U-turns permitted

Much debate in comments over the apparently meek acquiescence of non-Vision councillors Don McGregor, Rangi Wills, Barbara Bullock and Ray Stevens to the Diva's plan to drown Wanganui in Splash Centre debt. Of the "independents", only Sue Westwood dissented over asset sales funding the shortfall.

Are the critics of Splash spending wrong, since almost every councillor seems to think it's a good thing, commenters posit. Why would councillors who hadn't signed up to the Vision line - and might reasonably be expected to exercise some fiscal restraint - feel obliged to support this lemming-like rush towards millions of dollars of extra debt?

Well, a couple of factors spring to mind. First, Michael Laws - consummate political manipulator that he is - has been extremely effective in portraying the Splash Centre extension as a "Council" project. And thanks to the way the referendum questions were framed - and quite deliberately so - the Splash Centre extension was presented as a cost-neutral option. Since the question was not prefaced by a warning about cost, likely inflation in that cost, and the need to borrow, most people would have blithely assumed that they'd get what they voted for at no additional expense.

Crs McGregor, Wills, Bullock and Stevens allowed the Diva to lead them down the referendum path. After all, what harm could there be in asking the people what they thought? In fact it'd be democracy at its finest. They then either trusted him to frame the questions fairly and provide the requisite information needed for an informed decision, or simply took their eyes off the ball at that stage.

Next thing they know, they're facing a fait accompli - build the Splash Centre, no matter what the cost, or be publicly vilified as the councillors who denied Wanganui's mums and dads a wonderful facility for the kids to swim in. And make no mistake, that's how they'd have been painted by the Diva.

It would take considerable courage for a councillor to risk being portrayed by Mickey's spin machine (and a lapdog local press) as wanting to defy the referendum and deny the townsfolk something they'd clearly indicated they wanted. (Of course when the rates rise hits and the reasons are sought, they'll be in trouble anyway - but at least then they'll be one of 13 being targeted, there's safety in numbers, and it'll be the big-spending Mayor who cops most of the flak).

Second - it's our fault. It's our fault that many a politician has stuck with a stupid idea till the end, eschewing all attempts to change their minds. Because as soon as they make a rational decision based on new information they didn't have when they first expressed an opinion we (the people and the media) point the finger and shriek "U-turn!!!"

Having been portrayed publicly as part of a unified Council offering the Splash Centre bauble, the complex and necessarily lengthy explanation as to why it turned out not to be such a great idea would have bored people - assuming it even found its way into the pages of the Chron to start with, that is. All people would have perceived was the change of mind - and in politics, it's no longer acceptable to do so. Which is why politicians like Michael Laws, steadfast in their own self-regard and bristling with certainty as to the innate rightness of every single one of their opinions - are so favoured by many people.

Debate: Who needs it? Careful consideration: Waste of time! Changing your opinion as a result of such debate and consideration: Pathetic weakness!!

Michael Kinsley, founding editor of Slate, writes eloquently about this very topic:

[I]t can be quite noble for a politician to change his or her mind. It can demonstrate courage, integrity, open-mindedness... One simple test of a change of mind is whether it is acknowledged and explained... A man who sincerely has changed his mind about something important ought to hold his new views with less certainty and express them with a bit of rhetorical humility. There should be room for doubt. How can your current beliefs be so transcendentally correct if you yourself recently believed something very different? How can critics of what you say now be so obviously wrong if you yourself used to be one of them?... Acknowledging and addressing such complications is another way to demonstrate that your change of mind is sincere.

So we acknowledge the courage and integrity of none other than Cr Don McGregor, who indicated on Saturday that he'd vote against ditching the ward system this Thursday. In a Chron story intriguingly headlined "We can doe trhe job, says community board" (sic) - someone found the key to Mr Maslin's cupboard of Diva Devotion Potion and OD'ed, we assume - Cr McGregor noted that while the referendum showed 53 percent of people were in favour of doing away with wards, country people actually voted 75 percent against. "I have to listen to what they are saying," Cr McGregor said.

Cr McGregor said there was an argument circulating that ratepayers were not fully aware that under the act's formula rural ward council representation would be reduced to just one. "It could also be argued that ratepayers were not fully informed on other items voted on in the referendum."

Keen-eyed readers will be boggling at that last sentence (which was buried at the bottom of the Chron's story, naturally), having argued exactly that for just that for over a year. It now remains to be seen whether Cr McGregor's newfound courage extends to questioning the outcome of the other referendum questions and voting according to his beliefs. And perhaps encouraging the other "independents" to do likewise.

If he does, LawsWatch for one won't be shrieking "U-turn". Thinking about things, and changing your mind when it's justified, is what elected representatives are meant to do, after all.

Update (6.20 pm): It's been pointed out to us that Barbara Bullock steadfastly opposed referendum-related resolutions and has been implacably opposed to the referenda in their Mickeyed-with form. We accept that. However it then seems doubly odd that she'd vote for the debt-laden outcome of a process she acknowledged as flawed. Incidentally, as always LawsWatch is happy to publish, unedited, any rebuttal or comment from anyone mentioned in our posts. So if any of the "independents" want to share with readers their reasons for supporting the Mayor's resolution, we're all ears at lawswatch[at]hotmail.com.