Don't let's lose our heads

And the winner on the night was... the Queen, whose portrait will be restored to the Council Chamber. Well, to the doorway, anyway. After a prolonged absence from the hallowed halls of power at Guyton Street. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's visage will once again gaze benignly upon her dutiful subjects as they enter the doors of the hallowed Chamber (that's enough kowtowing - Ed.)

That wasn't enough for Cr "Sir" Don McGregor, who was adamant the Queen ought to be returned to keep an eye on proceedings. Placing Her Majesty above the line of sight of people entering the Chamber wasn't on, he said, drifting off into a reverie about his days of playing hide and seek when no one would ever find you if you exercised the cunning strategem of climbing above their heads. No Don, no one would ever find you because you were hiding up a tree wearing a kilt.

He suggested hanging her (in the nicest possible way) above the head of the Diva - but that "isn't going to happen" according to the Mayor, who clearly figures there's only room for one (that'll do for that line of thought- Ed.)

Sir Donald was supported by Rangi Wills, who said he never recalled Council deciding to remove the portrait in the first place. That might have had something to do with the fact that Council never did, and the decision was taken on the whim of the Diva, but Rangi wisely decided not to go too far down that road lest the hangings weren't confined to portraits.

Apparently the Tupoho Working Party had asked that a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi be displayed in the entrance, but that got lost in the debate. They're probably lucky the Diva didn't order the original rolled up and used as a draught stop.

Meanwhile, the Diva has taken the Chron to task for it's story yesterday stating the "Alexander Gallery" option is a damp squib (of course LawsWatch had the story months ago, but the Diva prefers to refute our reports anonymously).

The 2004 report by Kevin Hindson is "out of date", the Diva says, having been "superseded by a number of events" including "the cancellation of the Warren & Mahoney extension, the Referendum '05 rejection and the new thinking of the 'Heart' architects" (which of course no one but the Diva and a select few are actually privy to).

That's just a tad disingenuous when parts of the paper - such as those that specifically reject the 'corridor' idea - are still applicable. It may well turn out that that's the only viable option given the Diva's determination to strangle arts funding, but that in no way negates Hindson's reasoning as to why it's not a good idea.

Most telling in his spray against the newly re-invigorated Chron (a bit of industrial argy-bargy must get the blood flowing) was the sentence "If the reporter had bothered to contact council or myself, then the whole story could have been properly relayed."

Ah yes, the media must report the news properly. "The particular job of the cultural editor is to express in lofty varied language what has been said in the political section... superficial intellectual vapourings... have no justification for appearance. A plethora of tasks and multifarious possibilities are now open to the cultural editor....The local sections of our newspapers must subordinate themselves to these requirements" - so wrote none other than Joseph Goebbels in April 1933. We hope Mr Maslin remembers his job is to be subordinate.

Update (8.25 pm): A shy and retiring Diva?! It hardly seems possible, but it's true. An intrepid Watcher (well alright... Matt Dutton) set off to last night's meeting intending to capture some lovely photographs of the Chamber and if perchance the Diva was looking particularly alluring, to add to the stock library of LawsWatch portraiture, some of which Watchers will be familiar with. Let's let Matt take up the story:

No sooner had I the Diva in my sights than I was pulled up short by his informing me that "there is no photography allowed here". This was indeed news to me, so I desisted. Later in the meeeting, however, a Chronicle photographer appeared and commenced to snap away.

This morning I asked Malcolm Hunt for the official version. It seems that recording of meetings, while it is explicitly allowed in the procedures, must be conducted unobstrusively and at the discretion of the presiding member. Since discretion is not a strong point of the member in question, this seems somewhat ironic. I enquired further about press accreditation. Mr. Hunt suggested that I contact (Spin Fairy) Helen Lawrence.

Rest assured that Watchers will continue to do their jobs, and rest assured that any recording will from now on be truly unobtrusive.

In the meantime, we can provide you with this photo showing the space between the flags to which Sir Donald hoped the Queen's portrait might return.

Comments on this post are now closed.