And disrespect for individuals. Not something that our voted representatives should be doing. Something better suited to extremists.
Interesting.
I would consider at least half of the West Coast regional councillors as "extremists" yet they don't blog, how should one respond to that?
That's right we vote them out.
Why can't the same happen to Robert anon? Robert was blogging before he was elected, hid nothing of his 'agenda' and was voted in accordingly, now you are suggesting he has to change his platform of election?
Why do you hate democracy so much anon? Are you scared of real democracy?
For the record, the councillors on the West coast were protecting their mates from prosecution and still refuse to hand over control to council staff.
One of the most serious cases was with a guy that decided to build his own "river protection" in the Taramakau river (a big river).
This guy built a 600m bund, that's right, six hundred meters into the river completely illegally and without engineering advice. He stubbornly refused to remove it.
Our mining councillors fought tooth and nail to get him off prosecution.
An engineer said had the bund have held during a major flood we had, it could have caused a massive catastrophe for the town of Greymouth and every town in between, including a lot of farmland. It turns out it had the potential divert the whole river into an ancient paleo channel, through farm land and into Lake Brunner, and then on into the Grey river which was also in high flood.
Somehow, Robert blogging in real issues seems far less dangerous to me than the actions of my local representatives.
Thank you, Shunda. I appreciate your support. Sunlight, disinfectant and all that!
Shunda,
ES councilors are bound by a code of conduct. Prior to being elected Robert was not bound by a code of conduct. Now he is. I guess you could call it the perils of democracy. Once you are elected you have to act according to rules. Any governing body has to have rules. I am sure you understand that.
Also as you are unsure about the blog I was referring to here it is:
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/4-towack.html
I am told it is polite to provide links but I still cringe at the thought of that blog and hope it does not bring back bad memories for you.
Interesting that you refer to Roberts blogging as "less dangerous". Does that suggest there contains an element of danger?
Any governing body has to have rules. I am sure you understand that.
Absolutely, I just can't see how Robert is breaking any rules, surely a correct interpretation of the rules is also important?
I am told it is polite to provide links but I still cringe at the thought of that blog and hope it does not bring back bad memories for you.
I don't like aspects of the "blogosphere" and at time need to get away from it for a bit, I also don't agree with Robert on everything he does or says. But the way I handle this is my problem, not anyone else's and it certainly isn't a reason to stop others doing what they do or having their say. I can separate the issues and a caricature of John Key is not the same as protecting the Southland environment.
At the end of the day, if people don't like what Robert is saying here, he won't be voted back in.
I am glad at least one councillor in NZ presents their agenda for all to see, the ones that do back room deals and pander to "old boys networks" are far more destructive to the sustainability of our communities in my opinion.
Interesting that you refer to Roberts blogging as "less dangerous". Does that suggest there contains an element of danger?
Perhaps Robert does present a danger, but it will only be to entrenched old boys networks and stubborn old grouches that resent change.
Rural areas and small towns in NZ have been afflicted with this sort of "stink thinking" for generations, well time is up for that crap, there is simply no future in it.
An element of danger, Anonymous Dairy Farmer?
I certainly hope so!
You really should go to the chairman and alert her to the alleged breaches to the code of conduct you have referred to. There's not much point in quibbling on a blog. That's not going to do the trick. What was it you hope to achieve again?
Shunda,
Have you read the "local Governance Statement"?. If not it is a good read. I highly recommend it.
I am still fascinated that you are defending blogging by a councilor. Particularly when you made statements like "I now realise that these blog conversations are almost always completely pointless, they create divisive attitudes and are feed stock for negative or depressive mindsets"
And this little beauty "In short, people that write or frequent blogs are not quite right in the head."
Or perhaps this golden nugget "It has been said that the underlying reason most people write blogs or post on them is due to narcissism or other unbalanced aspects of a particular personality"
But perhaps most poignant is your series of questioning
"Now here is the question, which interaction is the most important? is the blogosphere helping or hindering a sense of community and co-operation?
Are there things that are in fact best unsaid?
Is saying them anyway actually always a step backwards?"
As I said.... Fascinating.
Do you accept Shunda statements on blogging, Anonymous Dairy farmer?
If so, how do you respond to this:
"In short, people that write or frequent blogs are not quite right in the head." (Emphasis mine)
If you acept that statement, as you imply you do, you must also acknowledge that you are "not quite right in the head". Therefore, your other claims become suspect and lose validity.
Yes?
No?
Robert,
I will italicise as it seems polite.
An element of danger, Anonymous Dairy Farmer?
I dont understand this question. Is it a statement, question or speculation?
I certainly hope so!
You really should go to the chairman and alert her to the alleged breaches to the code of conduct you have referred to.
You stated in the past that she is a regular reader and infrequent blogger. I suspect the message will get to her one way or another.
There's not much point in quibbling on a blog.
I couldn't agree with you more.
What was it you hope to achieve again?
Am I sensing a frustration with my posts? I thought you liked to provoke debate. Is it wrong for me to join in? Or have I just not written my posts in a clear manner? If my prescence offends you I would consider exiting? Perhaps not in such as glamorous fashion as others have in the past.
Robert,
It is not in my nature to infer such labels. I will abstain from such voting.
I quoted them because they were interesting. Please dont think I was endorsing them.
"Anonymous Dairy farmer". You are using those powers of assumption again.
No, no, Anonymous, (it's difficult to know if I'm talking to one or more 'Anonomii'), I'm not frustrated at all. I value your contribution. Your manner is quite clear and I'd miss you if you were to 'exit', glamorously or otherwise. So polite, your italicising! So willing to engage in debate. Excellent. Why don't we talk about something substantial? But before we do, if you are infact, Anonymous 4:01, you might confirm whether my assumption is correct - are you a dairy farmer? Straight question. If you are not the 4:01 commentor, I'll address this question to him or her instead. Don't be shy now!.
Robert, Yes Robert I am the recent Anonymous. I am not sure what any part of this conversation has to do with my choice of career, or origin of community? Or even why you want to know? I will help you out though. From now on you can call me Anonymous.
Lead me to substantial.... Even though I thought we were there. And thanks for belittling my choice of interest.
Anonymous@4:41
Do you understand the meaning of the term 'Passive-Aggressive'?
Robert, yes I do understand the term.
Anon, on the surface, it seems as though you have "got me" on my comments on a prior thread, however, I suggest you keep reading through that thread and see if you can 'see' anything else.
I was having a rant, no denying it, but it was more about personal conflict I was going through, (and go through from time to time) ie, sometimes I am not right in the head! ;)
Blog discussions can be completely pointless, but this discussion we are having now could become mutually beneficial if we chose it to got that way.
At the end of the day, direct communication with people you don't know is always going to have an element of tension, how we manage that tension is the key to whether or not the discussion becomes pointless.
you guys could also simply talk over a Skype call, its free, audio on your computers, or even video - you could wear a bag over your head "Anonymous" to keep the mystique for a video call!
Much easier than sending text comments back and forth, and with the names people pick for Skype, "bigdick69" etc, you'll stay hidden, except for your voice :-)
Anonymous, bagged and tagged!
"At the end of the day, direct communication with people you don't know is always going to have an element of tension, how we manage that tension is the key to whether or not the discussion becomes pointless."
Pithily put, Shunda. In your moments of clarity, you're untouchable :-)
Commenting on the original post, I do not wish to pay for or subsidise in any way, any business that lets waste from the business into a waterway. The waste must be managed to ensure the waterway is no worse below the property. Landowner responsibility for the consequences of the activity on the land and effects on water must be accepted as a cost of the business.
Peter Williamson
That's clear thinking, Pete.
Industry argues that we all benefit from their activities and shouldn't press them to pay for their 'messes'.
At a higher level though, industry agrees that a damaged environment threatens industries future viability. At the grassroots however, no one wants to invest in that except directly and on their own terms. That means, paying for region-wide science, for example, is unpalatable to some, even though that science will ensure the future of their industry. It's an ideological wall that seems not to be passable.
It is not about being ideological RG, it just not profitable, simply as that.
Shunda,
I feel sad that there is tension in every conversation you have with unknown people. Perhaps you are not approaching it right? Not swearing might help.
Jay,like Robert you are suggesting that this format is not suitable. Why is that. Is it simply a bad form of communication? Or do you not like the content of my blogs? I can't help but feeling bloggers are welcome here as long as they whistle the same tune.
Pete from Winton, You realise that the Winton sewage plant has been considered as having significant noncomplicance. Link for evidence http://www.es.govt.nz/media/15272/2010-11_compliance_monitoring_report.pdf
You might have to buy your goods out of town. But then again consent requirements have tolerances of pollution. Any sewage plant puts effluent into the environment. So when you consume you pollute. Even if you grow your own vegetables using any sort of fertiliser you pollute. It may be minute but it happens. The only way to stop polluting is to stop existing. Can we be smarter about minimising pollution. For sure. The dairy industry has made massive costly changes to ensure this. But for dairy farmers to receive critism in ideaological form from a Winton resident. It wreaks of... effluent.
Robert,
Do we all benefit from agriculture? Quite ironic that as you are whistling tunes about people wanting farmers to reduce their impact, consumers complain about the cost of milk. Rather than campaigning against dairy farmers perhaps you should build your own milk factory and process milk from farms that you consider sustainable. Call it Robert milk and see if you can make money. You might have to move to brokeville.
And yes I said it. Campaigning against Dairy farmers. That is what is at the heart of this blog. You wrote a blog showing your bias mid way through hearing submissions. Completely discouraging community involvement. Poking your tongue at those who had submitted and warning those that were about to submit. And in the same post you reduced the public confidence in your councillors by printing a picture of them arguing and name calling. In my opinion it is completely unacceptable behaviour.
I wouldn't blame any dairy farmer for rejecting the dairy differential when the people at the top act in such an inappropriate manner.
To passive for you?
Correction to above.
Any sewage plant puts pollution into the environment.
"I can't help but feeling bloggers are welcome here as long as they whistle the same tune."
Oh, Anonymous! How wrong you are. have you not visited other blogs of this sort, where deleting comments or vigorous attacks of the commenter are the norm? My modest little blog is wide open and welcoming of opposing views. Don't expect me to agree with them, necessarily, but bring 'em on! If other commenters here strop you up, try not to be a delicate flower, and don't take umbrage at being teased :-)
"Even if you grow your own vegetables using any sort of fertiliser you pollute. It may be minute but it happens. The only way to stop polluting is to stop existing."
This, btw, is nonsense. Being 'minute' makes a mockery of your intention to bring all activities into the same arena as dairy farming.
:-)
Not nonsense at all Robert. Pete said "any waste". I can't read that phrase as 'tolerable waste'
Finall, Anonymous! Some substance to your presence here. I'll quote and ".
"Do we all benefit from agriculture?"
Yes. We suffer the negative aspects of agriculture as well, yes?
"Quite ironic that as you are whistling tunes about people wanting farmers to reduce their impact, consumers complain about the cost of milk."
Everyone wants farmers to reduce their impacts, Anonymous, including Fonterra and DairyNZ. Don't you? Consumers may complain about the cost of milk, but I don't, nor have I ever, so far as I know. It's not an issue that interests me much.
"Rather than campaigning against dairy farmers perhaps you should build your own milk factory and process milk from farms that you consider sustainable. Call it Robert milk and see if you can make money. You might have to move to brokeville."
You know full well that I'm not 'campaigning against dairy farmers. I am campaigning against lignite mining at Mataura. erhaps you could compare my positions on the two issues and see if you are correct in your accusation. You aren't.
"And yes I said it. Campaigning against Dairy farmers. That is what is at the heart of this blog."
Nah. You've imposed your own prejudice and can't see clearly. "You wrote a blog showing your bias mid way through hearing submissions. Completely discouraging community involvement."
How could I discourage community involvement, Anonymous? The presentations were pre arranged and submitters timetabled to appear. Are you claiming some didn't appear because they were frightened off by my post?"
"Poking your tongue at those who had submitted and warning those that were about to submit."
You are dipping into a very emotive level here, Anonymous. Clearly you are not being literal. I do understand your upset, I heard it outside of the chamber. Why you haven't spoken with me, I'll never know. You have taken the post up wrongly and made incorrect assumptions.
"And in the same post you reduced the public confidence in your councillors by printing a picture of them arguing and name calling."
The councillors in the picture are not arguing or mname calling. They are standing in a relaxed manner, amicably discussing this and that. The photo was taken months ago. have you no sense of humour at all? Do you not know what tonguein-cheek is?
"In my opinion it is completely unacceptable behaviour."
So I see, but your opinion is just that. You should, as I say, test your belief. Get some better advice. You could ask me for clarification, I've invited you do do so many times.
"I wouldn't blame any dairy farmer for rejecting the dairy differential when the people at the top act in such an inappropriate manner."
You have a 'model' in your mind of how a Councillor should act. Are you sure your model is correct? You've cited the Code of Conduct many times. Surely you can persue that and find out for sure whether my behaviour transgresses those rules. You clearly believe it has. I believe it hasn't. How about you stop your accusations til you've established the facts? It would reduce your irritation, one way or the other.
"To passive for you?"
That's 'too' btw. You see, I'm teasing you right there! Is that innapropriate, Anonymous?
No, that's not passive or veiled. That's how I like my dealings to be also (too).
I don't think of, for example, vermicatse applied to my garden, as waste, Anonymous. Nor is it pollution. That's my point.
Vermicaste
First word. Finall. I believe it is finally. Sorry teasing. I dont think we should go down that road we are both guilty of spelling issues:-)
Yes I am sure you want to ignore the fact that consumers want cheaper milk because goes against the protrayed belief that the public want less cows etc.
The facts are contained within this blog. I think it is fair to debate them here. Or would you rather I was silenced? I believe my assumptions to be correct. Accept those around the photo. And I believe that we can both point fingers for that miscommunication.
Oh and you like dealings in a non passive form but you request that I not make accusations. And your code of conduct sayes you should avoid aggressive behavior. So good luck with seeking out that behavior. I can assure you that my face is smiling and demeanor is good if that encourages further debate.
I can assure you that once again you did not hear me out side the chambers. Again you try to accuse me of something I have not said. I think it is possible a few people are interpreting this post in the same way. So I dont think you can easliy accuse me of interpreting the blog incorrectly
And from recollection you claimed that Fonterra was acting agressively in Southland. Pressuring farmers to increase cow numbers. That seems a turn around.
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/council-reports.html
I will struggle with internet for the rest of the weekend. So please accept that I will only be able to debate in a limited form. If you dont here from me. Enjoy your weekend.
Anonymous. I could only guess at hearing your raised voice outside of the chamber - you're anonymous after all. I don't know who you are. I do know now that you're not the loud guy :-)
Don't feel guilty about making spelling mistakes, you're only human (aren't you?)Given that you've a smiling face and good demeanor, I'm going to assume that you are.
Btw - it's fewer cows and there are people who would believe fewer is better, including, I propose, Fonterra, who are promoting higher efficiencies over greater numbers. Good for them. There's no good in pumping up cow numbers without greatly improving efficiency art the same time. Do that and you'll very soon reach saturation, figuratively and literally. A smart farmer will...well I'm not going to tell you what to do on your own farm, Anonymous. What do I know about it?
I'll probably struggle with the internet over the weekend too, Anonymous, and I'll be sitting right here in front of the computer (that's a wee joke, right there, hard to detect, I know, but horses for courses...)
Robert,
Another assumption.... 'on your own farm'. I have not said that I am or am not a farmer.
Again I say, perhaps you should change your title to 'Assumptions of an assuming Councillor'. Thats a wee joke right there.
And I will iterate my confusion that you keep inviting me to talk to you face to face. It would seem that this is not a good enough format for me to challenge your views. But apparently it is an appropriate format for you to challenge all sorts of people for all sorts of things. I feel there is a double standard here.
Post a Comment