The bad boy syndrome

Cat got our tongue, you ask? Would that anything that exciting actually have happened in Wanga-vague-as this past week. With Council on hiatus and new CEO Dr Warburton seemingly intent on keeping Mad Mickey sedated (elephant tranquiliser? GHB? Ecstacy? A rubber mallet?) Watchers have been making forays out of the Cave to stock up on winter firewood and catching up on our crocheting.

You mean to tell us Mr Maslin's limpid organ hasn't been keeping you fully and completely informed of every angle of every issue facing Wanganui? Now there's a surprise. An increasingly irritable editor seems to have started the year somewhat out of sorts, making mischief with photo captions during the buy-election, overlooking the need for solid information on which people could base their decisions on referendumb issues, and testily telling his own journalists that the Chronic won't be expanding on its recent foray into examining political accountability.

Watchers got quite excited when the paper asked its readers whether they thought list MP Jill Pettis ought to be accountable to Wanganui (the town) and Whanganui (the electorate) even though she theoretically no longer represents either.

A fair question to ask about any list MP who, as the Diva proved beyond doubt a decade ago, stand or fall solely on their ability to curry favour with the powerbrokers within their own party. Mrs Pettis seems no better nor worse than the bulk of them (though not every list MP's voice makes Watchers' ears bleed if heard within 100 metres) but, we naively thought, if political accountability is suddenly on the Chronic's agenda, can a look at the accountability of certain other elected figures be far behind.

Well no, it can't. Mr Maslin curtly explained to a quavering un-bylined journo (or indeed, perhaps he told his own word processor) that even Chester Borrows wouldn't come in for the same level of scrutiny applied to Mrs Pettis, because he "was elected by the Whanganui electorate, to which he is clearly accountable".

Really? How? How is any elected person - list MP, electorate MP, councillor or Mayor - held accountable during their term of office? Not at all, sadly. They're "accountable" once every three years -- after they've been hand picked by a few insiders to represent one party or the other. If we don't like their performance we're faced with the choice of voting for someone representing a party we may not like, or abstaining and using only our party vote. And if we don't like a list MP, the only way we can affect their chances is to use our party vote aganist their entire line-up. Not nearly as effective, accountability-wise, as, say, a recall election.

Whether they ought to be accountable during their term, and -- assuming it's thought to be desirable -- how it might be implemented is, we would have thought, a very worthy question for debate in the local newspaper. Unless the intention was to just pick on someone who's annoyed the new boy power structure, of course. But we're sure that wasn't the intention, given that the Chronic is a serious newspaper.

Perhaps when his own newsroom started asking "Who's next for the accountability exam?" Mr Maslin realised that he'd opened the way for such questions to be asked of Guyton Street. And we can't have that, now can we?

Meanwhile, between the foraging and the crocheting, Watchers have been pondering the evident attractions of the Diva for at least a portion of the Wanganui population. Indeed, there seems to be a perverse percentage whose support for the Mayor rises in inverse proportion to the standard of his behaviour.

Of course this isn't the first time that a leadership figure who's behaved somewhat poorly has been idolised by a section of the population that might reasonably be expected to oppose them -- Margaret Thatcher kept getting re-elected by many of the same people whose livelihoods she was destroying and whose homes she was ruthlessly poll-taxing. And on the other side of the spectrum, crowds still turn out to cheer Fidel despite the Cuban version of Manolo Blahniks being jandals made from worn out car tyres.

Latest to join the "ruthless but revered (by some)" stakes is US VP Dick Cheney, who as you all know by now shot his friend in the face while quail hunting. (The friend later apologised to the VP for getting in the way of his buckshot). This is the same Dick Cheney who told Senator Patrick Leahey to go f**k himself on the floor of the Senate, and then said he "felt better after I had done it". Who has two DUIs under his belt. Whose former Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted by a Grand Jury and charged with several felonies (Libby reportedly said that his superiors, including Dick Cheney, had authorised him to disclose highly classified information to the press regarding Iraq's weapons intelligence).

The same Dick Cheney who's been charged with fraudluent accounting. Whose oil company, Halliburton, is regularly embroiled in charges of bribery and corruption dating back to when he was in charge -- and who made $36 million from selling his shares in said company. Who's widely regarded as the architect of much that's happened in Iraq and who has a long history of misbehaviour dating back to the Iran-Contra scandal. And so on...

But the latest effort by Deadeye Dick hasn't affected his popularity much, slipping from 32 to just 29 after the hunting incident.

Perhaps Wonkette comes closest to offering a coherent explanation of this phenomenon. Comparing Cheney to that other renowned US VP Spiro Agenew, they ask:

Did [Agnew] ever say 'go f**k yourself' on the floor of the Senate? Did he ever dress like he was shoveling his suburban driveway to a memorial service at Auschwitz? Did he ever shoot a man in cold blood? No. We didn’t think so. Agnew’s a pussy and you know it. Dick Cheney is a badass, and we love him.

He’s like America’s abusive father — we’re terrified of him, we hide under our beds when we smell whiskey on his breath, but we crave his attention. We need him to tell us we’ve been good.

We have a sick admiration for him that we’ll be describing to our therapists for years.

Do Vice Presidents have term limits? Can he please be our Vice President-for-life?

Mickey, Mayor for Life? We're sure there's some who'd put up their hands. Let's just hope for their sakes the Diva doesn't own a shotgun.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Time to kia tau

In the course of a (particularly busy) day one might pop into Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa (National Library of New Zealand) to do some research, then travel home over roads which are the responsibility of Ararau Aotearoa (Transit New Zealand) or perhaps fly, secure in the knowledge that Te Mana Rererangi Tumatanui o Aotearoa (Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand) is regulating the skies.

Waiting in the mailbox might be prospectuses from Te Kuratini O Waikato (Waikato Institute of Technology), Te Kura Akau Taitoka (Dunedin College of Education) and Te Whare Wananga o te Upoko o te Ika a Maui (Victoria University of Wellington) and some information on your benefit from Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora (Income Support).

Sadly, there might also be a bill from Te Tari Taake (Inland Revenue Department) and Te Awa Mana Nui (Mighty River Power Limited) .

Pondering your bank balance might lead you to wish you were amongst the chosen few to whom Te Ratonga Whare Paremata (Parliamentary Service) pay a handsome pension.

Things could always be worse, of course. Nga Pirihimana O Aotearoa (New Zealand Police) or Tahu o te Ture (Ministry of Justice) might be taking an interest in you. Or even Tumuaki o te Mana Arotake Audit Office) or Te Tari Hara Taware (Serious Fraud Office).

So settle back, pour a drink - making sure it's within the limit recommended by Te Kaunihera Whakatupato Waipiro O Aotearoa (Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand) and switch on Te Reo Tataki o Aotearoa (TVNZ) or Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa (Radio NZ). If you don't like what you see or hear, there's always Te Mana Whanonga Kaipaho (Broadcasting Standards Authority).

Yes, Watchers, many New Zealand organisations have acknowledged the importance of Te Reo to New Zealanders of Maori descent and those many Pakeha who care about such things by way of compromise. They've honoured and acknowledged the place of Maori culture in New Zealand society whilst retaining the names by which the majority of the population recognised and identified them.

That possibly has something to do with the fact that successive governments, both National and Labour, were led by people who realised that generating divisiveness cannot possibly have a positive outcome.

There's some validity in the practical argument that abruptly inserting an "h" into a longstanding name would cause some confusion in terms of what marketers would call "brand recognition". And it's debateable it would have the desired effect of causing the traditional name to be pronounced correctly - just ask the residents of Whangarei and Whakatane.

(Though we doubt such logical arguments were in the forefront of the minds of those who voted 'no' to the 'h' in the refereendumb).

There's certainly validity in the feeling of local iwi that allowing a "bastardised" version of a Maori word to stand as a place name is insulting and creates disunity, and feel disrespected by the fact that such a decision was subject to a referendum at all.

Mindful of these conflicting needs, a responsible and inclusive leader would look for a compromise which reflected the outcome of the referendum and took account of the practical issues whilst acknowledging the importance of the Tangata Whenua and New Zealand's history.

He certainly wouldn't splutter forth with bile suggesting that it's arrogant of independent organisations who've chosen to adopt the Maori spelling to insist on retaining their names - especially when they'd face exactly the same branding issues as the town if they were to change to a non-'h' name.

But that's a responsible and inclusive leader. W(h)anganui, alas, has the Diva.

Comments on this post are now closed.

From this angle, it looks smaller Michael...

This interesting analysis, kindly developed and graphed by an astute Watcher, puts a slightly different perspective on the buy-election result which some are calling "a clean sweep" for Vision:

Comments on this post are now closed.

Psephologists' paradise

As predicted by Watchers and blog visitors, Phillipa Baker-Hogan has made it over the line to become Wanganui's newest councillor with 3880 votes, 1,411 votes ahead of Allan Anderson.

A very useful chart on the Council's website shows that shows that 5,000 people returned their voting papers within three days of the polls opening.

Two thirds of votes were cast by February 3rd, then not a single ballot arrived for three days. Then over the past five days the remaining third arrived. The psephologists amongst you may care to ponder what drove those spurts of voter interest in a rather dull campaign.

So dull, in fact, that almost half the people who could vote, didn't. Around 15,000 ballots were returned from some 27,044 eligible voters. And that's counting the 199 that were blank and the 40 informal.

The Diva's pick to win, Chandra Osborne, came a very distant 7th, beating only Bren Sinclair. So, applying the Diva's Law of Spin, blog visitors - who predicted Ms Baker-Hogan to emerge the eventual victor - can lay claim to better political instincts than the Mayor. (Though as we explained earlier, his prediction was disingenuous and purely designed to manipulate the vote).

Talking of Mr Sinclair, he can claim one resounding triumph - most cost-effective campaign. He told the Chron candidates' meeting that he'd spent just $1 - on petrol to lodge his nomination and attend the meeting. With 188 votes in his favour, that works out to round half of one cent per vote. We're willing to bet Vision's campaign substantially exceeded a $1 for every vote.

It was a clean sweep for Vision, with Alan Taylor being elected onto the Rural Community Board with 869 votes, well ahead of nearest rival Clive Gibbard - despite saying he thought there ought to be less elected representatives in Wanganui. We guess it's a case of "if the trough's there, it might as well be my snout that's in it".

Rural voters had a slightly higher participation rate than their urban counterparts (around 60 percent), though the flow of voting papers shows a very similar pattern.

Meanwhile, over at the referendum, the "H" is out, by a very large margin indeed. Expect reaction to that decision to create a climate of divisiveness - unneccessarily, as noted by Sue Pepperell, Rana Waitai, and this blog, amongst others, but very handy if you're looking to create a smokescreen over what you're up to for the next few months.

Council has been given a mandate to investigate the softening of Wanganui's water supply but been told not to fuoridate it.

The size of Council was a more closely-run issue, but in the end 10,001 said reduce the numbers versus 6,554 who want them kept the way they are. Similarly, abolition of the rural ward won by 8,663 to 7,796.

There's much to be said about all this in coming days, and some of it will no doubt be said here. You are of course welcome to discuss any of the results in comments, but one question from Watchers to start you off: The 1 in 2 who didn't vote: a sign of satisfaction, apathy, or despair?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Lugubrious line-up

LawsWatch readers show an interesting spread of support in the Buy-election poll, with a majority supporting Margaret Campion but a lot of vote splitting going on. Mark Simmonds is also popular, with Allan Anderson making a respectable showing along with Phillipa Baker-Hogan.

The anonymous commenter cheering on Chandra Osborne hasn't convinced many of you, While it seems Rana Waitai, Heather Marion Smith and Bren Sinclair aren't impressing anyone either.

• Allan Anderson 14%
• Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision) 13%
• Margaret Campion 40%
• Chandra Osborne 3%
• Mark Simmonds 29%
• Bren Sinclair 0%
• Heather Marion Smith 0%
• Rana Waitai 1%

Most people are still, by a fairly large margin, picking a Phillipa Baker-Hogan win, however, with Margaret Campion and Mark Simmonds second favourites.

• Allan Anderson 2%
• Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision) 39%
• Margaret Campion 25%
• Chandra Osborne 7%
• Mark Simmonds 23%
• Bren Sinclair 0%
• Heather Marion Smith 0%
• Rana Waitai 4%

Readers haven't responded to our suggestion that they review the performance of the candidates at last night's meeting. We hope that doesn't mean none of you went.

Congratulations to the Chron for running the forum - and we can only hope that the 60 percent of outstanding ballot papers yet to be returned were merely being hoarded till after the only event that allowed a side-by-side comparison.

Muddled impressions from Watchers secreted in the eaves:

• Alan Taylor (Vision candidate for the Community board) predictably thinks 12 councillors is too high a number. So if a dozen people is too many to govern the entire district, he's surely putting his hand up to join a body which is utterly superfluous?
  
• Tuffy Churton, meanwhile, wants the prisoners let out of Kaitoke to collect recycling bins. Yes, Tuffy, but it's the recycling of the prisoners that poses the flaw in that plan. While the mulched River City Press may return to life as Mayoral three-ply, how many of the collectors would return to the depot? Perhaps the Mayor's Unmounted Vigilantes could switch from their street patrols to riding shotgun on rubbish trucks.
  
• Heather Marion Smith countered with the suggestion that it be subbed out to the local Rotary Club. Now there's a fine no one will want to pay, so we can at least expect the behaviour of those unruly Rotarians to improve.
  
• Ms Smith is against reducing Councillor numbers, as is Allan Anderson, who called it a "reduction of the collective wisdom". Well yes... that'd be true in most cases, but the absence of the likes of Dotty and Muzza Hughes makes the collective wisdom round the Council table increase, surely?
  
• And Ms Smith made the important point that while the Diva's eagerly pushing to reduce the number of people who can scrutinise his decisions, he's busily stacking the boards of Wanganui Inc and Wanganui Holdings with people who are accountable to no one but him, almost redeeming herself for the "Rubbish for Rotarians" suggestion.
  
• Everyone agreed the fluoridation of Wanganui’s water supply is a bad thing. Presumably they won't be needing to smile in forthcoming election portraits.
  
• And everyone prevaricated on the 'H' issue, other than Mark Simmonds who came out against its inclusion and at least showed his appendages are still attached. Rana Waitai pointed out that a referendum wasn't the appropriate mechanism to decide such an issue, calling its inclusion "mischievous". In the climate created by the Diva in Wanganui today we guess that's brave, though calling the Diva "mischevious" is like calling Jeffery Dahmer "peckish".
  
• Margaret Campion stated the obvious (though it certainly needed saying) - that Code of Conduct hearings ought to be presided over by an outside adjudicator. That brought acclamation from the audience. LawsWatch thoroughly endorses the idea, and suggests looking to the independent citizens of Raetihi, Whakatane, Stratford or Christchurch for suitable candidates.
  
• Everyone thought the Splash Centre extension was a jolly good idea but most were worried by the borrowing that's funding it. After the meeting they no doubt lined up at the servery for cups of tea and asked for the cake you can have whilst eating it too.


• Only Phillipa Baker-Hogan was predictably in favour of it, no matter what the cost. After all, her Leader can always wear a couple more t-shirts on TV and the resultant tourist influx will cover the cost. "The community needs it," she said of the pool. We expect Oxfam to start a campaign any moment, with beet-red pudgy Wanganui-ites standing ankle deep in their backyard paddling pools while a voice-over intones "These people are forced to sweat almost every third day... your donation can help..."
  
• Philippa Baker-Hogan looked clearly uncomfortable when questioned over her failure to declare her Vision links on her nomination form. An "oversight" she said, but tellingly added that if she'd stood as an independent she "wouldn't have had to wear body armour everywhere".
  
• On the issues of selling the Sarjeant artworks, Ms Baker-Hogan has clearly learned a thing or two from her Leader Slippery Mickey, and avoided actually answering. Arts supporters present definitely got the impression that she was hinting a sell-off might be used to fund Vision's Heart of the City project, but Watchers were too busy trying to deconstruct her answer to actually make any sense of it.
  
• Rana Waitai and Allan Anderson established their Philistine credentials by saying anything in the basement was fair game for a fire sale. And presumably those suits they weren't wearing yesterday evening are fair game for a donation to Oxfam - they're not actually being used at the time, after all. Margaret Campion and Mark Simmonds both opposed any sale.
  
• Everyone seemed a little confused about the diversion of ratepayers' money from volunteer community groups to Wanganui Inc, but at least some could do the simple math that suggests more for Ron Janes and Co means less for everything else. Campion and Simmonds both pointed out that many organisations need council funding to survive and they're not going to get it if it's all gobbled up by the bread & circuses agenda of the Diva & Ron Show.
  
• Again predictably, Phillipa Baker-Hogan saw the disappearance of $200,000 of ratepayers' hard-earned cash up the Wanganui Inc spout as a good thing, even though it's CEO trousers $100,000 a year for the arduous task of running the whole shebang. Watch out Watchers who work for Council (and there's a few of them there, we assure you) because she predicted "less waste of money" at Council through "a reduction in some of the middle management". Who needs people providing services when you've got film premieres and swimming pools. And there's always those Rotarians on standby if the bins start to overflow.
  
• Chandra Osborne wasn't there. A broken nail emergency perhaps?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Lies, damned lies and confusion

A Watcher has kindly sought an explanation from BERL as to the apparent discrepancies between the Chron & Council's view of Wanganui's performance and the widely reported rankings referred to below. In the interests of accuracy, we reproduce it in its entirety below:

Note re absolute versus relative rankings

In generating ranking tables for Local Authorities, there is a choice in using ranks according to absolute performance indicators or using indicators that reflect performances relative to some external benchmark value.

The advantage of absolute performance indicators is that they are easy to understand. However, their disadvantage is they do not account well for the different mix of industries and businesses across the various areas. In addition, these indicators only capture performance over a single year and so have a relatively short-term focus.

The disadvantage of relative performance indicators is the lack of simplicity. However, their advantage is that they provide a more robust reflection of an area’s performance taking account of its mix of industry and business. The use of the 5-year average growth rate as the external benchmark also ensures a more medium term focus to the calculation. As such, relative indicators are more useful in monitoring economic development.

BERL calculates both sets of rankings, but prefers to use the relative ranking tables when reporting to clients with a view to monitoring economic development. However, some clients prefer to receive absolute rankings as they may have relied and/or reported on these in previous years.

BERL continue to caution against focusing primarily on rankings as indicators of performance. We advise that these rankings are no substitute for robust analysis of the detailed changes, trends and events across sectors. This type of analysis remains the focus of our reports on the economic performance of districts and regions.

All of which seems to support the view that statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say. However, Council quite clearly says "The BERL Report notes that Wanganui's economic growth in 2005 placed it third best out of 71 territorial authorities" - implying an absolute ranking. But the report about which the Diva boasts is one of relative ranking.

If you come third in the Mayoral Mile, only two people ran faster than you. That's an absolute ranking.

If you happen to be unfit, lame, and have never before moved further than it took to retrieve the TV remote, you may well come below the average time of most of your competitors but you can still claim to have been the third such unfit, lame etc person across the line. That's relative ranking. But please don't try to suggest you should be on the winners' dias.

Meanwhile...

Younger readers - you're being invited to be part of the WDC's Youth Committee. Since it's being overseen by Cr Sue Pepperell it may actually achieve something, so get the details here and then get in an application.

All readers - if you only follow one piece of advice from this blog, make this it. If you haven't already:

---> VOTE NOW!! <---

Oh, by the way (5.40 pm): if Watchers who attended the Chron candidates' meeting care to leave their reviews in comments we (and the readers who didn't make it) would be most grateful indeed.

Say what?

The Chron, Saturday:

City riding crest of economic wave
by Andrew Koubaridis

Wanganui feels like it’s booming and now we have the statistics to prove it.

The Wanganui district economy has come third on the BERL (Business and Economic Research Limited) local authority rankings in 2005, skyrocketing from just 56th place the previous year...

The report said the Wanganui district’s performance was "outstanding" – taking it from 56th to third place overall. The district’s placing has improved in all seven indicators.

The indicators are: Resident population growth, employment growth, Real Value Added growth, GDP per capita growth, productivity growth, business unit growth and business size growth.

Mayor Michael Laws said the result was a stunning achievement for the district.

BERL website, 13 January 2006:

3. Summary indicators

3.1 Overall Rank 2005

1. Queenstown-Lakes District
2. Tauranga District
3. Manukau City
3. Waimakariri District
5. Hamilton City
6. Papakura District
7. Christchurch City
8. North Shore City
9. Wellington City
10. Rodney District
11. Waitakere City
12. New Plymouth District
12. Waipa District
14. Kapiti Coast District
15. Auckland City
16. Total New Zealand
17. Buller District
17. Mackenzie District
17. Palmerston North City
20. South Wairarapa District
21. Napier City
21. Selwyn District
23. Whakatane District
24. Dunedin City
25. Wanganui District
26. Western Bay of Plenty District
27. Lower Hutt City
27. Porirua City
29. Grey District
29. Waitomo District
31. Hastings District
32. Manawatu District
33. Ashburton District
33. Marlborough District
33. Taupo District
36. Central Otago District
37. Franklin District
37. Hurunui District
39. Westland District
40. Whangarei District
41. Southland District
41. Waitaki District
43. Horowhenua District
44. Far North District
45. Thames-Coromandel District
46. Tasman District
47. Masterton District
48. Matamata-Piako District
48. Rangitikei District
50. Gisborne District
51. Upper Hutt City
52. Waikato District
53. Ruapehu District
54. Central Hawke's Bay District
54. Timaru District
56. Nelson City
57. Banks Peninsula District
58. Stratford District
59. Rotorua District
60. Tararua District
61. Kaikoura District
62. Carterton District
63. Kaipara District
64. Invercargill City
65. Kawerau District
66. Waimate District
67. South Waikato District
68. Clutha District
69. South Taranaki District
70. Otorohanga District
71. Opotiki District
72. Hauraki District
73. Gore District
74. Wairoa District

For the record, Wanganui scored 59th on resident population growth, 23rd on employment growth, 21st on real value added growth (GDP) and 22nd on business units growth.

Is the Chron just chronically numerically challenged? Or has it now officially become part of the Diva's spin machine? Either way, it's not good news for those in Wanganui wanting accurate information over their cornflakes.

No doubt this sort of data is just what the Diva had in mind when he undertook to re-educate candidates as to the state of the city's finances. Hopefully they're smart enough to do their own research.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A third half way

Some Wanganui voters are either exceptionally astute or incredibly stupid.

Half way through the period during which voting forms can be returned, and only a third (9742) of those eligible have voted.
That, of course, is more than a third of those who will vote, since there'll always be a percentage of those who simply can't be bothered. Of those almost 10,000 people, there'll be perhaps a few hundred who know one or other of the candidates personally and are convinced they're the right person for the job no matter what the others have to offer. Fair enough.

Then there'll be a tiny percentage of those who've voted on party political lines (the Diva, Bob Walker) or because they've been told for whom to vote (the rest of diVision).

If we postulate that each of the candidates has, say, 100 friends of voting age who know them well, that's 800 voters. Then let's assume that each of those people has sufficient influence over three of their friends to convince them to vote for someone they don't really know, and is motivated enough to drum up support that way. That's 2400 votes accounted for.

So how have the other 7342 people made up their minds? What have they seen that could possibly sway them one way or another? A Phillipa Baker-Hogan sign? A Margaret Campion newspaper ad? Bren Sinclair's wheelbarrow? Either they know something the rest of the city doesn't, or they're playing the exciting new game, "Voting Roulette".

As the Chron mildly notes "There is also the holidaytime factor. The community traditionally is hard to motivate in January which is when candidates cranked up their campaigning and the Chronicle began running profiles and exploring issues. In addition, there is theoretically a dampening effect from having two long weekends (Wellington anniversary and Waitangi Day) within the voting period."

And so deliberately delaying the calling of a by-election till that period is called... anyone?... Yes, Mr Maslin in the back there? No? Repeat after us: gerry-man-der-ing.

The Diva will be relieved to see things are back to normal in the Chron newsroom after that irritating bout of independence over Christmas.

What's more concerning in the Chron's report, however, is that Wanganui District Council electoral officer Noeline Moosman feels she has to "nudge voters into action" when the number of voting papers flowing in takes a bit of a dip.

If the buy-election was happening at a time when most people were focused on politics rather than the beach and the barbeque, and if the candidates were actually giving us any idea of what they stand for, then hurrying voters along might be appropriate.

But when most people would be hard-pressed to name a single policy espoused by each of the candidates, herding an ill-informed population towards the post box with completed voting papers in hand is bordering on irresponsible. Ms Moosman's job is, of course, to ensure a high turnout and thus to see that democracy in Wanganui gets a fair shake. But, like the rest of us, she needs to remember things are never what they seem to be when the Diva's involved.

Having shocked ourselves (and no doubt you, gentle reader) by agreeing with the Diva this week, we're about to strike a second blow: we agree with the Chron. Dave Laurence's story concludes: "Finally, there’s a hypothesis that astute voters won’t complete their voting papers until they’ve seen candidates in action at the Chronicle-organised forum on February 8".

We can only, fervently, hope he's right.

Meanwhile, don't forget to check out LawsWatch's own buy-election poll, and vote if you haven't already.