Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Let's pause to take stock for a moment, shall we?

It seems that (according to the Diva) generous citizens, not to mention donors from places outside the Kingdom of St Michael, are going to be queuing to fund all the baubles he's promised the subjects of this cash-strapped city.

Just off the top of our heads, we seem to recall these paragons of generosity being put down for:

• The River Queen Premiere-that-isn't ($200,000 according to this morning's Chron).
• Stained glass windows (who knows, but can be US$1,500 apiece, and that's for off-the-shelf designs, not special orders).
• The Splash Centre extension (maybe $4.5 million, maybe more, less the $2.5 million (or maybe that's $2.725 million) already committed by Council).

Have we missed anything? Probably. Since the Sarjeant, Cooks Gardens and goodness-knows-what-else that's hiding in "Public Excluded" haven't really been sorted yet, we can but wonder whether these too will be dismissed as being the responsibility of "civic minded citizens" to fix.

Meanwhile our foremost civic-minded citizen, the Mayor himself, has yet to make good on his promise of a "shop front" Mayoral office, to be funded, right down to the last paperclip, from his own salary. It was to be a part of the "Heart of the City" project, which is possibly why LGOIMA requests for details of the Heart project are being steadfastly refused by Council. Never ones to take such a refusal laying down, a vigilant Watcher has uncovered an artist's depiction of the initial plans, as seen at right.

Comments on a previous post were equally confused as the the fate of this particular bastion of open and accountable governance:

joan said...
I personally really look forward to the councillors' office being established in Vic Ave - and the real opportunity to talk to mayor and councillors in a 1 to 1 situation - a real discussion of ideas and policy.

Lawrence said...
When would Micky have time to go to a downtown office? He only spends four half days at the council. Mind you he creates that much havoc in four half days they wouldn't want him there any longer than that would be my guess. Maybe he could spend those four half days downtown. If you really want to talk to him then try his talkback, but then if he didn't like what you were saying you would just cut you off. Just curious but when would the councillors have the time to sit in the downtown office? Most of them work or have a business to run.

Anonymous said...
this was a vision promise

Anonymous said...
Yeah right! That was a promise, and so was the nil rates increase and my (business) landlord has just told me I'm up for a 10% "nil" rate increase. I don't think you'll see many councillors lining up to explain themselves to their constituents. The diVisionaries don't even understand what's going on and Laws isn't going to let them put their big feet in it by contradicting him on policy he hasn't even announced yet... And it's apparent that the last thing Laws wants is citizens walking in and telling him what they think of him... My bet is that if he did have to sit in a storefront downtown office he'd be such a gutless coward he'd have the council security guy on the door...

It seems like there's the beginnings of an unholy train wreck about to occur between promises of nil rates rises and expenditure cuts and promises to transform the face of Wanganui. Both worthy aims but essentially contradictory.

A bit like promising increased health, welfare and education on the one hand, and tax cuts on the other. All very well to do that when you're running NZ First and know you'll never have to deliver - and that it'll fool enough of the people for long enough to keep getting you re-elected - but a different matter when you're in power and are actually expected to deliver.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Lights, camera, lack of action

While we're on the subject of films, a topic that's been raised from time-to-time in comments - just what did happen to the Film Festival?

Back in February things looked optimistic. On the 8th, the Economic Committee discussed an application from the Festival Trust for $20,000. At that time, Councillors were a little shocked to find that the Diva had apparently tripled the Council's commitment to the Festival without consulting anyone first. Festival co-founder Marion Campbell was quoted as saying that the Mayor "wanted to see Wanganui on the map, with a significant annual film festival".

Crs Bullock, Wills and Dhaya weren't impressed with the Diva's off-the-cuff generosity, the latter saying it "wasn't cricket". And with the Diva being bowled a googly in Tonga, Ray Stevens absent, and Dotty forced to stand aside due to a conflict of interest (the Festival Awards usually being held at her place) that left a committee of only three councillors, who decided to let the application "lie upon the table" (i.e. to do nothing about it).

Fast forward to May this year, and the Festival's collapse is given the Spin Fairy treatment in the Chron on the 10th of that month, with Helen Lawrence saying "the basic reason for the cancellation was that the Trust had run out of time".

Now why would a group of people who'd successfully run precisely the same event in the past suddenly "run out of time"?

• Was it because the Diva tagged his unauthorised promise of $20,000 with the proviso that the Festival be run in winter, and the planning period was thus foreshortened?
• Was it because their request for $20,000 "lay on the table" without an answer due to the Diva's quest for fame taking precedence over Council duties?
• Or were the organisers truly so inept that they simply let the whole thing slide by not getting it ready in time, as the Spin Fairy claimed?
• Or some combination of the above?

Why are these questions important, you ask? Let's turn to the Council's own Minutes for 21 February this year:

Impact of not funding the event for 2005

If the 2005 Wanganui Film Festival planned for 2005 does not proceed the impact of this can be summarised as follows:

• The New Zealand Film Commission will not honour the $15,000 requested to support the Festival.
• The French Embassy, the Italian Consulate and the Australian Film Commission will be advised of the cancellation of arrangements to use their films.
• Loyal sponsors will need to be advised that the film festival in Wanganui will not be going ahead. They are: Sony New Zealand, Kodak New Zealand, Atlab New Zealand, Oktober (a division of Silverscreens Films, e.g. River Queen), Stebbing Recording Centre, DVT (Digital Video Technology), Focal Press, Citizen Watches, New Zealand Writers Guildand Te Mangai Paho.
• Local sponsors will be advised: Coull Battell, Radio Works and Noel Leeming.
• Festival supporters advised: Peter Jackson, Alun Bollinger, Gaylene Preston, Whetu Fala.
• Advice will go to the Duncan Family Trust that supports the Cameron Duncan Memorial Award.
• Business will be lost for the following local businesses: Embassy 3 Cinema, Royal Wanganui Opera House, Cooks Gardens Function Centre, Avenue Hotel, Tearaway magazine.
• A retraction will need to be advertised in Film Magazine.
• Creative New Zealand will also have to retract an announcement they have made re the upcoming festival.
• 500 New Zealand High Schools are in the process of being approached to submit Films to the 3rd year of junior shorts competition. This would cease.

Conclusion: The application being considered has had to be dealt with outside of the Community Contracts process. It is unusual in that should Council approve the application, it will mean the District Council will provide funding twice to an event in the same financial year. However, the timing of the event is unusual as well in that it will fall at a time when Wanganui traditionally has difficulty attracting visitors and it takes place the year of the release of River Queen. There is good evidence that shows the economic benefits to Wanganui not only in the short-term but longer term as the festival’s reputation builds.

If indeed the Festival collapsed for want of $20,000, leaving egg on Wanganui's face with all of the above organisations, media and eminent persons, it raises some serious questions about the way the Council (and the Diva) does business.

And if we could have received the above benefits for $20,000, will we get 7.5 times more benefit for the $150,000 that's being spent on the River Queen premiere-that-isn't?

Update (11.30pm): We've just looked up the Diva's infamous "When the Cat's Away" column, published on 21 February, in which he says: "[Marion's] estimate was that $20,000 would be required – plus the usual sponsorship – and that seemed reasonable. I was looking (still am) at devoting some of my Mayoral salary to that aim and also sourcing other funds. Lord knows how that has been interpreted as short-circuiting the community contracts process. Strange stuff."

So was a dollop of Laws's largesse duly delivered? If so, why was the Festival seeking the $20,000 from Council if it was to come from the Diva? Did they in fact want $20,000 plus the Mayoral contribution? Or were they seeking the money from Council because the Diva didn't deliver? We've emailed the organisers to see if they'll answer these and other questions.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Queen for a Daze

The breathlessly touted WangaVegas premiere of Vincent Ward’s trouble plagued flick Drama Queen is looking increasingly like a bad bet for the Diva and Dotty.

The headline in today's paper, "Council begs for premiere funds", which will probably be picked up on the news wires, is not a good look for Wanganui. The Chron and DominionPost have already pointed out that a key early review in Hollywood Reporter is less than fulsome.

What's missing from Sean's story, in which Dotty reiterates the Council's "commitment" to spending $150,000 of our money on this particular bunfight, is that once a upon a time the Diva had insisted that not a cent would be spent without his having first sighted a report demonstrating adequate commercial spin-offs.

Well certainly the signwriting industry will be getting a boost. "As people enter Wanganui they'll be greeted with signs saying 'You are now entering River Queen country'. It's very exciting," gushes Dotty. We trust there'll be a small-print explanation for those unfamiliar with WangaVegas's brief moment of fame, lest unwary motorists fear being flagged down by battalions of damp female impersonators.

And why is some outfit called Verve organising the event when the city employs (and pays handsomely) an events officer? What can be keeping Ms Lees so busy that she hasn't the time to organise what the Deputy Mayor thinks is the biggest knees-up WangaVegas has ever seen?

Obviously, a desperate dose of spin and distraction is called for and an undercover Laws Watcher has found, carelessly discarded in the mayoral dunny at 101 Guyton St, a proof copy of Women-in-a-Daze featuring an exclusive interview with the Diva.

IT’S YOUR DAZE
WOMEN IN A DAZE

MICHAEL LAWS tells Women-in-a-Daze exclusively how Life on Trash Island made him a better man.

Women-in-a-Daze has been granted an exclusive preview of a full-length StupidStars of Trash Island feature put together by Wanganui’s maverick mayor Michael Laws.

The film, which contains gorgeous out-takes from Michael’s wonderful time on Trash Island with his fabulous fellow stupid stars, will have its world premiere at Committee Room 2 in Wanganui on January 23, the day before the screening of "some irrelevant movie starring some people, none of whom are me," Michael explained. "I expect this to be a much bigger event, and have negotiated an exclusive coverage deal with the River City Press in return for their printing this entirely independent review prepared beforehand by my Spin Fairy. Oh, and for providing the sausage rolls and L&P."

His winsome Worship explained that he'd done away with the hors d'oeuvres and champagne for the same reason he trashed the idea of giving native saplings to new citizens and instead gave them All Black scarves: "It's more kiwi, somehow. Went down a treat, though I really must find out what 'Vous, monsieur, êtes un imbécile complet' means. Some sheila muttered that as I slung her a scarf. A vote of thanks, I'm sure."

Michael said he was moved to arrange the screening to help assuage the disappointment suffered by his loyal subjects when Toronto snatched the River Queen premiere from Deputy Dot’s grasp and those Hollywood types pronounced the flick a River Dog.

"I just couldn’t stand by and see my people so upset," he told Women-in-a-Daze, his lovely fiancee by his side and a smelly nappy in hand. "And anyway, Leo, the love of my life, had already bought a slinky black little number for the River Queen do and she was giving me such a hard time about not being able to walk down the red carpet in it," Michael laughed.

"Some single-issue nutters complained that because I was sent off StupidStars of Trash Island after only a couple of episodes, I didn’t deliver on my promise to really put Wanganui on the map. Little did they know how hard I worked to make a complete plonker of myself, or how upset I was that all that wonderful footage ended up on the cutting room floor."

Now, all will be revealed in this exciting new feature film and Michael says he fully expects that Committee Room 2 will be filled to capacity with all his fans and friends to see what really happened. "Bog Walker has said he'll be bringing all his friends," Michael gushed, a momentary cloud of doubt crossing his face. "Though I'm not sure the advertising manager at the RCP and letters page editor at the Chron have actually said whether they're coming or not".

He even shared with Women-in-a-Daze some of his favourite moments that didn’t make it into the TV show:

• "The time Brent Todd stole Louise Wallace’s Athlete’s Foot powder and we snuck off and snorted it on the beach would have to be a real highlight," laughs Michael. "My sinuses have never felt less fungal".
• "Oh, and I shouldn’t really mention this, but I was caught on camera showing my sensitive feminine side and crying buckets when I discovered my 3-ply toilet paper had been thrown off the raft. Later someone told me I'd had a lucky escape, because they'd told Toddy to 'throw that useless pile of **** off the raft' right after he'd taken his medication, and he'd made a mistake. Though what else they could have been referring to I don't know".
• "Then there was the time when Pieta and I were snuggled up in her sleeping bag telling each other how much we loved our partners. That’s one of Leo’s favourite bits, she just can't stop talking about that."

Suddenly Michael put his finger to his lips. "That’s all I’m going to say, now," he whispered. "I don’t want to spoil all the excitement."

Comments on this post are now closed.

Whrong whay to do it

The Diva thunders in his latest column that it's "untenable, and anti-democratic to suggest that the public should be excluded from [the "H"] debate... This is not an issue to be settled by either executive decree or the desire of the tangata whenua. It should be settled by the residents and ratepayers of Wanganui". Among the "undemocratic" targets singled out is none other than Cr Sue Pepperell.

Her argument, which actually got a fair run in the Chronicle, boils down to the fact that she would be "happy for it to go to a referendum if [she] knew there could be a widespread public education campaign on the subject". Doesn't sound all that undemocratic to us.

And that is it in a nutshell, really. None of the topics included in the referenda are simple, but of all the choices on the Diva's populist shopping list, the "h" issue is potentially the most complex because the arguments both for and against are by no means clear-cut. And to understand the opposing viewpoint requires a preparedness to set aside one's preconceptions and listen to the alternative point of view with respect.

Cr Pepperell's suggestion that this may not occur isn't due to her belief that "Wanganui people are too racist or too dumb to be trusted with such a decision" as the Diva accuses (before adding, disingenuously, "I know that's not what [she is] saying").

Since daring to deviate from the Diva gets you that kind of response, it's understandable Cr Pepperell hasn't come right out and nailed the problem. But LawsWatch will.

Referenda are only effective when put to an informed populace. And that requires that all points of view on an issue are provided, well in advance of the decision, with the means and the opportunity to put opposing arguments and that people are given an opportunity to ask questions in a public forum.

The way in which the Diva has quite deliberately chosen to go about the referendum is the polar opposite of this approach: expecting voters to decide multiple questions (including choosing a new councillor) based on little more than what they may have read on the Mayoral website or seen in the Chronicle, and how much propaganda can be stuffed in an envelope. The result is not inherent ignorance, but it is imposed ignorance. And faced with an uncertain basis on which to make a decision, human nature generally dictates that people choose the status quo.

The Diva's a skilful politician and he knows this better than almost anyone. Incumbents (be they politicians or place names) have an enormous advantage. And he knows that, absent a lengthy and reasoned education campaign and widespread debate, the status quo will prevail. Thus he can claim to be bound by the outcome of a process which was pre-destined the moment he initiated it.

It's cynical manipulative populism at it's worst - but that doesn't seem to bother Crs Marty Linday and Don McGregor, who've changed their minds on the matter after initially voting against it. Are there Diva-shaped bite marks on their ankles, or have they miraculously had some sort of revelation since September 18, when they were implacably opposed? Cr Lindsay says "it's about the people of our community taking the time to understand the issue, have their say and do what’s right".

Listening to whom? In what forum? If they want to ask iwi why the issue is important to them, how do they do that? Who's going to write the "pro-H" case which will presumably be included in the official referenda documentation? And several other questions that we bet Cr Lindsay doesn't know the answer to either. But it's better than having to keep putting ointment on those nasty bites.

Meanwhile, the New Zealand Geographic Board has responded to a Watcher's query as to whether the addition of an "h" would be considered a name change or a spelling correction, confirming it would be viewed as the latter:

I refer to your enquiry of 26 September 2005, in which you sought advice on whether the discussion over Wanganui vs Whanganui (for the city name) would be considered to be correcting a 'doubtful spelling' or a 'name change', and whether it would require the formal assent of the Wanganui District Council.

My view is that any such submission received would be classed as a spelling correction, rather than a change of name. If the Wanganui District Council makes a formal submission proposal to the NZ Geographic Board then I would expect that they would wish to make a formal resolution to support the change, but it is not a pre-requisite for the process set out under the NZ Geographic Board Act.

Wanganui is the official name for the 'city', this being a name that has not been gazetted as an official place name, but which has been published on maps and charts for many years and has been in such long term usage, that the New Zealand Geographic Board, when it considered altering its spelling in the early 90s, decided to leave it as spelt, because of the adverse effects that such a change would have on the community and businesses.

However, for Whanganui River, the 'h' was included - NZ Gazette 1991 page 3226 refers, which notified the Minister of Lands decision of 23 April 1991...

Wendy Shaw
Secretary for the New Zealand Geographic Board
Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa
c/- Land Information New Zealand Toitu te whenua
160 Lambton Quay, Private Box 5501,
Wellington

So at least we now know that much, Mharty. Meanwhile, LawsWatch will again endeavour to act as an oasis of informed debate and will today invite tangata whenua to contribute a post on the issue and, hopefully, to respond to any questions or comments that visitors may care to leave.

Update (7.30 pm): A commenter suggests "get[ting] signatures and lobby[ing] the Geographic Board. As they clearly state it is not a decision of Council any way - in fact its not even a pre-requisite. All we would need is signatures from over 50% of the rating base to show that the change has the majority support of the city. How about this blog actually promoting something positive..."

We're only too happy to do what we can to promote positive initiatives. That's why we've set up the by-election poll, in order to give those who might be thinking of standing some idea of what support they might receive and hopefully encourage them to do so. And why in this very post we've indicated that we're offering LawsWatch to local Iwi to initiate an ongoing dialogue on the "H" during which their point of view won't be marginalised - as it clearly will in anything the Diva writes.

And we'll promote any petition you care to start, Whanganui Fan. But be warned, the crucial word in your suggestion is "lobby". The Board is under no obligation to take notice of any submission, and takes into account a wide variety of factors including:

• An indication as to whether local Maori authorities have been consulted on the possibility that an original Maori name may already exist for the feature.
• An indication as to whether consultation has been undertaken with the local community, Department of Conservation, Local Authority, etc., with documentary evidence of their support to any name proposal. NB this consultation is not mandatory but is encouraged by the Board.

Furthermore, as the Board's secretary stated in her reply to the Watcher, quoted above, "Wanganui is the official name for the 'city'... has been published on maps and charts for many years and has been in such long term usage, that the... Board, when it considered altering its spelling in the early 90s, decided to leave it as spelt". So just ten years ago the answer from the Board was a resounding no.

That's leaving aside the logistic difficulty of obtaining the signatures of more than 50% of "the rating base". And minor but nonetheless important questions like, what about non-ratepaying residents? Do they get a say? And how are you going to fairly and impartially present both sides of the case when asking for a signature?

The Council has the cash and the infrastructure to poll 100% of the District, and is nominally our servant. Why wear yourself out sitting at a card table outside supermarkets or going door-to-door with a clipboard when the infrastructure is already there? Rather than the negativity of which you accuse us, we're suggesting supporting and helping Sue Pepperell and others who've identified the deficiencies in the Diva-style referendum process and are trying to correct them. But if you want to go the petition route, rest assured we'll do all we can to help with that, too.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A new twist

Well, we've got past the general election, even if being force-fed months of overblown rhtoric didn't actually produce a government. Our leaders are now just too tired to be bothered with all that right now, so just sit quietly till they tell you who's in charge. Take it easy Helen, Don, Winston, Peter et al - we can look after ourselves better than you lot ever could anyway.

LawsWatch suggests enlivening your weekend by wearing party leader masks and playing Scrabble, Ludo, or some other exciting board game to determine who gets to be boss. Or, for an added touch of realism, try Truth or Dare. Or, for that real "late night negotiations in Wellington" feel, drink a lot of wine and then play Naked Twister.

It also means we can turn our attention back to the by-election, a mere 140 days away as we write this. Indeed, over recent days some of you have already returned to discussing the odds:

Supposing an anti-Laws candidate is elected, that still gives him & his team (Rangi Wills
included) the majority on council. It would move from 8-5 to 7-6 and even if one of them were absent then he still has the casting vote. I wouldn't be putting too much store in the by-election delivering a different vote or having any effect upon the way this current council operates.
12:29 PM, September 21, 2005

You're assuming that diVision will always vote with Michael, and that is a heroic assumption.
12:59 PM, September 21, 2005

Probably depends as much on the by-election result. If that implies dissatisfaction with Vision, some Crs. may think twice about their allegiances.
1:27 PM, September 21, 2005

...it indicates that if either Jodie or JM can get support from the National Party voters they'll be a tough candidate to beat.
11:49 PM, September 21, 2005

...I am even more concerned that the by-election will not alter one iota the balance of power around the council table. As LawsWatch notes, Rangi Wills is a Ratepayers/Vision man and all that would happen is that the current 8-5 majority becomes 7-6; but even then with non-vison councillors not being united then who knows? Some good advice Jodie and Carla would be to sit this by-election out and wait until 2007.
1:45 PM, September 22, 2005

I see a need for a single strong candidate to be put forward NOW. Must declare my choice would be Carla Donson = intelligent, reliable, a true fighter, clear-headed and totally committed to Whanganui. Any in agreement,please?
10:55 AM, September 23, 2005

Carla is good but so is Jodie Dalgleish but why not put them both up. Vision won't put up a candidate because they don't need to because with Rangi Wills it will still be 7-6 and thats presupposing the non-Vision councillors vote as a bloc, which they don't. ...do you think Vision will put up a candidate? Bob Walker or Alan Taylor?
11:05 AM, September 23, 2005

With 192 votes recorded to date in the LawsWatch "Who'd make the best candidate" poll - a fairly reasonable sample size - Jodie Dalgleish on 29% is ahead of John Martin with 26%. The other most-talked-about candidate, Carla Donson, is on 17%.

As we've seen with our comparison of voting patterns between LawsWatch visitors and the rest of Wanganui, there's a definite left-leaning skew amongst the former but whether that's as relevant in local elections is something you may care to debate (i.e. are the opinions of rural, right-leaning voters, who seem not to visit the blog in great numbers, going to be markedly different from their city counterparts in a local election?).

Details of votes cast to date are:

• Jodie Dalgleish 29%
• John Martin 26%
• Carla Donson 17%
• Bob Walker 6%
• Graeme Adams 4%
• Ken Mair 4%
• Alan Taylor 4%
• Ross Mitchell-Anyon 3%
• Rob Vinsen 3%
• Margaret Campion 2%
• Richard Moore 1%
• Stephen Palmer 1%
• Jill Pettis 1%
• Chas Poynter 1%
• Judith Timpany 0%

Comments on this post are now closed.

A new century

We hadn't realised it at the time, but yesterday's post to LawsWatch was #100 (and that's not counting Council Watch or LawsWatch polls).

We've been around only since 1 July this year - 83 days - so we've maintained a steady rate of a little over a post a day, resting only on weekends (and not always then). Blogger.com seems unable to give us a figure for the number of comments you've left over that time, but we wouldn't be surprised if it was many more than 1,000.

That's a lot of words - mostly from us, with help from you.

When LawsWatch was first established, it was envisaged that there'd be more of a two-way information exchange. To some degree that occurs, but what happens more often is that we report, then offer an opinion, then people come along and agree or disagree.

As we did when we started LawsWatch, we believe it offers Wanganui a valuable focal point for debate. But so would a "bulletin board" system which consisted entirely of comment threads. LawsWatch has tried - successfully for the most part, we humbly feel - to go beyond that and report what other media are unwilling or unable to (and, to be fair, it's usually the latter). Our opinions matter no more nor less than anyone who comments here. What adds the most value to LawsWatch is the research we're able to do, the meetings we're able to report, and the history we can look back at and relate to the present.

But whereas other media employ people to do that reporting, LawsWatch relies on a small but dedicated core group of Watchers with occasional contributions from a broad range of people. That model got the blog started, and well read by a good portion of Wanganui-ites - and particularly pleasing is that people come here and voice their opposition to the conclusions we've drawn from some of the facts we've reported. That suggests not only a widespread audience, but a diverse one.

But now, with 100 posts behind us, things need to change. LawsWatch needs, we feel, to become more of a community effort. Not just to ensure that no one carries too great a load, but also in the hope of garnering a more diverse range of views and sources of information.

So from here on out, more of LawsWatch is over to you. Our email address is lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com. Send us news snippets, information, documents, leads, suggestions or even complete posts and, if they're relevant, we'll publish them. Morgs Hunter-Bell has already used LawsWatch to update Wanganui on the progress of WYC'D and the Youth Council (and to settle the confusion about the relationship between the two).

That's the new model for LawsWatch, supplemented by regular but less frequent posts from the Watchers.

"If you build it, they will come," as Hollywood told us. We've built it - the blog and the audience. Now we're inviting you to truly be a part of it. You might like to add our email to your address book: lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com. And remember, you can set up an anonymous email for yourself at Hotmail, Yahoo, or any one of a number of similar free email services.

Update (5.08pm): On the topic of the availability of information, Russell Brown reports that the NZ Herald is going to start charging for "premium" content (mainly opinion pieces) at a cost of $3 a day (twice the cost of the entire printed paper). As he says, "this is effectively the end of my - or any other blogger - linking to anything written by the Herald commentators covered by the policy". And, if you find a story using the paper's on-site search, the link will expire in seven days, and you'd then have to pay to read the story. But if you find it some other way (and Russell explains how), you won't. The Chron is part of the same stable as the Herald - it's to be hoped they're not forced to follow suit. Meantime, if you value free access to your online Herald, we suggest you write to them and tell them so.

Comments on this post are now closed.

DIY referendum - Stage II

Since the polling service we used for write-in questions to the "Do It Yourself Referendum" was time-limited, it's now closed.

To be honest, we anticipated there'd be lots of burning questions you wanted put to the populace, but the idea of referenda just doesn't seem to excite many of you at all. So here are the responses, with our comments, and then a poll (duplicated on the LawsWatch polls site) to see what sort of support each (workable) suggestion has.

1. Do you want those who brought the code complaint against Mayor Laws kicked out of Wanganui?

What a good idea. We could send them, and anyone else who disagrees with the Diva, to special places where they'd spend all day learning what a great fellow he actually is. They'd listen in rapt silence to readings from "The Demon Profession" and "Dancing with Beelzebub" and then, to earn their place at this wonderful facility, they could do some back-breaking work in the fields. Eventually they'd emerge re-educated. What a splendid idea - one that has a long and proud heritage on which this suggestion clearly draws. And of course it's worked so well for the longevity of every other regime that's tried it.

Since that is not something Council can reasonably achieve (despite the Diva doing his best) it won't be included in the second stage poll. But thanks so much for the suggestion, Mr Pot. Or may we call you Pol?

2. Are you satisfied with council?

An interesting point for debate, and one which is, in fact, the raison d'etre of LawsWatch. But again, not an issue Council can respond to (Ritual seppuku at the next full Council meeting, anyone?). However, we have tried to interpret the sentiment of the person who made this suggestion correctly, and have re-worded the question to read: "Should this Council serve it's full term (or resign and call an election)?

3. Are you satisified with the Mayor?

Same problem as above. Since we're talking referenda and not opinion polling, the question needs to ask whether some action be taken, or not. So again, presuming to interpret the sentiment of the person who suggested this one, we've re-worded it to read "Should the Mayor serve his full term (or resign and call a by-election)?" Like he ever would, but LawsWatch tries to be democratic and someone wanted this one included.

4. Are you in favour of a referendum poll (especially for matters of policy)?

Here's one that asks about future actions, so we've merely altered the wording very slightly to read "Are you in favour of the use of referenda (especially for matters of policy)?"

5. Do you support the use of referendums for capital spending items?

Accepted with the substitution of "referenda" for "referendums" (yes, we are pedantic, actually ;-)

6. End referenda.

Not so much a question, we suspect, as a cry from the heart. We've turned this into a question and included it.

---

So, let's be clear what this poll is asking. We are not asking if you agree with the propositions put forward - we are asking if you would like to see each question included in the District-wide referendum along with the other questions Council has already chosen.

The list which will be submitted to Council explaining the level of support achieved for each question, and suggesting that Council might wish to consider adding some, or all, of these propositions to the referendum it's already announced, since the cost of adding additional questions is negligible.

By clicking the box beside any combination of the questions and clicking the "vote" button you are indicating that you support the questions you've selected being included in the referendum.

Do you support the following questions being put to Council to include in the forthcoming referendum?
Should this Council serve it's full term (or resign and call an election)?
Should the Mayor serve his full term (or resign and call a by-election)?
Are you in favour of the use of referenda (especially for matters of policy)?
Do you support the use of referenda for capital spending items?
Do you wish Council to entirely end the use of referenda?

Free polls from Pollhost.com

A copy of this poll will remain on the LawsWatch polls site for as long as the poll itself remains open and may be accessed at any time by clicking the "LawsWatch polls" banner on the right of the main page.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Monster Inc - should we care?

Amid the thunder and hail rocking the council chamber on Monday, Watchers swear they heard the stirring of those vengeful ghosts of the 80s, Ruthanasia and Rogernomics, rattling their favourite toys: electricity market reform, health sector "restructuring" and SOEs.

In the smouldering ruins left by the Diva’s ethnic cleansing of the old boys network there has arisen a new entity. It’s called the new boys’ network and its influence is nowhere more evident than in the murky council decision-outsourcing arena where Wanganui Inc operates.

Back in the days when it first stirred in the Diva’s and Dotty’s primordial soup, this beast was tagged Monster Inc by a quick-thinking Chron sub-editor.

Reading between the lines which pass for open, transparent government, it seems Monster Inc chair Ron Janes, the Diva et al have already picked the (non councillor) person they want to join their gang but ran into resistance at last week’s strategy meeting. Thus, the matter re-appeared on the agenda for the full council meeting.

Some councillors started to hear not only the rattling of ghosts, but the burning torches and rattling pitchforks of an attempted putsch by Janes, fondly remembered for visiting havoc on the Wanganui health sector*. Janes had put his name to a letter asking that, following the departure of Graeme (GK) Taylor, the balance of power on Monster Inc be changed to favour private business representatives. The letter apparently had the backing of Chamber of Comics president Warren Ruscoe.

The Diva declared the letter out of bounds to the public after Cr Bullock waved it in the air and said it degraded councillors. She did, however, win her bid to have discussion about the letter taken out of the secret agenda. Watchers figure the letter, in Janes’ charmingly outspoken manner, slagged off councillors as lacking in skills and business nous, though it’s not clear how he and Ruscoe rate existing board members Rangi Wills and the Diva.

Replacing GK with a non-councillor would change the balance from the 3:3 council:private split proposed by the Diva when Monster Inc was being set up, and give the majority vote to private interests.

Cue the sound of alarm bells among the likes of Barbara Bullock and Sue Westwood. In the same breath as it was being asked to bury its economic development committee - which is required to operate transparently in the interests of ratepayers - the council was being asked to further alienate key economic development functions and spending authority.

The vote went, as so many do, with a whimper. Wanganui Inc can anoint its preferred person but the council gets the final say, and the Diva agreed that nothing prevented a councillor with the right skills getting the nod. To which we can only append that immortal phrase, "Yeah Right!".

As Rob Vinsen has kindly pointed out in a comment to LawsWatch, Monster Inc could find economic development funding from outside the council’s coffers easier to win if it’s seen not to be unduly influenced by the council. And that's certainly been the plan all along, with Janes saying back in June that the $800,000 already set aside for them in this "cash strapped" city won't be nearly enough, and that more like $1.5 million to $2 million a year would be his aim.

LawsWatch wonders, however, whether that’s sufficient reason for our elected representatives to further abrogate their responsibilities to a small cartel of the Diva and his mates, meeting behind closed doors and making public only what they want the public to know.

As a CCO (Council Controlled Organisation) Monster Inc is required by the Local Government Act to report half yearly and yearly to the council, but outside of that, it appears it’s okay for the chairman to just drop the council a line from time to time telling them his version of what the gang’s been up to.

That’s a bit like the new system of press scrutiny where the Chron apologises for not attending meetings but then publishes a summary supplied by the chairman.

Vision Party policy gives no hint of what is effectively an outsourcing of the economic development role but this issue has become something of a canary in the mineshaft that the council is being driven down in the name of the Diva’s vision. LawsWatch wonders what those ratepayers of Castlecliff, Aramoho et al, so beloved of the Diva, would say if all this had been explained in words of one syllable.

Council / business partnerships have achieved some notable successes throughout the world. But they've also descended into squabbling, recriminations, and (as anyone who's watched City Hall or The Sopranos knows) sometimes even widespread corruption. We're not saying that any of these outcomes is our prediction for Monster Inc., but what we are saying is that conducting public business out in the open is the surest way to ensure transparency and accountability are maintained, that people are informed about - and unite behind - a common vision.

Some Monster Inc factoids:

• $42,000 in directors’ fees has been budgeted by the council for 2005-06
• It gets to distribute the lion’s share -- $200,000 of the $350,000 community contracts money, with events like the Mayoral Mile having the inside running
• Its newly-appointed CEO, John Quigley, will start next month
• The current board comprises Ron Janes (ex CEO of Good Health Wanganui), GK Taylor, the Diva, Cr Rangi Wills (nominally Ratepayers rep, actually a Vision recruit), Nygllhuw Morris (a staunch Vision/Diva supporter) and Bruce Nicholson (business partner of the incoming CEO David Warburton).

---

* Ron Janes's time as CEO of Good Health Wanganui was given this epitaph by none other than Jill Pettis, speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, June 14, 1995:

...246 staff will be losing their jobs at Good Health Wanganui. Health is being reduced to the lowest common denominator. It is absolutely disgraceful ...The absolutely disgraceful thing that is hanging over the staff at Jubilee Hospital - who are employed by Good Health Wanganui - is that they were told to take pay cuts or the hospital would close. What an absolutely disgraceful thing to say to staff - take a pay cut or the hospital will close! ...I do not know whether we will see Mr Ron Janes turn up on the board of a State-owned enterprise in the near future - I think we might. Good luck to him. Since he has been at Good Health Wanganui he has actually served the Government very well. I am not so sure that he has served the people of Wanganui so well, but he has been a loyal servant to this Government.

And that, we guess, is the question hanging over Monster Inc - will it serve the people of Wanganui well, or will it be a loyal servant of Council? And are the appointees capable of differentiating between the two when necessary?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Listen up, old dudes...

An official WYC'D update from Morgs Hunter-Bell, as promised. Questions will no doubt be answered in comments. Seems some of the WYC'D mob intend to end up on the Youth Council after all. Whether that fits the Diva's plans is another question entirely. As is where the $50,000 goes - all to the "political" division, all to the "social" division, or will there be a Mayoral lolly scramble?

---

Whanganui Youth CollecteD (WYC'D) is more than likely not what you think. After some misinformed comments, I've been invited to clarify the situation.

I’ve posted part of the story here previously – the call went out at the start of the year for any youth interested in making things happen to meet up. Out of that WYC’D was formed as an autonomous collective with open/rolling membership which would deal primarily with Events planning. We agreed that a Youth Council was something worthwhile, and are working to help the WDC establish the YC for 2006.

At this point, a select group of us that are more interested in the "Youth Council"ly things will 'buddy up' with councillors from the Community Development Committee to learn some of the ropes of council procedure, basically prepare for the eventual Youth Committee/Council. In the last round of Council meetings for 2005, the ("Interim") Youth Committee will have a proper public meeting. The key presentation / discussion will be the results of our survey, as well as issues involving the formation of a Youth Council for early 2006.

Jeremy Loader and I have been busy lately outside the regular group meetings (which consistently have attendance between 12 and 20 people, depending on what else everyone has going on), mostly in our effort to find local business sponsorship to help fund our survey. We have Council funds to print with, but we thought we'd give businesses a chance to put their name on a worthwhile cause. Everywhere we went had friendly, helpful people who wanted to help out, but couldn't commit due to existing projects, etc. So we've gone ahead and used a small portion of our Council-appropriated funds for printing.

Right now, after our first week of issuing our forms, we already have over 1,000 surveys filled out. We've still got many schools to hit, as well as setting up key 'drop-off points' and some more community organisations that deal with non-school youth. Our target was set at 5,000 and it looks like we'll hit that easily.

I should explain what exactly the survey is about (it's an inevitable question). Without leading the participants to any 'pre-determined' answers, we have three simple, open questions in relation to Whanganui's relevance to youth:

• What do you like?
• What don't you like?
• What do you want?

We are issuing this survey because we realise that while we have some good ideas about things to put in motion, we're by no means fully representative, and thus look to the wider youth community to provide us with solid directions.

We’re all very excited about the coming months. Surveying and results tallying, gearing up the Youth Committee, and working out some events.

Okay, there it is, hope you enjoy it. By the by, if you’d like to stop by one of our meetings some time please feel free to do so. Whether it’s to come have a chat or just see how we operate, you’re more than welcome. We’ve certainly had our share of guests and visitors over the recent months, always time for more.

Have a good one,

Morgs

---

Update (8.30pm): We asked Morgs the following questions, to clarify some of the points in his report above.

LawsWatch: Our spies tell us, as you've no doubt seen on the blog, that Sue urged a youth committee be established as a separate, "political" entity to WYC’D. WYC’D organise the "social" stuff and fundraise for it, while the "actual" YC will be drawn from secondary schools and Ucol as well as "community youth representatives". Is that what you'd envisaged all along? If so, do you get the $50k ("you" being WYC'D), does the "political" YC, or what?

Morgs: Yeah, we’ve been faced with confusion from a lot of people, generally because it seems like it should be complicated, but it’s really very simple. We have indeed had this plan in mind from the get-go. Sue wasn’t so much urging that this be the case, but rather urging that everyone understand that this is the case. The confusion originated with the Council setting out and saying "we’d like a Youth Council, let’s form a group of youth who want to do that", and what they met with back in May was a group who were cool with helping establish it, but not necessarily automatic members. We believe that it would be unfair for us to translate directly across and become the Youth Council, there needs to be a wider range for candidates. We had long discussions as WYC’D about how best to set it up – working out the application process, etc. and believe we’re on the right track now.

LawsWatch: There seems to be so much "diVision" going on at present - two youth councils being just the latest manifestation. Correct us if we're wrong, but it's usually the "political" YC's in other cities that do the "social" stuff as part of their mandate - e.g. making sure there are adequate Council-backed (and maybe subsidised by sponsors) facilities for young people etc. This two-headed approach seems a tad unsual?

Morgs: The function separation is an important one. The YC will operate within Council structure, 6 week meeting cycle, all of that, and be dealing with both youth-focused policy and any other youth-relevant issues that go through other areas of the Council. WYC’D will be working close when it comes to being a "get out there and do it" group, without the guidelines, connotations and taglines that come with Council affiliation. Funding goes where it’s needed. Next year, that will be decided on by the Youth Council/Committee. For now it’s under WYC’D (as "Interim" YC) domain and we’re trying to use as little as possible now with view to bigger things in the future. WYC’D as a community organisation is able to acquire funding from other sources if/when need be.

There is no division, or "two youth councils", we’ve had a clear plan from the start. It’s just a shame that people have heard bits of it and gotten confused.

---

LawsWatch comment: While Morgs and the other young people involved in this venture have come in for a bit of flak on the blog for being "too PC" and so forth, one thing that seems to us to be undeniable is that they're entirely open, honest (at least insofar as we can tell) and willing to explain their plans, answer questions and front their critics. They're even asking open questions on their surveys (much harder to collate than a yes/no referendum, but a better way to obtain an accurate understanding of what people really want). Contrast all that with the "grown up" Council and the Mayor.

Comments on this post are now closed.

The council's briefs are showing

The Watchers try to make sense of yesterday's council meeting, for your edification:

---

OUR BELOVED LEADER will soon hang himself in the refurbished council chamber. Watchers reached for the airline bags when he confided that he won’t be waiting, as did his predecessors, to be kicked out of office to join the portrait pantheon but will soon be up on the walls, in black and white. Oh, and expect a queue to form any minute of "civic minded citizens" wanting to write cheques for a series of stained glass windows he wants to grace the chamber … no doubt confident he won’t then hock them off, along with the Sarjeant artworks, to help fund the Laws Memorial Memorial.

---

RON (RAZORGANG) JANES isn’t, it seems, content with getting his foot in the council door as chair of Wanganui Inc. He now wants to kick it down. A letter he sent to the council proposing a non-councillor replace GK Taylor on the Monster Inc board, thus reducing the council to a minority role in how up to $200,000 of council money is spent yearly, was buried in the confidential hole after Barbara Bullock called it degrading to councillors and the Diva labelled it free and frank. Apparently this move by Janes to further alienate the council from the city’s the economic development had the backing of Chamber of Comics president Warren Ruscoe. Wise heads and observers of Janes’ previous incarnations, including the District Health Board, warned about the dangers of letting him too near council business. Sue Westwood, Barbara Bullock, Randhir Dahya and Don McGregor raised the alarm, and the council decided to tread with caution and make any appointments to Wanganui Inc subject to their approval.

---

DEPUTY DOTTY might have been stranded by snow on the Mainland but Watchers were left in awe of the sleight-of-hand with which the Diva firstly passed on her wish to nuke the economic development committee she has chaired for the past year (because, see above, its functions have been usurped by the Janes Gang) then propose her as GK Taylor’s replacement as chair of the powerful strategy committee. Ray Stevens apparently had put his name forward, then withdrawn it, then changed his mind, but he was very much an also-ran. Barb Bullock wasn’t invited to the strategy party but she did get GK’s chair on what could well be the poisoned chalice of the splash centre working party. Of course the Diva himself will be there to make sure no one puts a flipper wrong.

---

THE DIVA suffered a defeat on whether the H-in-Whanganui issue should be decided by the white vote in Referendumb 2006. Sue Pepperell was joined by fellow diVisionary Marty Lindsay and all the independents (except pseudo-Ratepayers/Maori man Rangi Wills) in voting down the Diva’s move to get the box ticked in February. However, softer water, fluoridated water, the rural ward, and a cut to councillor numbers got through – the latter after a warning by Randhir Dahya that the gullible ratepayers could expect another Diva-led crusade with a simplistic message (in this case, cut councillors and save money) but would find it harder to find councillors they knew. It was also suggested, by Don McGregor, that fewer councillors would increase the workload for officers and another staff member might be needed.

---

YOOF MATTERS whizzed through, in the absence of any identifiable Yoofers, after Sue Pepperell presented a report calling for urgent action in setting up a youth committee as a separate, "political" entity to the WYC’D ones. WYC’D get to organise the "social" stuff and fundraise for it, while the 15 baby politicians, drawn from secondary schools and Ucol as well as "community youth representatives" "will work to affect change at a political level". Wonder what Morgs thinks of that?

---

HELEN CLARK had a rough weekend. After holding her breath throughout the vote count, she then had to put a clothes peg on her nose and deal with the Diva on Sunday night. The subject of his planned Great Art Sale came up and she took an even deeper breath and said she’d meet him in Wellington as soon as the little business of a workable coalition is sorted out, to discuss how the government might help with conservation funding for the Sarjeant collection. She’d probably rather have Winston as Treasurer than provide political capital for the anti-arts boy mayor, but that’s politics for you.

---

Update (4.10pm): Fascinating slip of the keyboard in comments on the last post: "On losers - Webb, Dutton, widow Turney & Camden. What do these 4 have in common? The only audience at today's council meeting. And now they write to each other on this blog. Hilarious." 9:47 PM, September 19, 2005

We didn't even need to don our deerstalker and light our calabash pipe (a favourite disguise of Watchers) in order to deduce that the commenter therefore isn't a member of the public, but was at the meeting. That leaves... staff (unlikely, my dear Watson), councillors (possible) or... a lonely Diva, with nothing better to do at quarter to ten than sit at a glowing terminal, glowering at LawsWatch. But, my dear fellow(s), the final and most damning clue is, who else would see people taking an interest in civic affairs and exercising their democratic right to attend a meeting (something Council spends money advertising and encouraging) as losers? Take him away, Inspector Lestrade.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Did someone mention buns?

As that fine author Danielle Steel once said: "A bad review is like baking a cake with all the best ingredients and having someone sit on it". The poor Diva's buns must be feeling a little flat after his recent performance as a political "expert".

Even before the big night, poor reviews were to be found, like this from Ana Samways in the Herald:

Tauranga's electorate scrap has left a trail of confusion in its wake. On Campbell Live on Wednesday night know-it-all political commentator Michael Laws was asked about Winston Peters' chances. He said Bob Clarkson and Peters had probably both been damaged by the debacle and then offered his expert opinion on who might benefit. "It's going to hurt them and I think Mr Nash would probably be the repository of that dismay." John Campbell asked: "Can he [Nash] win?" To which Laws replied: "Yes, he can, but he's actually going to have to say what I've done for Tauranga and what I'm going to do and I haven't heard that yet." Could that be because Stuart Nash is standing in Epsom? Small but important point that obviously passed Laws and Campbell by.

And after the event, the reviews aren't much better. Kerre Woodham, again in the Herald:

John Campbell and his four experts were stuck behind desks on a dull beige set. Therese Arsenau was a wonderful commentator - the find of the night - and Deborah Coddington offered interesting insights, pointing out that Act had often voted with the Greens on issues of personal responsibility. Andrew Little was competent and Michael Laws was revelling in being able to use words like testicle, but I missed a lot of what he said as I was appalled by his bizarre eye make-up. (I know it's bourgeois to mention it, and Ma'a Nonu wears his unashamedly, but Ma'a is cool and Michael is not.)

Early days yet, of course. No doubt other reviewers will ponder the performance in due course. If we find any, we'll update you. In the meantime, Isaac Asimov said "From my close observation of writers... they fall into two groups: 1) those who bleed copiously and visibly at any bad review, and 2) those who bleed copiously and secretly at any bad review." We hope for the sake of his drycleaners, the Diva is in the latter category.

Update (11.30pm): A commenter says "Sadly you guys missed Jane Bowron's complimentary review of the mayor in today's Dom-Post", presumably referring to this piece in which Bowron indeed says "TV3's results might have been way behind TV One's and the graphics of the numbers trailing along the bottom of the screen hard to read, but at least Campbell and his panel of four put out personality". Just what "personality" the Diva brought to the evening is elucidated upon a little later, however:

There were heated exchanges between Canterbury University political scientist Therese Arseneau and Laws, with Campbell at one stage adjudicating between a pro crotch-grabbing lobby (made up of Laws and retiring ACT MP Deborah Coddington) and the antis (Arseneau and union official Andrew Little).

And, in more than 1,000 words, that's the only mention the Diva gets. We're sure being portrayed as "pro crotch-grabbing" is considered complimentary somewhere. Michael Jackson's ranch, for instance.

Comments on this post are now closed.

You're an atypical lot

Some reasonably significant differences between blog visitors and the bulk of Wanganui, at least in terms of your national political leanings. Here's the party votes of Wanganui (in blue) compared to our poll respondents' (in red) and the preliminary national results (in green):

• 99 MP Party 0.06% 0% 0.03%
• ACT New Zealand 0.91% 0% 1.52%
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 0.17% 0% 0.23%
• Christian Heritage New Zealand 0.18% 0% 0.12%
• Destiny New Zealand 0.82% 1% 0.61%
• Direct Democracy Party 0.02% 3% 0.04%
• Jim Anderton's Progressive 1.43% 1% 1.21%
• Libertarianz 0.05% 3% 0.05%
• Mâori Party 0.78% 4% 1.98%
• New Zealand Family Rights Protection Party 0.03% 0% 0.05%
• New Zealand First Party 6.55% 3% 5.84%
• New Zealand Labour Party 39.85% 47% 40.74%
• One New Zealand Party 0.16% 0% 0.02%
• The Alliance 0.09% 8% 0.07%
• The Greens 4.26% 22% 5.07%
• Democratic Party for Social Credit 0.21% 0% 0.05%
• The New Zealand National Party 41.26% 8% 39.63%
• The Republic of New Zealand Party 0.01% 0% 0.02%
• United Future New Zealand 2.71% 0% 2.72%

Clearly, a much smaller proportion of National Party supporters, and far greater numbers of Green Party supporters, visit the blog than there are in the general population.

Blog visitors' support for the smaller parties broadly follow the trend, though there's more supporters of NZ First in the general population than there are amongst blog visitors. And disproportionate numbers of visitors support the Direct Democracy Party, the Libertarianz and the Maori Party.

Turns out the Diva was right in predicting the demise of Jill Pettis (at least in terms of her career as an electorate MP), despite strong support from blog visitors. Of those candidates on whom we polled, the results were:

• Jill Pettis - Labour 41.24% 53%
• Chester Borrows - National 49.00% 31%
• Debbie Lucas - Progressive 1.14% 2%
• John Milnes - Greens 3.4% 10%

We're not about to attempt a mass psychoanalysis based on these results (though we're sure that won't prevent others from giving it a go). But it does provide a filter through which responses to other polls ought to be viewed, perhaps.

Speaking of which, coming soon is the results of the "DIY Referendum" poll, as well as updates on the by-election and other polls.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A step ahead?

Here we were, thinking that Laws Watchers were an odd lot, unrepresentative of the mainstream in your overwhelming support for Labour, when the latest Herald Digi-Poll suddenly shows you were simply ahead of the rest of NZ, and that Helen and her comrades do indeed have a commanding lead.

This came not a moment too soon. We were about to contract NZ's foremost respected pollster to cross-correlate our results against historical trends, analyse each data point for accuracy, conduct a randomised telephone poll against which to check the outcome, and then invent some entirely fictitious and self-serving "result" to suit our plans. But we won't be needing Antoinette Beck after all.

• 99 MP Party 0%
• ACT New Zealand 0%
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 0%
• Christian Heritage New Zealand 0%
• Destiny New Zealand 1%
• Direct Democracy Party 3%
• Jim Anderton's Progressive 1%
• Libertarianz 3%
• Mâori Party 4%
• New Zealand Family Rights Protection Party 0%
• New Zealand First Party 3%
• New Zealand Labour Party 47%
• One New Zealand Party 0%
• Outdoor Recreation NZ 0%
• The Alliance 8%
• The Greens, The Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand 22%
• The New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit 0%
• The New Zealand National Party 8%
• The Republic of New Zealand Party 0%
• United Future New Zealand 0%

(from 76 votes)

Meanwhile, the Diva predicts a possible loss to Jill Pettis, while Laws Watchers say otherwise:

• Jill Pettis - Labour 53%
• Chester Borrows - National 31%
• Debbie Lucas - Progressive 2%
• John Milnes - Greens 10%
• Undecided 0%
• Won't vote 2%
• In Te Tai Hauauru 1%

(from 83 votes)

Only one sleep to go and we'll see who's right.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Diva?

We reported some time ago on the proposed formation of Wanganui-on-Sea's very own Dad's Army, that elite (shome mishtake shurely? - Ed) corps of vigilantes volunteers who were going to patrol the streets of this sleepy hamlet at night, making sure we were all safe in our beds.

So where's Dad's Army when you need it? The Watchers are so concerned about helping keep our city safe in the vacuum created by yet another undelivered promise that a couple of dedicated Watchers armed with wallets and handbags took to the mean streets last Saturday for a patrol of their own.

At about 9pm crowds spilled out of a downtown restaurant crying out in pigeon French, laughing raucously and bursting into songs like "Kiss Me Goodnight, Sarjeant Major Sell-Off", "There'll be Auditors All Over the Port Hand-over" and other revolutionary, violence-inciting anthems.

Apparently they had been at one of a series of subversive undercover meetings of the Wanganui branch of the National Front. Our Watchers report there were even nazi uniforms present. Disguised as dinner-theatre attendees, these rabble-rousers fuel their dangerous madness with lashings of red wine, onion soup, and Second World War sing-alongs. Most worrying is that they seem to come from all age-groups and all walks of life. Sadly this cult already seems to have infected such a large proportion of the population while we wait for Dad's Army to come to the rescue and stamp them out.

Not much more than an hour and a half later, on the very same Saturday, undercover Watchers enjoying post-prandial ports at the downtown restaurants trembled with fear as the streets again filled with mad, dangerous rabble in what appeared to be the uniforms of a new Wanganui gang. Looking for all theworld like a gang of football hooligans without the football, this dangerous mob crammed the streets around the Royal Wanganui Opera House where they also had apparently had unashamedly been singing roisterous battle hymns like "Land of Grope and (Fairy) Story" and "Rule, the Diva".

Waving flags and wearing party hats, uniforms and badges, they struck fear into the hearts of Watchers posted across town at the Rutland Arms as they flooded in and took over the bar. Our terrified Watchers were forced out into the mean streets. Standing cowed behind the Watt Fountain they trembled as two MGs driven by the Classic Cars sect and wearing World War One flying ace helmets navigated the roundabout at 20 miles per hour.

Our Watchers were becoming convinced the real threat to Wanganui law'n'order lay not with the long-feared Yoof Gang but with disaffected, alienated Middle Class Middle Aged coalition, our Watchers spied the real threat to civil order. Heavily disguised and sitting in the gutter were Loathsome Loader and Mad Morgs, the key agitators of the underground Wangas Youth Collective (Dicked-by the-Diva Division), aka WYC'DDD, plotting their next aerosol art progject.

So, Sam and Mickey, bring on Dad's Army. Wanganui needs them. When and where is the fundraising happening? Or is Dad's Army going the way of Morgs's Mob - just another flash toy already thrown aside while the Diva moves onto the next big thing?

Meanwhile, the $50,000 looks like it's just seed money. The rest of the dosh will come, apparently, from sponsors. "There is also the obvious ability to raise additional funds from other sources and from sponsorship. And indications are there are no shortage of responsible,community-minded citizens who want to contribute to keeping Wanganui people safe", the Diva says.

Comments on this post are now closed.