The 2006 Mad Mickeys

It seems Mickey is ending the year with an armful of awards.

First there was the "Cheeky Darkie" Award from TVNZ's Eating Media Lunch for his opportunistic post-mortem insult to the King of Tonga (Mickey having worked out that dead people can't sue, or punch you in the nose). Then the NZ Herald gave him a second award for the same insult, its readership citing the Tongan remarks as "The worst insult of 2006".

We were shocked that Mickey received the awards for that comment. We can only assume that the producers at TVNZ and readers of the Herald had forgotten that he used the death of the Kahui twins as fodder for a weak jibe at Britney Spears earlier this year, speculating that she possessed "the Kahui gene". Then again, it is surprisingly easy to forget A Game of Three Losers, when almost no one watched it to begin with.

However, a kind Watcher with access to the appropriate technology has managed to capture both these moments for posterity. Keep watching right the way through to be reminded of just how funny Mickey found the deaths of Cris and Cru Kahui.

But the accolades don't stop there. Mickey also makes it to the Herald's "Where it all went wrong" feature. Whereas other communities are noted as having suffered various natural disasters during the years - ill health in Hawkes Bay, smog in Christchurch, storms in Wellington and the Wairarapa - Mayor Michael Laws was Wanganui's only disaster.

While Mickey and his supporters like to portray his antics as somehow "putting Wanganui on the map" we note that he didn't make it to that same newspaper's "Brash and Beautiful" for the past year - just the list of disasters.

All of which got us to thinking... it's time Wanganui had it's own awards. And we're not just going to let you choose the nominees, but the categories too. Yes, it's time for Watchers to give a bit of acknowledgement for the key players in the Black Comedy of Mayor Mickey’s Mad Reign during 2006, so it's our pleasure to present: The 2006 Mad Mickeys.

To set the ball rolling, we nominate the following memorable moments and people. It’s now over to you Watchers, to challenge our choices and make your own nominations for these and any other categories you can think of. We haven’t begun to tap into the rich, toxic vein of Policy Failures, Mayoral Displays of Malice and Arrogance (towards his own Visionites, other councillors, staff, public, other mayors etc), Mayoral Publicity Stunts… pour yourselves a glass or two of New Years cheer, put your imagination to work and share your nominations with your fellow Watchers as comments on this post.

Best Public Dicking of Mad Mickey by a fellow "celebrity" (& eye-liner wearer): Lilith (aka Gareth Farr) telling Whanganui to "get rid of its f—king mayor" at the Bad Horse night.

Most Promising New Anti-Mickey Malcontents: The organisers of the King of Tonga Protest at Council.

Best Public Dicking of Mad Mayor Michael Laws on National Television: Mad Mickey himself for his meltdown at the King of Tonga Protest. Special commendations for Ray Stevens, TV3 and Eating Media Lunch (for giving us a delightful second helping in their best-of awards and consistently taking the piss during the year).

Best Impression of a Vision Loyalist by a Councillor Claiming to be Independent: Sue Westwood for her chairmanship of the first Heart meeting.

Best Impression of a Vision Loyalist by a Newspaper Claiming to be Independent (also known as the "Craven Mickey's Approval Award"): The successive, submissive, editors and editorial staff of the Wanganui Chronic.

Best Letter Writer: Ross Mitchell-Anyon (judges' note: unpredictable, inconsistent and sometimes borderline incoherent, but often delivering insightful and witty commentaries in just a few words).

Best Protester Putting Herself at Risk in the Line of Duty: Stalwart campaigner Delphine Turney getting up at 5am and climbing the condemned Avenue plane tree.

Most Prolific Contributor to LawsWatch: Mad Mickey for managing to spray us with large volumes of comments almost daily despite claiming to be excessively busy with mayoral, family and media commitments.

Most Sustained and Blatant Lie by Mad Mickey: His frequent "I am not the Mayor" rebuttals of claims that he’s responsible for the most sycophantic and nonsensical (but often loaded with 'inside' information) comments.

So cast your votes now, via comments. And we leave you with this happy New Year thought: it's less than 300 days till Election Day.

Comments on this post are now closed.

...and goodwill to all (?) men.

With thanks for your support and contributions throughout the year, Watchers.

Coming soon: The 1st Annual 2006 LawsWatch Awards. Check back here next week!

Comments on this post are now closed.

The Grinch who stole the Port

One thing that's relied upon by any politician intent on dissembling is that the public have short memories. Most of us are too busy living to recollect what Mickey said last year and compare it to what he said yesterday. But one of the functions of LawsWatch - perhaps its most important function - is to catalogue Mickey's disingenuousness. By preserving as much as possible of Slippery Mickey's spin, the blog becomes a means to compare yesterday's rhetoric with today's actions, and vice versa.

Let us review, then, the Chron from 3 March last year. Laws' call to bank sinks port group plan screamed the headline. The story went on to tell how "a possible investor in Port of Wanganui’s deep water port/industrial park proposal will not now be coming to the city next week, following contact from Mayor Michael Laws".

Seems Mickey had telephoned Macquarie Capital associate director Tim Symons, who'd visited Wanganui the week before and had discussions with PoW, and knifed the Port company's proposal. Symons had planned to visit again on the weekend of March 12-13 but faced with what must have looked to them like a squabbling and unprofessional rabble, they retreated.

PoW director Tim Hungerford-Morgan had emailed then WDC CEO Colin Whitlock saying Macquarie had "commended the quality of PoW’s business plan and, along with PoW, wanted to address council at the first available opportunity to outline the full plan and financial package".

But Mickey didn't wait to hear the plan, he called Macquarie to tell them, among other things, of the "commercial background of PoW partners, and in particular that of Mr Churton". Macquarie won't say exactly what was said (we asked them at the time) but we'd bet all the presents under our Christmas tree that it wasn't complimentary. In fact, it was probably libellous.

A director of the Port, Vivienne Chapman, wrote to councillors asking what Council (i.e. Mickey) had been saying behind their backs but the Mayor, taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of all councillors, said "...we won’t be responding to that. I don’t take these people seriously. The majority of council don’t take them seriously". As opposed to the way the majority of citizens view Mickey, presumably.

Back then the Chron still had the faintest glimmer of a pulse, so thought to ask Mickey why he'd torpedoed the proposal without having even consulted Council (not there was much chance of that lot having an independent thought, but still, for the sake of appearance...) to which he replied "he was the Mayor, and it was his job to safeguard the best interests of Wanganui ratepayers". And Mickey, being omnipotent in international finance as in all things, knew precisely what was in our best interests.

Back in those days, he was claiming to be in "commercially confidential" discussions with Westgate. So confidential that they went nowhere, evidently.

So now, having taken it upon himself to sink a proposal which might have brought forth an answer to the Port's problems (we cannot tell, and more to the point nor can you), Mickey is leading us (or at least, our money) into a prolonged and expensive court fight.

Control of a potentially lucrative asset like the Port would no doubt be a nice stocking filler for a mad despot. We can only hope Santa has a very good idea of who's been nice and who's been naughty this year.

Comments on this post are now closed.

A view from above the trenches

From time to time a Watcher submits a contribution to the Cave which is somewhat longer and more involved than the usual comment. Often such missives contain insights that have eluded those of us whose sorry duty it is to monitor Mickey on a regular basis, because eventually sustained exposure to untruth and spin starts to inure even the most easily outraged amongst us.

Like the oft-repeated porky that Sue Pepperrell (and with her, Sam Hoyle) were merely in Wellington on a temporary sojourn and would be back in the bosom of Wanganui before we knew it. Now the replacement of the latter is acknowledged by Mickey without so much as a mention of the obvious need to replace the former - let alone an admission that promises of their fealty to Wanganui were an outright lie.

Keen-eyed commenters have already noticed this obvious, blatant bit of spin. Mickey knows we know. We know he knows we know. And so a strange kind of ennui sets in. The news that Mickey has been less than honest, or has procured someone else to be less than honest, becomes commonplace.

Thus it's the contributions of occasional Watchers which often bring a fresh perspective to events. The last such effort was well received, so - from a different Watcher this time - we present the latest contribution (slightly edited for brevity and grammar):

Good on LawsWatch for doing just that… watching Laws. It’s not the responsibility of the LawsWatch crew to figure out the solutions to city problems but to inform on the issues and be responsible enough to give their views and recommendations. I elected not comment on the "Kept in the dark again" post because its contents convey facts that all responsible citizens should learn.

However, it would seem that mayor Laws' "victory" in the Code of Conduct investigation has been a body blow that knocked the wind out of some of the citizens of Wanganui in calling him to account. When the litigants are poorly represented and up against a biased Wanganui District Council, naturally the ruling would have been against the them.

Next time, get better legal representation - one that can keep a calm head when dealing with mayor Laws' immature antics. One who keeps in mind that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me"; concentrates on the case at hand; does their legal "homework", and offers to do some for free; and "burns the midnight oil" doing legal work for the sake of winning for their clients.

It only took me three hours to find a flaw in that case that would have turned the tables in favour of the complainants. There was a point in the process prior to the Council’s ruling that the complainants' counsel did not take up.

On to the most current LawsWatch post, "On the rocks". This raises a barrage of issues: Why now? And why wasn’t it addressed long before? How much is this going to cost the city again? Would this make the "Heart of Wanganui" project even less affordable than at present? And why does the port matter motivate Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council into kowtowing to special interest group (port users)?

Regarding the legal action over the port, we are informed that, "in 1998 the then Wanganui Council transferred the management of the port assets to a private company - Ocean Terminals Ltd. - by way of a perpetual lease". However, Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council fail to indicate the reasons why the then Council made that transfer, nor have they disclosed to the public the conditions of the perpetual lease.

Laws and the Council are characterised as "fighting a legal uphill battle". This "uphill battle" is going to cost money and I’m more than certain that Laws and the Council are not going to reach into their own pockets or purses to pay the legal expenses. I suspect that instead, they are hoping to find a legal loophole big enough to drive a truck through in order to regain Council control of the port again, to the benefit of a special interest group of port users rather than Wanganui as a whole.

Management comes with responsibility and funding to maintain port operations. If there is no loophole, then Laws and the Council may find fault in regards to the conditions of the lease, but it will have to be vast departure from the lease conditions to justify the lease being nullified and the relinquishment of control back to the Wanganui Council.

The pitiful thing about this matter is that Laws is using the lives of the people as leverage under the guise of launching the Coastguard rescue boat being main issue. Why only now is this matter being addressed? Who is to be held responsible for this shortcoming? The Coastguard... for not speaking up? Mayor Laws… for ignoring the dilemma till it suited him? The Wanganui Council… for also ignoring it? Wanganui citizens… for not speaking up?

I would liked to have seen the headlines if someone had drowned because the Coastguard was impeded from doing their job properly as a result of neglect from the Mayor and Council. Yes, River City Port Ltd is not innocent either. But in this matter, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Isn't it the responsibility of a mayor to protect his citizens? Surely, this matter involving the Coastguard’s inability to perform their rescue operations properly did not need to be addressed this late by pointing fingers at the Port company's alleged operations "mismanagement".

Unless Laws has had an almost a 3 year long lapse of reasoning, thinking no one will drown until he takes control of the port, it’s obvious that this matter should have been rectified a long time ago.

In light of all this, how much more money is this going to cost the city? And how long has it been since dredging was done while Mayor Laws has been in office? Not only are Laws and the Wanganui Council "a day late and a dollar short" in their endeavors, but they seem intent on illustrating their delusions of grandeur by sensationalising in the Wanganui Chronicle the great job they're supposed to be doing.

Similarly, Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council both know that this "Heart of Wanganui" project is not financially feasible for a city that is in great debt. It is not practical to imagine that it can be accomplished as a legacy for a one-term mayor. You finish paying off the completion of one project before you start the other. And the first priority is, get the city infrastructure "up to par" and stabilise the city’s financial situation.

Furthermore, this matter of the Wanganui District Heath Board. This didn’t get this much attention until the ACT party leader, Rodney Hide, exposed the debacle months ago and it has gained momentum ever since, before Laws took the opportunity to "ride the wave" to have the matter addressed.

While all this was going on prior to Mr Hide coming to Wanganui, why didn’t Mayor Laws raise the flag by going to Parliament to address the matter much earlier? Why so late in the game did he finally make an effort amongst all the publicity? This is yet another example of taking corrective action instead of preventative action. And once again putting lives at stake.

Clearly, in having the Wanganui Chronicle publish all the good he has supposedly done, Mayor Laws is attempting to re-write history and deflect attention from these very serious oversights which have occurred during his term. Just as when he became a lame duck MP and resigned from Parliament, then tried to portray it as a noble act. This is what any politician would do in similar circumstances. All politicians, here and even in the United States, play this game. However any reasonable person would find the actions of Mayor Laws and the Wanganui Council in many important matters as being unacceptable, period.

Comments on this post are now closed.

On the rocks

Made most famous by Ella Fitzgerald (but covered, bizarrely, by Bananarama) is a little ditty which goes:

Oh 't ain't what you do it's the way that you do it
'T ain't what you do it's the way that you do it
'T ain't what you do it's the way that you do it
That's what gets results

Obviously that was never amongst the bedtime lullabies crooned over Mickey's crib or, if it was, the message never imprinted. Because even when he occasionally gets the right idea - things that are pretty much indisputable, like hospital services need fixing, or the port's a mess - it's the way that he sets about dealing with the issues that upsets and offends so many people.

First, by claiming that all or some of the people presently in charge are incompetent (usually adorned with unsubtle implications of corruption or mismanagement) rather than decent people doing their level best to deal with situations which can't be solved within the space of a talkback soundbite.

So it is with the Port of Wanganui. It's hardly in first class condition when the Coast Guard have to point out that they can't launch their boat at certain times of the day. Commercial users are also less than impressed. Were this almost any other town or city in New Zealand the majority of people wouldn't feel any alarm at all at the prospect of the entire operation coming back under Council control.

But this isn't another town, it's Wanganui, where two years of divisive "leadership" has seen Council shed senior staff like a turkey sheds feathers at this time of year; which has proven itself incapable of building a swimming pool without it turning into a money pit; and which cannot be relied upon to be truthful about anything, ever, unless the truth coincidentally suits whatever the Mayoral agenda happens to be.

Something needs to be done about the port. On that much we agree with Mickey. But 't ain't what he does, it's the way that he does it.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Kept in the dark again

Exhibit A: Vision Wanganui's Democracy Policy.

"...democracy is based upon empowering informed citizens..." (Unless it's about trees).

"Communication between Council and citizens is poor. Too little accessible information is made available to Wanganui people" (unless it's about trees, in which case it's perfectly okay).

"There are serious doubts at the effectiveness and frequency of current communications from the Council to its citizens" (and we intend to keep things that way).

Exhibit B: Local Government Act 2002.

14 (1) (a) a local authority should—
(i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.

78 (1) A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.

82 (1)(a) persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be provided by the local authority with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons.

82 (1)(b) persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be encouraged by the local authority to present their views to the local authority.

82 (1)(e) the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration:

Exhibit C: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

48 Right of local authorities to exclude public:

(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, a local authority may by resolution exclude the public from the whole or any part of the proceedings of any meeting only on one or more of the following grounds:

(b) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information the public disclosure of which would —
(i) Be contrary to the provisions of a specified enactment (nope) ; or
(ii) Constitute contempt of Court or of the House of Representatives (nope);

(c) That the purpose of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is to consider a recommendation made to that local authority by an Ombudsman... (nope)

(d) That the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceedings to which this paragraph applies (see below).

(2) Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section applies to—

(a) Any proceedings before a local authority where —
(i) A right of appeal lies to any Court or tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings (nope); or
(ii) The local authority is required, by any enactment, to make a recommendation in respect of the matter that is the subject of those proceedings (nope); and

(b) Repealed.

(c) Any proceedings of a local authority in relation to any application or objection under the Marine Farming Act 1971 (nope).

Summing Up

So we put it to you, members of the Wanganui public, that you've been kept in the dark on matters which were rightly your business, and for no reason that's possibly justifiable under law. Dotty has of course pleaded insanity, and about that there can be no doubt. But that still leaves recidivist recreant Mickey and Frau Himmler Higgie. Both with lengthy records and, if allowed to get away with this albeit seemingly minor offence, likely to reoffend in even more diabolical ways. How say you?

Update (2.00 pm 8 December): Around this time last year we posted a picture of Mickey as Bad Santa. Little did we know that we'd uncovered a scoop: Mickey has, in fact, taken on a holiday job at Harrods.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Shock poll results

Well actually they're not. Shocking, that is. They might be if they were about anyone else, but not when the topic is Michael Laws. Because the Diva has a long but hardly proud tradition of polarising people, and that's illustrated in the results of the latest LawsWatch poll.

We asked "Has Michael Laws' popularity increased or decreased since he was elected?". 151 people voted. Some people possibly voted more than once, if they went to a bit of trouble to defeat the fairly rudimentary multiple voting protections in place at Pollhost. But overall, we got pretty much the result we were expecting:

Increased by 50% or more: 15%
Increased by 25% - %50%: 1%
Increased by 20% - 25%: 1%
Increased by 15% - 20%: 2%
Increased by 10% - 15%: 7%
Increased by 5% - 10%: 2%
Increased by up to 5%: 1%
Remained static: 3%
Decreased by up to 5%: 7%
Decreased by 5% - 10%: 7%
Decreased by 10% - 15%: 10%
Decreased by 15% - 20%: 9%
Decreased by 20% - 25%: 9%
Decreased by 25% - 50%: 19%
Decreased by 50% or more: 7%

So 101 voters thought his popularity had decreased, with by far the largest number estimating it at a drop of 25 to 50 percent. Another 45 thought it had increased, with by far the greatest number estimating that increase at over 50%.

We'd project that no matter how high the numbers went, we'd still have a sort of inverse bell curve, with peaks at either end of the two extremes.

The inescapable conclusion? During a short time as Mayor Michael Laws has managed to make fanatically loyal converts out of some people and mortal enemies out of somewhat more. Indeed only five people thought his support had remained static.

So what's going on in Wanganui? We're sure there'll be people who'll ascribe the most noble and well-thought-out motives to their fellow citizens: having followed the debate about skyrocketing costs and read one too many incendiary rant, they've considered their opinion over their breakfast marmalade and morning paper and reached a careful conclusion.

Not quite. We'd posit that Mickey is becoming the victim of that very phenomenon that gets populists elected and helps them pass Mickey Mouse referenda. It's what Professor of Political Science at the University of California Samuel L Popkin calls "low information rationality" and which he outlines in his book "The Reasoning Voter":

Voters are thus not particularly well informed about the details of public policy and government activities. Everybody's business is nobody's business...

...voting is a form of collective action; elections are won only when enough people vote totgether. Voters focus not only on their own concerns and preferences but on those of others as well. Therefore, in deciding which issues to focus on and which candidates to vote for, voters will be affected by information about what other voters are doing. Information about the preferences and votes of others will help them decide whether there are enough people with the same concerns or preferences to make a critical mass...

A politician is promising to deliver a future product about which the voter may have limited understanding, so the vote involves uncertainty about whether the product can be delivered, and, if so, whether it will perform as promised... To deliver the promised benefits, a politician mst do more than attract enough votes; he or she must attract the support of other politicians as well. For this reason, voters consider not only the personal characterisitics of their candidate, but also the other politicians with whom he or she is affiliated...

The term low information rationality - popularly known as "gut" reasoning - best describes the kind of practical thinking about government and politics in which people actually engage. It is a method of combining, in an economical way, learning and information from past experiences, daily life, the media, and political campaigns.

In other words, people often don't take a lot of trouble to analyse issues in depth. Instead they process lots of snippets of information gleaned from the media, from politicians, and - most importantly - from one another, and vote based on gut instinct.

Bang a populist drum, produce some glossy brochures, hobble an already toothless media, and you're two thirds of the way there. But what's happening in Wanganui is that people are talking. And others are listening. And that buzz isn't complementary of Mickey's first (and seemingly only) term as Mayor. Even those voters who operate on low information rationality are getting the information they need to draw a more balanced conclusion about the last year and a bit.

It's not that the anti-Laws activists have succeeded in making their case - they haven't. Partly because the mainstream media haven't given them a fair hearing (and indeed have provided the Mayor with a pedestal from which to abuse them) but mostly because they've been too fractured to form a cohesive opposition.

No, it's the ill-informed voter who's beginning to turn, as Mickey found out when he did his own poll. They weren't entirely sure why they liked him. They'd talk in images of "change" and "shaking things up" and "a well known name", not policy. And they're not entirely sure why they've grown not to like him - they just don't like what they've heard around the place, and their support is rapidly waning.

And Mickey, ever fleet of foot, is one step ahead of them again.

Comments on this post are now closed.

And the crowd said.... "yawn"

We'd like to report that a shocked New Zealand took a moment to take in the news that Wanganui would soon be Mickeyless and then burst into a chorus consisting of half lamentation and half pleading him to come and make a Mickey out of their little corner of the land.

We'd like to, but we'd be fibbing worse than a Mayoral press release. Because the reaction to the news that the Ditch would, from next year, no longer have a Diva has been muted to the point of inaudibility.

David Farrar, who's displayed a confusingly ambivalent attitude towards Mickey in the past - given that Farrar and an associate once got into a spot of bother for issuing a press release claiming Laws had been assassinated and police were interviewing several thousand suspects - did announce the news on the excellent Kiwiblog.

Interestingly Farrar - who first encountered Laws back in the latter's National MP days - agrees with our cautious approach to celebration:

Laws Watch are not celebrating yet - they think it may be a feint. I have no reason to doubt it. Speaking as someone who personally quite strongly dislikes Laws, I don't think he was all bad for Wanganui. Small town Mayors often need to be a personality, and Laws did that. I suspect he would have been re-elected if he had stood, but am not aware of any polls which would indicate either way.

Since Kiwiblog has a larger and arguably less biased readership than does LawsWatch, we've left that post to percolate a few days and now bring you a hand-picked selection of the finest comments:

• Laws has a toxic personality who did not work well with others. He never has. I knew him 100 years ago at Parliament and he was odd then. He has softened since then but the basic irritating personality remains. If you cannot work with others in politics you will get nothing done. Michael seems not to grasp this point.



• Oh yes never forget the old Antoinette Beck 'signature fib' .... talk about gone by lunchtime ...themz where (sic) the days !!!



• I can't stand big egos, but Laws had some great policies which I would love to see other parties embrace. He held referendums to decide policy, and he also when the situation demanded it adopted a firm commonsence non P.C. position. We need more like him.



• I'll stick my hand up and say I like him as well.



• He is a dad then he is my friend too. Good luck to him whatever he does in the future.



• Like him or hate him, under the current political climate we need more people like Michael who are unafraid to publicly debate contentious issues.



• I don't think Michael Law's latest break from politics will last very long. Spending more time with the family? Yeah right!
  
  He'll be bored stiff.
  
  Like Tim Shadbolt he'll get "withdrawl symptoms" and scour the country searching from some provincial town to brighten up. Timaru? Upper Hutt? He may even go for the Auckland City mayoralty. Well why not? The media attention is almost unlimited, what with the transport problems and stadium fiasco. I'm sure Laws will be in his element having a go at the ARC and most of Auckland cheering him on.
  
  In the meantime here are a few suggestions for Laws to fill in those spare 60-hours or so a week, once he retires as Wanganui Mayor next year.
  
  He can get his own talk show on one of TVNZ's new digital channels. Perhaps a NZ version of "Jerry Springer". Or why not combine travel show with reality TV and let Laws holiday in Tonga where he'll be running for his life from a lot of very angry strapping Tongans who may well take offence at his "brown slug" tribute to their former king. Or he could team up with infomercial queen Suzanne Paul and use his considerable persuasive skills to hook us onto a new range of "non-run" mascara.
  
  Anyway I'm sure the possibilties are endless for Michael Laws and we'll be hearing more from him.



• I would never say that I always agreed with Laws but the NZ political scene will be far worse off without him.We need more like him, men who are not afraid to state an opinion and men who are not afraid to stand up to the sisterhood.
  
  I particularly liked his blunt and accurate comments earlier in the year about Cindy Kiro, nobody else (apart from perhaps John Banks) would have the guts to say what he said even when they are right.



• Laws is a failure in politics and I think Michael might just begin to appreciate that. In democratic politics you have to convince a majority of people to support you. This is something Michael can never seem to do. There is an art to getting people to support your case, flattery, pressure, incentives. Michael has one technique which is to say I am smarter than all of you, so support my case or I will jump up and down and insult you with my sharp tongue. How can a person like that succeed in politics and Michael simply does not of course. Clever, sharp brain, dumb politician.



• I was surprised to see him saying he would step down, he seemed to be the kind of guy who would slug it out to the bitter end.
  
  I think the "Laws Watch" people should get a life, these types of people like attacking politicians but they all have their own agendas and politics that they bring into it. I tend to be very suspicious of people like that setting up websites to peddle their little pet cause.
  
  Laws is an abrasive fellow and the value of his contribution to Wanganui can be questionable, like Banks and some of those other outspoken people who seem to make it from national to local politics these days.



• "I would never say that I always agreed with Laws but the NZ political scene will be far worse off without him.We need more like him, men who are not afraid to state an opinion and men who are not afraid to stand up to the sisterhood."
  
  There are lots of people around who can do that without being abrasive and deliberately offensive like Laws is. His comments for example about the King of Tonga are about as useful and in a way analogous to that idiot who set fire to his car outside the King's Auckland residence.



• One needs to make an important distinction between people who have strong opinions yet are able to work constructively with people and those that aren't. Laws does not have a constructive track record in politics at all, like Winston Peters.

Interesting that there's a common thread in those comments that are unsupportive of Mickey - that he's incapable of achieving anything meaningful because he's far too abrasive to work with others. Little wonder, then, that he attracts support on LawsWatch from people like this:

Anonymous said...
To anon at 8.35pm. Then you stand for office, you tosser. Scared? Laws has beaten everybody he's confronted these past 2 years.
9:58 PM, November 16, 2006

So the hallmark of a successful politician is that he "beats" people and makes opponents "scared"? Not that we've ever met anyone who's actually scared of Mickey - just those who approach a political battle with him as one would an excrement-hurling contest. With Mickey standing down we can only hope anon finds someplace to live where he or she will feel more at home. Sadly, the choices are narrowing as despots everywhere are being overthrown, but we're sure Kim Jong Il has room for someone who considers beating and scaring people to be positive attributes in their companions. If not, contact us and we'll refer you to a competent Dominatrix.

Coming back to our somewhat muted reaction to the "big announcment", it seems the same game is being played out in Christchurch, according to the goss at Molesworth & Featherston, who report that:

The rumble from the semi-South is that Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore is about to rescind his decision not to seek another term, and declare his hand as a candidate again. It is not clear exactly why ... it might be feels he was pushed into the decision in the first place, or more likely he is under pressure from the left who fear a centre right candidate (Bob Parker or George Balani again?) would be more attractive to the conservative instincts in the Garden City than Christchurch Central MP Tim Barnett if he wound up as the left’s first choice.

Refusing to stand for office only to be "reluctantly" dragged back to politics by your supporters is a ploy which goes all the way back to Pompey the Great in 71BC and has been used by hundreds of politicians since, so we won't be writing him out of the Mayoral ballot till nominations close.

Then again, gratuitous trouble is, as Jane Clifton accurately nailed in "Political Animals", Mickey's raison d'etre. How much more fun to sit at the Council table and make gratuitous trouble for your successor, for no other reason than to "prove" how much more effective it was to rule by diktat and intimidation than to try to reach genuine consensus.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Leaving so soon, Mickey?

It might be our Calvinist leanings, or it might just be years of mistrusting everything Mickey says, but the corks aren't popping just yet here at the LawsWatch Cave following the announcement that Mickey is to be a one term wonder*.

When we first heard talk around town that Dotty had cleaved a sod with a spade we feared worst, but she'd only been digging the dirt at the Splash Centre (which is more than the Chronicle has ever done). No, Mickey was safe, but had decided to throw in the towel because (as every politician who's had to step aside due to anything from unpopularity to mass murder has said) he wanted to spend more time with the family.

But no corks are popping here. For one thing, if a week is a long time in politics then months are, well... even longer. A lot can happen between now and then, including (as one commenter to the previous post has already prophecyed) distraught citizens begging Mickey to return and he - reluctantly, you understand - acquiescing.

Not that we think it likely. Having used Wanganui to rebuild his previously non-existent profile, Mickey has bigger fish to fry.

"Used"? you ask, incredulously. But of course. A predictably redneck talkback host on a station no one listens to making outrageous, insulting, racist and just plain dumb comments to desperately try to win a few more listeners isn't news. A Mayor making those same comments, is. And for all the disingenuous "I wasn't Mayor when I said those things" nonsense, Mickey knows precisely what he's doing.

But more importantly, the bubbly is remaining in the fridge because there's still a long way to go even if Mickey actually keeps one promise and doesn't foist himself on the town again. There are important expenditure decisions to be made, for one thing.

Without the full-on both-barrels spin emanating from Guyton Street in the lead-up to the next election (unless Mickey carries his support for Phillipa Baker-Hogan as his successor over into becoming her campaign manager) the opportunity will be there to have a proper "opening of the books" to get a true picture of Wanganui's burgeoning debt. It might even be a chance to demand that those who'd seek to have your trust vested in them again give a true and accurate accounting of the cost of the various monuments to Mickey that are planned or under way.

Then, and only then, can ratepayers be expected to make rational decisions as to whether they, and their offspring and migrants for generations to come, ought to be committing themselves to even greater debt.

Update (14 November): "Where has the poll gone?" asks a commenter. The blog is programmed to have only the six most recent posts appear on the main page so as to minimise download time. Older posts can be accessed using the menu to the right - dating back to our very first offering, in fact. The poll can still be found here and we'll analyse the results shortly.

* As in, we wonder what the hell you were thinking when you voted, Wanganui.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Another one bites the dust

As the future prospects of one tyrannical egomaniac start to look somewhat short-term, we felt it an opportune time to publish this piece, contributed by a couple of Watchers who want to remain anonymous.

A look back, if you will, at the reign of one lunatic while the world breathes a sign of relief at the demise of another. Wouldn't it be ironic if what brought both of them to an end eventually was the use of gas? But we digress...

How To Build Your Own Fascist State
In 13 Easy Steps (and counting)

1. Choose a number of well meaning, completely inexperienced, not particularly bright people to run for council, convince them they must always vote with the group even if it might contravene their consciences and then support them with enough financial backing (ask Joan Street about this) and professional promotion to assure they are elected and feel indebted to you. It is helpful if these people do not have a long association with the community (self evident).


2. Take back your extra vote. (Minutes of Triennial Council Meeting 22 October, 2004)


3. Install your freshly elected neophytes in positions of power on key council committees. (Audit & Admin: Laws - Chair, McKinnon - Deputy Chair; Strategy: Taylor - Chair; Community: Pepperell - Chair; Economic: McKinnon - Chair, Wills - Deputy Chair; Hearings: Hughes – Chair were the first ones to hold these positions this term) They will turn to you for advice about pretty well everything that comes up. Hey presto, you control the committees! Juggle the membership of the committees around. (3 times in the 24 months so far) This will keep any fast learners from being too effective and let them know that they have to keep following orders to keep their perks. If something awkward and newsworthy, like the 'Osama Bin Loggin' business happens, barge right in and take over. (Randhir Dahya was Environment Committee Chair at that time and was completely cut out of the loop when headlines became a possibility) NB: The importance of marginalising independent councillors with knowledge specific and useful to committees can’t be overemphasised – keep them away from positions where they can be effective.


4. Change the way council minutes are recorded so they focus on resolutions rather than debate. (Chron meeting report 7/12/04 Sean Hoskins)


5. Disregard due process. It is amazing how frequently and easily you can get away with this if the majority of councillors around the table don’t know how local government is supposed to run. (COC, Representation Review)


6. Gain control of the media by whatever means is necessary. Flattery, bribery and bullying all work well, separately and in various combinations (the method is surmise, whilst the control is self-evident).


7. Use the media to ridicule and abuse anyone who opposes you (too many to list, just grab a recent handful).


8. Steamroll over any dissension around the council table. (Quote from November 25, 2005 Admin & Finance Committee meeting re concern about public’s lack of information on growing debt servicing costs, raised by Westwood and Bullock: "They are not for discussion now, they are not for discussion next month, they are not for discussion next year".)


9. Use referenda to lull people into thinking they are participating in the decision making process. Select issues (a) which will create division and acrimony within the community (e.g. fluoridation and spelling of the city's name) – this will weaken potential coalitions which might be an effective opposition and might have the bonus effect of attention by the media if enough dissent is created; (b) are subtle and/or complex and depend very much on point of view (e.g. abolition of urban & rural wards); and (c) have great populist appeal (e.g. Splash Centre, riverside development). NB: Be very optimistic about the costs of these projects – you can always ratchet up the numbers after the suckers have ticked the boxes. It is extremely important when using this process to keep information about the issues to an absolute minimum and as vague as possible (such as information on reducing councillor numbers in the last referendum glossy).


10. Clear the decks of any council officers knowledgeable enough to work around you. These people will recognise that the changes you instigate are funneling power away from the electors and into fewer hands, so get rid of them. The more competent they are, the greater stumbling block they represent (Kevin Ross & Keith Hindson (demoted) are the only remaining originals).


11. Snatch decisions which have considerable significance to the community away from council by declaring them 'management issues' (Wanganui Inc. and Queen’s Park).


12. Pay careful attention to the calendar and clock. Scheduling of events, timing of meetings and rearranging the order in which issues come up at meetings, or whipping items off or on to meeting agendas can be powerful tools to help achieve the results you want (e.g. the timing of the by-election, various canceled and rescheduled meetings, the councillor numbers debate)


13. Use the word 'efficiency' to justify all of the above.

We have not added step 14, which would be "Reduce the number of Councillors", even though Dotty has listed it among Vision's 20 miracles. You never know, they might not get to do that.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Will gas cause rude noises?

A Watcher writes to remind us of a Wanganui Chronicle article published over a year ago (28 July 2005 to be exact) titled, "No sneaky sale of gas utility, Laws promises".

In particular, our correspondent quotes the passages which say "Mr Laws said council had to find a way to deal with ballooning debt... Council had debts of around $25 million, which were projected to increase to $55 million by 2008-09..." and has Mickey saying "'That debt is largely a consequence of the new sewage treatment facilities and the wastewater separation project.'"

True enough. But then, as this Watcher so accurately, if rhetorically, enquires: "Based on this fact, how on earth can this 'Heart of Wanganui' project be pulled off? This is not good governance, and by no means financially [in] the best interest of Wanganui". Indeed.

Even if one unequivocally accepts that the proposals contained within the Heart of Wanganui plan are good for the city (and we're not, at this stage, saying they don't have the potential to be) it's still legitimate to ask, as our correspondent has, whether or not they are affordable for a city already faced with "ballooning debt".

So let'sadd a question of our own: Faced with the unavoidable debt mountain created by necessities such as sewers and wastewater, and trying to find a way to fund the grandiose schemes of its Fuhrer Mayor, how tempted will Council be to ask itself, even rhetorically, how much it might get if Wanganui Gas were put on the block?

Despite the Mayor's attack on the Chronicle for daring to suggest back in December 2005 that Wanganui Gas might be sold, Deputy Dotty managed to confirm that it was indeed a possibility in her River City Press column of 27 October that year:

I note that there have been some letters to the newspapers recently about the potential sale of Wanganui Gas. Well, I would suggest that we do not panic as there are a myriad of options available that could ensure Wanganui ratepayers are gaining maximum value for their investment funds, and the outright sale of Wanganui Gas may not even be an option.

Wanganui District Council Holdings’ directors are researching the value of all of Wanganui’s investment assets and in due course there will be various reports on their findings. Such investments include harbour and city endowment land, the airport, forestry, the port and Wanganui Gas.

Whatever recommendations are made, these will be debated in council and wherever possible put out to consultation. Give the director’s (sic) a chance to get their feet under the assets table and suggest some options that might enhance our asset value (Our emphasis - Ed).

While there have been reports on the value of the city and harbour endowment, and forestry, and recent debate on the figures for the airport, we can't recall any such report on Wanganui Gas.

There's no doubting that the gas company represents a significant asset. Council's recent acquisition puts it in an ideal position to capitalise on not only the existing returns but also the company's significant potential. Of course there's the recent DHB contract and the lucrative supply contracts with commercial customers in Auckland. But Wanganui Gas is a big enough player to have looked at entering the Australian market (pdf link) in 2003 before later withdrawing (MS Word link).

Not only does that make it the jewel in the crown of Wanganui's asset base, but it also means it's a desirable takeover target if Council decided to divest it's shareholding - a task made much simpler now that it owns 100% - and might, by Mickey's own calculation, enrich Council's coffers by $20 million if they did so.

Mercury Energy has already sniffed around the company back in 2001 and there'd no doubt be many other interested buyers. All of whom would want "commercial confidentiality", of course. As with Council's purchase of Vector's shareholding, when Mickey explained "it’s one of those incredibly delicate confidential matters where we have to notify that we're having a meeting but we can't say too much about it."

Quite how such a process is reconciled with his promise that "there will be no sneaky sale" remains to be seen, if in fact such an event occurs. The anti-sneaky pledge was wrapped in talk of yet another referendum - presumably one with the same cast iron, no-wriggle-room sort of figures people were presented when asked to decide on the Splash Centre, or the "comparative costs" and "assumptions" connected with the Heart project.

We're not predicting the sale of the utility - at least not yet. If it happens, it's likely to come after Wanganui has referendumised itself into more debt by opting for an unaffordable "Heart" on top of an unaffordable "Splash". Then, when your assets are sold, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

(Yes, we know the illustration bears no relation to the post topic. But with so much confusion in comments on the last post, we thought perhaps some readers needed a pictorial clarification of the facts).

Comments on this post are now closed.

Ka ching! Ka ching!

Watchers are reeling in from the evening "Heart" presentation with a sound akin to being trapped in the bowels of a pokie machine ringing in their ears.

Millions and millions and more millions are talked of... full details are available on a reasonably informative website (which wins multiple extra points for managing to avoid including so much as a single photo of the Mayor!).

The status quo, they tell us, will cost $13.5 million over the next decade, because of the requirement for structural work on several buildings. Then the options range from $9 million (Option 7) to $69.7 million (Option 5) (and that's not counting the underground carpark for a mere $4.1 million, which can be added to any of the other options much like one might choose to add a garage to their granny flat).

The costs are helpfully broken down into a "per ratepayer per year" figure, with the maximum dip into your back pocket being $246. That, pesumably is not "a signifcant rise in rates", since Mickey is on record as telling the Chron that that wouldn't be needed.

However, all is not as clear as it seems, since the project descriptions aren't explicit about what happens to the bits of the infrastructure which aren't earmarked for an upgrade. For instance, Options 2, 3 and 4 merely offer various choices for the library, including "media walls" (looped re-runs of 'Game of Three Losers', anyone?).

Presumably the other buildings will just receive the minimum work needed to bring them up to spec, which is why a "status quo" figure sits alongside the various figures required to build Sally and Mickey's dream house.

So each of the option totals needs to have added to it the "status quo" figure alongside it. That's a tad misleading, in our opinion - the average punter might think that "status quo" is the "do nothing" choice, as outlined in Option 1.

In other words, they won't for instance add the $10.5 million to the $69.7 million in Option 5 to arrive at a grand total of $80.2 million.

Clearly, some of the options are exclusive of one another and others are meant to be at least considered as part of a "package"of options, combining two or more to produce a desirable outcome. Which options are which is also not made explicitly clear on the website (though Option 6 does mention that it works in with Options 2, 3 and 4. But then what if voters opt for Option 6 but not the others? And if they do choose both, will the misnamed "status quo" figure then reduce?). Hopefully things will become clearer as the discussion continues.

The website seems a surprisingly straightforward (by Mickey's usual standard) presentation of the options. But the devil is in the details, including just how much "flexibility" lies within those cost estimates.

There's also the claim that "some external funding can be secured". This is projected at up to $8 million for Option 5, but zero for the status quo. Who's to say a corporate donor wouldn't step in to, for instance, install climate control at the Sarjeant so the works curated there weren't slowly deteriorating? And who's to say $8 million will fall from the pockets of corporates?

There's a comprehensive list of community meetings happening all over Wanganui, so if people haven't pinned Mickey, the architects and councillors down on the details by the time they come to vote, they'll have only themselves to blame.

The questions posed in our previous post are, as we expected, neatly skirted around. But Honest Mickey's Used Architecture Inc offers a customer service hotline and an email address to ask "questions... which are not answered in the information you have seen so far". Given Mickey's record to date, we'd advise using the email option - that way the answers are recorded for posterity and for LawsWatch): heart@wanganui.govt.nz

Comments on this post are now closed.

Once, twice, thrice

Amidst the hoopla, fanfare, smoke, mirrors and carefully orchestrated patsy questions from the floor at tomorrow's meetings to reveal Mickey's plans for the Heart of Wanganui project, Watchers need to ask three simple questions. And keep on asking them, three times three times three times if necessary.

1. How much will it cost?


2. How firm is that figure and what measures are being taken to ensure cost over-runs don't occur?


3. In the event that 1 and 2 above prove to be porkies, who foots the bill for the blow-out? The contractors? The architects? The Council (i.e. the residents of Wanganui).

If Mickey isn't gnawing on his own gavel by then, you might even slip in a fourth:

Will you reiterate your previous pledge that Council will not, under any circumstances, step in with our money to cover operating expenses?

In the interests of keeping everyone's minds focused on those simple questions, here endeth the post.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Say it isn't so!

Rumours are reaching the Cave - and we emphasise they are only rumours - that the Diva will not be standing again for mayor. No less than half a dozen informants have contacted LawsWatch in the last 24 hours, breathlessly imparting the news (well, the emails read like they'd been written breathlessly, anyway).

Our informants claimed to have sourced their information from "business people in the know", to "someone at the Chron" to "my neighbour who works at Council". A variation on the rumour is that, while abandoning the mayoralty, he'll still stand as a councillor.

Like much of the information which reaches our ears, we're taking it all with a Dead Sea's worth of salt. We find it particularly difficult to believe that Emperor Mickey would be happy to become a mere courtesan in the court of, say, Queen Dotty. But then again, when he's made a mess of things before he's been smart enough to realise that he can do as much - if not more - by lurking in the shadows and pulling the strings of a figurehead too lazy or too stupid to do their own thinking (c.f. NZ First).

At least as likely are two other possibilities:
- our informants are as mad as Mickey; or
- this is a disinformation campaign.

However, given that we've now exceeded the usual trigger point for something to rate a passing mention - we've heard it independently from at least three reasonably credible sources* - we'll dutifully make mention of said rumours and leave it to you, dear reader, to decide whether you attach any credibility to it.

Being Friday afternoon, we're not averse to opening the odd bottle of Pinot Noir and speculating on a post-apocalyptic post-Mickey future. Like, what if an ambitious diVisionite decided that serving under Mickey's chosen successor was more than she could bear and decided to have a tilt at the top job? Would there then be two diVision candidates for the job? Would one be forced from the fold? And what would Dotty do if Mickey failed to endorse her as per their agreement?! A catfight in Guyton Street? Jelly wrestling in (enough! For the love of God, enough! - Ed).

* Credible sources: anyone who manages to correspond using complete sentences, avoids using ALL CAPTALS and, most importantly, puts their name to their emails.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Popularity hilarity

There's been a fair bit of debate on the topic of just how far Mayor Mickey has managed to erode the popularity that saw him and the diVisionites elected with a healthy margin at the last election.

Now, we realise that any poll here will be held to be unscientific (particularly by those whose views don't seem to accord with the majority of responses) but we figure it may be interesting nonetheless to run one a poll on the topic.

As always, please read the question carefully. It doesn't ask "how much more do you personally like or hate Mickey?". It doesn't ask "how much more liked / hated do you wish he was?". We're asking whether, as you've talked with friends, neighbours, people waiting in line for coffee, folks at the footy, you get the impression Wanganui's welcome mat is well and truly worn out, or whether, given the abject failure of Radio Dive (now sitting at just two percent) to prop up his media "career", he'd get over the line for a second term?

Has Michael Laws' popularity increased or decreased since he was elected?

Increased by 50% or more
Increased by 25% - %50%
Increased by 20% - 25%
Increased by 15% - 20%
Increased by 10% - 15%
Increased by 5% - 10%
Increased by up to 5%
Remained static
Decreased by up to 5%
Decreased by 5% - 10%
Decreased by 10% - 15%
Decreased by 15% - 20%
Decreased by 20% - 25%
Decreased by 25% - %50%
Decreased by 50% or more

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll will remain open till further notice.

Voltaire's bastards

There's always been one debate on which this blog has come down firmly against the majority of anti-Mickey commenters.

Whenever a comment supporting the Mayor appears on the blog, those opposed to him tend to leap to the conclusion that it's Mickey himself in various anonymous guises. And the more odious the response - descending at times into overt racism, sexism and personal abuse - the more they see this as indicating that Mickey himself has been at the keyboard again.

They believe - being in the main kindly people who'll gladly entertain a civilised debate with someone who happens to hold an opposing view on any issue - that the majority of their neighbours are the same. Ergo, it must only be that confirmed bully and potty mouth M.B. Laws Esq who'd visit here and defecate thoughts which read like this:

...you losers contribute nothing except your mostly, foreign, negativism. Piss off home you whinging poms, fat Tongan king lovers and ugly Yanks.

...to cite but the most recent example.

However, we've always disagreed. We're sure the Mayor does visit here - seriously, can you imagine Mickey being able to resist reading anything that's written about him, however uncomplimentary, and then, having read it, being able to resist responding? But we've never ascribed all, or even the bulk, of the abusive comments to him.

Nor do we think, even for a moment, he's called up the organisers of a planned peaceful protest - not even a protest, really, more a sort of harmless hippie hand-holding - and spewed venom and made threats of violence. But equally clearly, the people who did this are people who support him.

Michael Laws knows the effect his behaviour has on a section of society. Just as he knew when crafting NZ First policy that, while it in no way advocated violence or threats against sectors of society, it would nonetheless have that effect by allowing those who would commit such acts to cloak themselves in legitimacy. But he didnt care - the policy (almost) got him what he wanted, and if some people were sacrificed along the way, well... none of them were Michael Laws, so who cares?

It's a sad truism that any town has a proportion of its population which harbours ugly, racist, sexist and even violent sentiments. But usually those people keep their inner demons controlled, expressing their milder prejudices over a few beers with their mates perhaps, but generally keeping their worst excesses in check.

That's because in most towns there's a prevailing climate of tolerance and politeness, and it's obvious that boistrously giving voice to irrational prejudices and threats of violence wouldn't be tolerated.

But what happens in Wanganui, where the town's First Citizen is wont to descend to personal abuse - everything from"single issue nutters" to "fat brown slug" to "useless ____" at the merest whiff of an opposing opinion? It doesn't take a highly-subsidised team of sociologists to figure out that, for the small proportion of other citizens who harbour extreme ill-will toward others, this lowers the bar.

If the Mayor has no standards of personal behaviour in terms of what he says, a small number of people will see that as a reason not to have to exercise restraint in what they do. After all, they're not in an exalted position like the Mayor, so their standards can be even lower, right?

The inevitable end result is that some citizens start making gutless, anonymous threats of violence against other citizens, particularly those who wish to peacefully protest the words and actions of the person they see as their de facto leader.

We're not breaking any new ground in pointing out that denigrating and dehumanising some people removes an important barrier which prevents other people feeling able to openly abuse and threaten them.

The end results of that are always ugly. It's happening here in Wanganui. And it's happening because of Michael Laws.

(The title of this post, for those that were wondering, is both a reference to Voltaire's famous statement that he disagreed with what the speaker was saying, but would defend to the death his right to say it, and to John Ralston Saul's excellent book of that name in which, amongst other things, he critiques "the news media's focus on false events and manufactured celebrities". Are you listening, Mrs Pickett? Incidentally, Voltaire also said "Prejudices are what fools use for reason".)

Comments on this post are now closed.