Friday, August 19, 2005

Poll Update #2

Who do you think would make the best candidate in the forthcoming by-election?

Since our last update, Graeme Adams, Richard Moore, Judith Timpany and Bob Walker haven't picked up any support and remain on zero.

Candidates with negligible support (one or two percent) are Stephen Palmer, Jill Pettis, and Chas Poynter.

Of the remainder, Margaret Campion, Ross Mitchell-Anyon and Alan Taylor all have four percent, while Ken Mair has five percent and Rob Vinsen, six.

Then there's a big jump to Carla Donson with 12 percent.

Then another, even larger, jump to Jodie Dalgleish and John Martin, currently on 30 and 31 percent respectively.

Our conclusion: There's two clear favourites here, who, if they were both to run, would almost certainly spoil one another's chances. Similarly, if Dalgleish or Martin were to run, and Carla Donson were also to enter the race, there could be a split. Or if enough of the lower-polling candidates entered, and people did not vote tactically (and let's face it, this is a local authority election, so how likely is that?) then the vote will also split.

As we've already said, those people concerned about getting a voice at the Council table should start strategising. It wouldn't be a bad idea if some of the people being touted as candidates expressed an intent one way or another, so that support can begin to coalesce around those who are actually considering a run.

And an observation: clearly, some of the people who visit here are Vision supporters, if not members. Yet no support showing for possible Vision-aligned candidates. So who might they be intending to run? Possibly someone in the mould of the departing "GK" Taylor, we hear.

Update: In response to a question in comments, yes, you can still vote.

Comments on this post are now closed.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know who Vision are putting up? They might be good, like Sue P. Surely with only a few members we should beadle to work it out. Who is in the team?

Anonymous said...

Can we still vote?

Laws Watch said...

Can we still vote?

Yes, we'll run this poll till further notice.

Anonymous said...

The word is that Vision arent putting up a candidate because they think Ratepayers man Rangi is on the same wavelength. Altho' could Ratepayers & Vision put up a joint candidate?

Anonymous said...

They might cut their own votes in half.

Anonymous said...

Like the first blogger ... I'd like to know who is left in the Vision team.?

Anonymous said...

A Ratepayers/Vision candidate would be tough. Ratepayers have 1100 members & Vision have the $.
They could both agree on Graham Adams.

Anonymous said...

Any candidates in the following by-election are faced with the following dilemma: am I pro-Laws, or anti-Laws.

Laws Watch said...

Any candidates in the following by-election are faced with the following dilemma: am I pro-Laws, or anti-Laws.

What about: "Do I have a mind of my own, won't be intimidated by his histrionics, but not afraid to agree with him if he happens to get it right"? Isn't that what we want?

Anonymous said...

In a funny way, LawsWatch - you're part of the problem that anon has alluded to. You really don't like the guy so EVERYTHING he does is wrong. Even when he's 100% right (over the port) you still try and lay the crap on.
Here's the problem as I see it.
All this SOS/Code/Lawswatch crap is turning off the middle of the roaders. They don't think laws is the negative one but his attackers. So they don't mind it when he bites back.
There's a lot to be said for softly softly catchee monkey. You're talking with a megaphone.

Laws Watch said...

Even when he's 100% right (over the port) you still try and lay the crap on.

With respect, have you actually read the most recent post on the port? It was called "Zap, PoW", not "Zap Laws" for goodness sake.

We said it appears Laws was correct in denying he forced Macquarie to withdraw.

We questioned why Macquarie was stating a different story to the one not only put out by PoW (in whom we've repeatedly said we have no confidence) but the one that was reported in the Chron - that they'd been to Wanganui, had meetings etc.

The only criticism of Laws was over the tone of his approach, not the rightness of his actions or his attitude to PoW. As summed up very succinctly by a commenter: "One thing Tuffy and Michael have done between them is make us look like a bad risk".

Anonymous said...

It was never this much fun when Chas was Mayor

Anonymous said...

Oh right, fun. may you live in interesting times, anonymous.