Sold to the lowest bidder

We've had quite a few people complain that the diVision recruitment pamphlet was so poorly reproduced on the front page of the River City Press that they could hardly make out the faces, let alone the names, of most of the people pictured on the back.

Every ready to assist, LawsWatch forensic scientists have placed the pages under a microscope and, by applying certain specialised filters we are able to reproduce at left, in perfect clarity, the line-up of compliant sock puppets Mickey and Bog Walker are planning on foisting on the electorate*.

What's more, our filters have been able to bypass the somewhat prosaic descriptions in the diVision document and provide essential background information on what drew these folk to want to mouth Mickey's madness in the first place.

Especially when those who were inveigled (or narrowly avoided being inveigled) last time are now busy spilling the beans.

Rob Vinsen, target du jour of Mickey's supporters, revealed on LawsWatch that he'd been received not one but two "telephoned approaches" from Mickey to join the diVision ticket. As he tells it:

In the last election after refusing Michael Laws two telephoned approaches to me I ran for the Regional Council. The Vision momentum (and advertising) was enough for Leonie Brookhammer to pip me by about 5,300 to 5,600. Bob Walker trailed well behind. I wonder how many votes Leonie would have got if voters knew what her subsequent attendance record at Horizons meetings was going to be.

But more telling still is the admission from Joan Street that Mickey's hand-picked candidates are assigned tasks that most people with an ounce of integrity would refuse:

I was given by the great man the task of being in charge of letter-writing - this was in the presence of other Vision candidates at the time I was to agree to letters being written by ML(and, perhaps, other candidates) and then I was to have them signed by someone who supported Vision from a list to be given to me by ML.

Nicki Higgie and I discussed the morality of this - I refused - and the proposition was dropped... though letters were written by Sue's husband at that time and signed by his mother - remember???

Now why would Mickey and Bog Walker think that the people they'd surrounded themselves with would perpetrate such a fraud? Simple: they'd paid good money to own them. Joan Street again:

Without going over old ground I need once more to clarify the cost of standing for Vision and the fact that - having paid the $2,500 to ML as [the] cost, according to him, of my proposed candidature, I was appalled to find that the cost - according to the sheet presented to [the] council [returning] officer after the election by ML (unseen by me!) of my standing was twice that!

I told Noeline M of my dismay at knowing nothing of this - and was told it was legal for ML to pay extra as he had done!!!! -for me!!! I remember the conversation with Sue P. where she stated, like me, she knew nothing of all this and both of us agreed we would have refused such an offer if we had been asked to accept it...

I was such an idiot not to see what ML was really like! I feel sad for those at the coalface who still bear with him and those who post here without any real knowledge of his horrific personality.

Now this may or may not be true. We'd tend to take Ms Street at her word, but at least one anon proposed a different scenario - one which, we must admit, we also find plausible:

If Mickey had approached you he'd've said "On top of your own contribution you'll receive an extra $2,500 from party coffers for your own personal campaign fund - that's our investment, a symbol of our belief in you, Joan!"

That's what campaign managers do.

And you'd have gone along with it. That's how Laws and other populists get by. Enough people are prepared to go along for long enough.

Joan however came to her own defence, pointing out that our anonymous commentator was somewhat naive to think that in this alone Mickey would have acted honourably.

Regardless of whether the additional funding was offered before or received after the event, however, the intent is the same - to purchase the loyalty and, perhaps, the conscience of the recipient. That's why political parties and candidates must declare any sizeable donations received from a single source. But at local body level the amounts spent are so relatively paltry that the price of a councillor's soul - at least on Mickey's abacus - is a mere $2,500.

Does it really matter, therefore, whose picture ends up appearing on diVision's electioneering material? Because every face staring back at you shares one thing in common - they're owned by Mickey.

* Resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, may not be intentional ;-)

Update (1.30pm 27 March): Much debate over Mickey's performance on TV3 last night. The interview - for those who missed it or would like to see it again - can be viewed here.

Further update (3.30 pm 27 March): The LawsWatch review of the interview would have to disagree with those commenters who thought Campbell did a good job.

The proposed gang legislation is a muddled, populist, impractical, inoperable piece of legislation and that's where the focus should have been. A few questions about enforcement would have easily tripped up Mickey, but Campbell chose to pursue a line of questioning centred on the fact that Mickey's Sunday Star Times "damn the politically correct" rantings on everthing from peanut allergies to Section 59 was utterly morally inconsistent with his stance on gangs. Well of course it is.

Mickey is the most expedient politician New Zealand has ever produced (and that's saying something). He'll say whatever suits his case at the time and if he's called on his inconsistency he'll respond with some schoolboy insult such as "Are you on drugs?". Going that route with Mickey - attempting to get him to admit he's inconsistent - was about as likely to work as trying to get Winston to admit he's grabbed his office by the baubles and isn't about to let go.

Campbell let an opportunity to grill Mickey about just how his populist flim-flam would be practically applied to everyday life in the streets of Wanganui go by. Instead he merely demonstrated - yet again - that Wanganui's Mayor is an unabashed populist with dictatorial tendencies who'll resort to personal abuse about anyone who dares disagree with him. And that's hardly news.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Bad news bares all

Watchers thinking of attending tomorrow's Strategy Committee meeting had best take along hearing aids, ear trumpets and perhaps request the Council flash subtitles on a TV monitor because it'll be very difficult to hear, such will be the deafening flapping of pigeons coming home to roost.

Before we get to the meaty parts of the agenda (or the gristly bits, from Michael Laws' perspective) it's worth noting that the document highlights the functional illiteracy of one of Mickey's hand-picked flunkies, Senior Policy Advisor Stu Hylton.

Not only is there reference to "the amount of 'events'" but also this little gem: "The council’s officers who are currently trying the 'reign back' the types and frequency of events"...

Isn’t it cute, the way he puts quotes around his grammatical clangers? We wonder if he puts in hours colouring in title pages for the original reports, like some Watchers used to do in the hope that their teacher wouldn't notice the fact they couldn't spell. Or form a coherent recommendation. But then we went on to graduate from primary school...

Anyway, aside from lamenting just how hard it is to find good help nowadays, Mickey must be fuming at the performance of those other hand-picked lackeys, WINC.

Right there in what should be an innocuous introduction, Chairman Ron Janes drops a clanger:

This report will discuss the activities of Wanganui Inc (WINC) for the 17 weeks since my last report to the Strategy Committee dated 3 November 2006…

Seventeen weeks?! At the time of WINC’s "birth" concerns from Councillor Westwood et al that it would lack accountability were met with an assurance that it was perfectly accountable because it would report six weekly. And my what a lot of dirty smelly water has stagnated under the bridge in the last 17 weeks.

Of course the "discussion" isn't meant to include the mugs in the public gallery who actually pay for the Michael Laws Memorial Events Orgy. The proposal is to kick the public out at the end of the meeting but to let Ron stay to discuss "Wanganui Inc structure: Staff and commercial matters" which no doubt is about Mickey deciding to yank his bastard offspring back into the Vision family.

The remainder of the report is riddled with some quotes from Razor Gang Ron which we'll bet won't see the light of day in the Chronic (unless Mickey decides to turn on WINC and blame them for his shortcomings, in which case of course they will be published, well marinated in Guyton Street Spin Potion):

WINC continues working with a low year-end profit expectation but stable cashflow. The year-end predicted profit/loss is $5,000 profit versus a budget of $20,000 profit.

WINC has met with a number of the top 30 companies in Wanganui … feedback from companies has included: ...A view that events are getting all the attention and local business growth is being overlooked.

Yikes Ron, that sounds spookily like what John Martin said when he launched his campaign. Positioning to keep your nose in the trough under a new administration, are we?

But the comedy of errors doesn't end there Watchers. Ron goes on to say:

Branding: A successful launch of the new ... branding ... comment has been very positive and the brand family provides excellent leverage for Wanganui.

Of course the fact is, this is a joke. There have been numerous letters to the Chronic saying it’s dated, boring, stupid etc., and much derision around town, including from visitors. And most notably from mad Rana Waitai, who thought he was leaping in to help Mickey attack the tourism MRI but muddled it up with WINC's Mickey-inspired "branding" and called it a "wet dish cloth".

But wait, as the best snake oil salesmen say (and Razor Ron has sold his fair share of that particular ungent in his time), there's more:

BOXING DAY CONCERT:

Income $123,069; expenditure $220,321; loss $97,251... Facility costs – less due to some efficiency gains and a favourable rate from Cooks.

Yep, $97,251 of ratepayers' cash down the failing sewer and that's despite Mickey’s other tame lackeys at Cooks Gardens giving them mate’s rates so the venue cost came in at $16,640.89 versus a budgeted $25,000. If it wasn't for that, losses from that one event would have topped the $105,000 mark.

They even managed to drop a set of speakers during set-up which "likely will be covered by the crane’s insurer". And on it goes:

Security – $18,113 cf budget $10,000 – More due to WINC initially assessing we could make efficiencies with this but subsequently deciding in conjunction with the police and facility management that robust and quality security was important.

Attendance/sales: 2100 paying attendees, plus corporate box holders at approximately 200, and comps of 200.

So the ratepayer subsidy for each paying person was $46.31.

And it looks like Antoinette Beck was called in to survey the bikers at the cemetery circuit (what can she have been up to?!):

There was a 93% awareness of the concert at Bikes. Of those at the Bikes 28% 'needed to get home or were tired'. 14% thought 'it was too expensive'. 7% said 'the performers didn’t appeal'.

So what did Antoinette do with the other 51 percent we ask, and did it have anything to do with all those hay bales?

Never fear though, Watchers. This wasn't an example of yet more gross wastage of public money in the name of Making Michael Laws Look Good. Because we can all benefit from what Antoinnete calls "learnings". (We presume this is something she learned from Borat (renowned author of "Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan") during the time Mickey sent her into exile.

The learning from this includes:

• An international act should be sought if cost structured in this manner.
• A lack of exclusivity likely had a negative impact.
• The Bike racing does not necessarily bring a crowd that attends a concert and accommodation is already stretched.

Gee, who'd have thunk it. But now we've spent all that money on proving what good common sense ought to have told us in the first place, the bad news for Mickey must surely be over, right?

Wrong.

A year ago there was a ludicrous spin job done on the BERL report on Wanganui’s economic performance wherein the Chron helpfully confused absolute and relative rankings, to the benefit of Mickey of course.

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

Now BERL (in the person of Jiani Wu and Dr Ganesh Nana) are delivering the unvarnished bad news. And even John Quisling... sorry, Maslin and Kirsty Macnicol won't be able to spin this as something it's not, though we're sure they'll try:

Executive summary

All Key Performance Indicators except business units growth, had negative growth in 2006. It includes resident population growth, real value added growth, GDP per capita growth, employment growth, productivity growth and business size growth.

GDP decreased by 3.2 percent compared to a 2.2 percent increase nationally and employment growth, at -0.1 percent compared to a 2.2 percent increase nationally... These outcomes resulted in the decrease of GDP per capita at the rate of 3.2 percent. Productivity growth, at -3.9 percent, was still worse below the national decline of 1.0 percent.

Absolute rankings

Overall rank 2005: 28; 2006: 57. All indicators are down (Ed: they even use a filled-in black downward pointing arrow, just so the Chron don't try to substitute another phrase like, say, "up") except for resident population growth.

Nero had his fiddle... Mickey has his cha cha.

Meanwhile, the proposed Gang Bill has been mugged again, this time by the editorial writers in Mickey's old stamping ground. Hawkes Bay Today (sister paper of the Chron) asks:

...more importantly what practical benefit will it bring? The "patch" is a manifestation of tribal, gang behaviour. It's not the other way around. It will be simple enough to circumvent such a ban using other common symbols, from hairstyles to body piercing and tattoos. And if they are to be banned, who is to choose what skin adornments or haircuts are acceptable?

It would be tempting to put any such law to a simple, if expensive, test: If Mongrel Mob members were identified by their Gucci loafers (as members of Britain's hoodlum "Chav" subculture are by their beige-checked Burberry caps) then luxury designer footwear would have to be barred from treading inner-city streets.

Such a ban is little more than a gesture. It satisfies the need to be seen to be doing something but is unlikely to curb boorish and criminal behaviour, which ought to be the real targets

A gesture? Ah yes, of course. That's one of the few things Mickey's good at.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A bad day for LawsWatch, a worse one for Mickey

As regular readers will know, Watchers usually devote considerable time to creating pictorial flights of fancy which, we'll admit, have as their primary aim making Mickey look faintly ridiculous.

While not always worthy of a place in the Sarjeant, there have been a number of illustrations of which we've been rather proud. They have, we've felt, perfectly captured the underlying vanity and slight unhingedness of Wanganui's Mayor. But we've been outdone. Our almost two years of effort have been magnificently eclipsed by none other than Mickey himself, with this effort.

It's his official "Dancing with the Stars" pic. Nothing which we could possibly do to it could improve it. The satin. The plunging neckline. The chest hair. The look which suggests he didn't have to be tied down and forcibly made to dress this way but in fact thinks he looks quite spiffy. Never in our wildest imaginings (or perhaps worst morning-after visions) could we have created such an image.

And what's more, we've been trounced in our ability to predict Mickey's next move by none other than the DomPost's TV reviewer, Jane Bowron, who presciently writes:

Dollars for donuts mayor Michael Laws will make a beeline for the costume department and opt for the one-piece dancing suits male ballroom dancers favour and will make sure his top half is open right down to the waist.

We admit, we read that and scoffed. No surely, we thought, even Mickey - especially at his age - would go for something elegant and stylish, like the tux we portrayed him wearing in our last post. But we couldn't have been more wrong, or Bowron more right. She also highlights the fact that many of the "Stars" this season have resumes which contain a lot of prefixes like "used to be" or "former":

TVNZ's announcement that this year's DWTS lineup includes Treasure Island has-beens such as Greer Robson, Suzanne Paul, April Ieremia and Michael Laws proves that the network has no money in the coffers to hire any real talent and has to rely on its stable of trained mice to peddle the wheel of its most profitable show.

Having the current crop of DWTS leering from the covers of the women's magazines as they tell the breathless story of their new found passion for the paso doble and show off their amazing weight loss for eight long weeks is too depressing for words.

Someone should start up a campaign similar to recent suggestions to have cigarettes placed out of sight at shop counters, and magazines bearing the heavy cargo of shameless self- promotion from these come-back kids should follow suit.

Meanwhile his latest would-be headline-grabber, the gang law being promoted by Mickey's sock puppet Chester Borrows, is dead in the water - at least according to Local Government NZ who say it's "unlikely to succeed".

Then there's Tuesday's Strategy Committee meeting, which looks to be packed with items potentially as painful for the Mayor as getting a short hair caught in the V of a plunging neckline. We'll post on that in a day or two.

Comments on this post are now closed.