Democracy on 35 cents a day

Several interesting facts emerging in comments on the last post, proving that LawsWatch is much more than just the people who post these articles - exactly as we hoped it would turn out to be. We are not "the Laws Watchers" - you all are.

One commenter, however, sent his dummy flying across the room to splutter:

Question to LawsWatch. You say you've asked all these questions, but how? Through this bog (sic) (in which case don't expect an any answers), formally by letter, or under the Official Info Act (which wouldn't apply to Westgate because its a commercial entity). Why are you trying to bullshit us that you have any influence at all?

As another commenter surmised, we use the same methods any media might. And before the dummy takes another unscheduled flight, we can point you to any number of articles citing the legitimacy of online media, and indeed some which suggest it is superseding older forms, such as this analysis from Wired.

Unlike most other media, however, we generally inform our audience as to who we've asked and what we're asking before we know whether we'll receive a reply, because oftentimes silence speaks louder than words. Older media, deprived of the ability to get considered answers to legitimate questions, tend to fill their pages with PR bumpf (or pointless fluff often designed to blatantly sell stuff) rather than admit "no one would answer our questions" because they feel they'd look impotent.

But whereas shamelessly flogging books written by a millionaire is one thing, recycling the Spin Fairy's view of the Council's activities is quite another.

We ask on your behalf, and our influence derives completely from the fact that in asking, we represent you. Yes, even you, whose dummy we can see quivering with barely suppressed disdain.

We'll ignore the comments debating the merits or otherwise of a gallery extension and instead pick something from the comments attempting a rudimentary psychoanalysis of the Diva's modus operandi:

I'm not sure that your mayor doesn't reflect what his community wants. As an interested observer, he latched onto the unpopularity of the Sarjeant Gallery project, clearly read the time for a change theme, targeted arts activists (who are never mainstream), said only what any pollie would say over POW (remember the whole council rejected POW, not just his Vision colleagues) and his nil rate increase is what all ratepayers want everywhere. It's called populist politics.

Indeed it is, learned at the knee of the greatest populist of them all, Winston Peters. (Where is that party list Winston? Did it blow out of your pocket on the back of that bike?). And as the rates demands flutter into letterboxes all over Wanganui, some people are finding they are indeed saving money. As another commenter said:

I'm paying $127 less than last year. If this is populism, then give me more.

So... time for another poll. First, though, cast your minds back to a Simpsons episode (repeating somewhere on a TV channel as you read this) in which teachers strike over the dreadful condition of buildings and equipment. There's a scene at a town meeting which sums up politics in a nutshell:

The debate quickly descends to Mrs Krabappel saying "More books" (crowd: murmurs of support, "books... good"); then Principal Skinner says "More taxes" (Crowd: "taxes.... bad"... and so on, over and over).

Of course that essential dichotomy can be finessed a little one way or the other, but The Simpsons did a pretty good job of illustrating the public's attitude to spending on services - it's absolutely essential. Just so long as it's not my money.

On the other hand, surveys repeatedly show a surprisingly large number of NZers are prepared to pay more taxes if it would mean better services and infrastructure.

So what of the people of Wanganui? Do the majority agree with anonymous - if it means an extra 35 cents a day in your pocket, by all means squeeze the budget so tightly that even fixing roads becomes unaffordable?

Or that a rates increase might be alright if services and facilities were improved (and let's leave aside for now the question of what facilities and pretend that it's either demolishing the Sarjeant and building a stock car track, or gutting the Mayoral offices - complete with luxury WC - and turning it over to candle making workshops, depending on your preference).

Or that things were about right as they were?

I'd prefer:
Higher rates and better services.
Lower rates and fewer services.
To keep things as they are.


Free polls from Pollhost.com

And by the way, does the whole Mayoral toilet saga remind anyone else just a little of that classic farce, Clochmerle?

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll remains open.