Airborne bacon alert

We hope you're sitting comfortably, Watchers. A steadying cup of tea (or perhaps something stronger) in hand. For the easily discombobulated amongst you, maybe a defibrillator standing by. It's finally happened. Pigs are lining up awaiting take-off clearance. Because the subject of today's post is just how much we agree with the Diva.

Not about everything. Not even about most things. But when it comes to the by-election, and the standard of candidates therein, it's as though the Cave is writing his material. Or, heaven forfend, vice versa.

In his latest e-column, the Diva opines: "I can’t say that the campaigns of the by-election candidates have impressed me very much."

At that point Watchers started to get an uneasy feeling we were about to encounter the first Mayoral column with which we had no issue - but luckily the Diva comes to the rescue elsewhere in the same piece. But more on that later.

After mentioning Chandra Osborne, Allan Anderson, Margaret Campion and Rana Waitai as running campaigns that were at least noticeable, he concludes: "Although I’d like to know what they’re standing for … their actual policies. That’s still a mystery."

We share your confusion, Michael. Then cue a predictable party political broadcast on behalf of diVision’s Philippa Baker-Hogan, masquerading as a critque of her campaign for getting off to a late start. She would, he claims "certainly have the skills gap we currently lack around the council table".

Which is odd, because if there's one thing we notice about those presently sitting round the Council table, it's a positively huge skills gap.

Then it's back to true Diva form, dismissing Heather Marion Smith as a "single-issue campaigner" with a "message thirty years out of date". Another single issue nutter? Either Wanganui is positively chock full of such people, or the Diva's supply of poisonously abusive adjectives is running low after his effort of three weeks ago aimed at this blog, and he's having to recycle.

And clearly Mark Simmonds has got under the Diva's epidermis – he's scoffed at for having the temerity to suggest "that he will make a difference around the council table". The Diva has news for him: "Sorry mate, but you won't".

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it'd make a change to see someone doing something other than cower, nod at the right times or, in the case of Dotty, "giggle like a schoolgirl".

Given the spread of candidates, he predicts the winner will receive a third of the vote at best. We'd second that also. He then backs Cleopatra's Nails owner Chandra Osborne "to surprise with her result if not actually win".

While you may initially wonder what sort of herbal tea he's drinking in order to be able to see that result in the leaves, don't forget this is politics, and that it's the Diva we're talking about.

If you're getting whispers that predict your candidate might lose, you don't go out there are talk them up. You talk them down. The theory being that by this stage everyone who has a burning desire to vote for one candidate or the other has already done so. Those that are left are wavering, and many won't vote at all on the assumption that the candidate whom everyone thinks is going to win will do so without their help.

So you pick a left-field candidate and point to them and predict victory. That motivates your "soft" support base to find that voting paper underneath that pile of bills and actually fill the thing in.

Just to be sure, he then predicts "some of the other candidates will come again in 2007 – Waitai, Campion, Simmonds and Osborne... and stand good chances under the anticipated 'at large' electoral system".

Purely coincidental that three of those candidates into whose minds he has such intimate access also happen to represent the greatest threats to Baker-Hogan.

The message? Vote for Phillipa now, and you can have Rana, Margaret, Mark and heck, even Chandra, next time.

It's a masterful piece of politics. It also happens to be entirely spurious. There's no guarantee any of those people would stand. There's no guarantee that if they did, they'd win. And more importantly, by 2007 it will be too late to reverse much of the Diva's agenda.

Most of the remainder of the column is stuffed with the usual Womens Daze family trivia and modest, self-effacing stories of how he gave up his tickets to the River Queen to "ordinary ratepayers" and humbly let Dotty take the credit for the premiere despite the fact that "it might have been my idea – and my first entreaty to the film’s producer Don Reynolds in late-2004 to stage the premiere".

Not a great reader of Scripture, our Diva, or he'd be familiar with this one: "For whoever exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Lk 14:11)

He does confirm, however, that Council kept a cap on expenditure at $150,000 - so kudos where it's due.

If you can keep your afternoon sherry down while wading through that dross, you'll be rewarded with an interesting little snippet on the relationship between Guyton Street and the Chron.

Tueday's edition was "disgraceful", apparently, capping a holiday season in which the paper had been "dysfunctional", "to the point where they, literally, refused a media release from Cr Nicki Higgie". The paper "also printed headlines that were wrong and exhibited a palpable anti-Vision bias over the hoarding affair".

Let's just freeze-frame the spin for a moment. The paper made an editorial decision not to print a press release. Just like the River City Press made a commercial decision not to take a LawsWatch supporter's money to run our advertisng. Turning down news releases happens a hundred times a day in any newsroom in the country. Turning down money happens a tad less often, and for less-than-explicable reasons. But it's the newspaper's right to do as it sees fit. The Chron printed headlines that weren't fawningly pro-Council, and took an editorial stance that Vision was wrong. Fairly mildly, from what we saw.

If the government received that sort of treatment from most daily newspapers it would think it was winning the PR battle. But in a town where the local newspaper behaves like an incontinent elderly poodle rather than a watchdog of democracy, we can see how it would come as a shock.

But don't panic, Watchers, things will soon return to normal.

"It was no coincidence, I think, that editor John Maslin was absent on annual leave."

That explains it, then. We'll refrain from highlighting the implications of this statement and allow Watchers to draw their own conclusions.

But towards the end we find ourselves on the same page again. After lamenting the loss of Sean Hoskins, the Diva notes that "council will get its fourth council reporter in the past 15 months. The problem is that each new one takes some months to get up to speed and often has no reference for what is happening in front of them. We’ll do our best but it can be a frustration at times".

Indeed it is. And indeed we will.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Signs of confusion

This blog is often accused by its critics of being trivial, and there's few things more trivial than election (or in this case, buy-election) hoardings. Hands up one single person who's changed their vote based on a hoarding. We'd hope people are making their decisions based on something other than a roadsign anyway, otherwise we'd have to stop to relieve ourselves every time we passed a sign indicating a rest room.

But they're ubiquitous because every candidate in every election anywhere (well, anywhere they make corflute - that corrugated plastic the things are usually made from) believes their opponents are going to have them, so they have to as well.

LawsWatch's view is that candidates should sign a Corflute Truce at the beginning of every campaign, thus saving the greenhouse gases that go into making yards of plastic onto which the faces of some very unattractive people end up getting stuck.

The buy-election has seen an inevitable sprouting of such signs - and those made of other materials as well. We're distraught that Frog didn't enter the race with a range of hemp-based signs which could have been safely incinerated after the polls closed. And right before half the township - the half downwind - felt the irresistible urge to go to McDonalds.

The problem with signs is, once you've got a few hundred, you have to put them someplace. Every Council has different rules on where you're allowed to erect them, and then there's Transit New Zealand, which looks after state highways.

But if anyone should know where signs can and cannot be put, it's people who are already elected to Council. So with the recent spate of Vision signs breaking first the Council's rules and then Transit NZ's, there would seem to be only two possibilities. Either the diVisioners need the Diva to tell them how to tie their shoelaces. Or, to quote Allan Anderson, it was a case of diVision assuming "one standard for our masters and a different one for the peasants". This was an echo of Rana Waitai's earlier comment, that the diVisioners seemed to think they were "somehow exempt from things that apply to the rest of us".

Either option doesn't exactly recommend these people for Wanganui's highest office. But if LawsWatch had to bet, we'd put our money on the latter cause, particularly as Bob "Maddog" Walker had to be muzzled by an apologetic Diva after insisting his erection was going to remain on display in the Puriri St reserve.

Still, the whole "Signgate" affair - must we add "gate" to every scandal? - made a nice change for the Diva. For once he was the one following the incontinent elephant with the mop and bucket.

(Don't forget, the LawsWatch Polls site still has the Buy-Election poll running. Go there and vote if you haven't already).

Comments on this post are now closed.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Yes, the River Queen 'premiere-that isn't' is nonetheless a splendid event. Given the startling ignorance displayed by some people *cough*Americans*cough* about the whereabouts of New Zealand despite the international success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, it's doubtful that the spectacular scenery - surely the real star of the movie - will create the mini tourism boom hoped for by the Diva and most especially by Dotty (who needs to look up "conflict of interest" in a good encyclopedia before getting too excited about tourist-boosting events in her official capacity).

In fact, given the average movie-goer's intelligence (they are making another Rocky movie, after all - presumably titled "Rocky's Last Challenge - The Colostomy Bag") most would-be tourists will probably stay away in droves, figuring that if they're not kidnapped by marauding may-or-ees, they'll be spit roasted by an Orc.

But the movie was made here, it shows off the Whanganui River to good effect, and Wanganui can be justifiably proud of the result.

It's particularly appropriate that the three waka built for the film will be gifted to Whanganui iwi in recognition of their contribution. And exciting to note that Rangitihi continue to resonate long after the film - which is receiving at best luke warm reviews (Kiefer Sutherland's "atrocious Long John Silver accent" was a line Watchers particularly liked) - is forgotten. Unlike Invercargill's effort, The World's Fastest Indian, which is on track to become NZ's biggest domestic hit.

What's not nearly as splendid, but as inevitable as flies at a barbecue, is the hijacking of the red carpet by the likes of Helen Clark, Judith Tizard, Steve Maharey, and of course the Diva and the Dwarves. Perhaps we missed the bit in the movie where Samantha Morton bumps into a trio of Ministers and a prancing attention-seeking Mayor in her search for her son, but it seems to confused Watchers that these people had stuff-all to do with making the film, unless you count some tenuous connections to the Film Commission, which is independent in terms of what it funds anyway.

That won't, of course, prevent the obligatory fawning photographs in tomorrow's newspapers, handily appearing at a time when there's a buy-election happening. Perhaps they'll even manage to get their mugs on TV - and when he sees a camera, the Diva will set himself alight if it means getting in front of it.

The not-so-subliminal message, of course, is "look how great Wanganui is under diVision leadership, because we're having a movie premiere here". But it's a complete fallacy. The movie, and the premiere-that-isn't, would have happened no matter who was in power.

The economic spin-off effects are likely to be minimal or non-existent (where is that study that was meant to quantify those benefits, by the way?). In fact the net overall economic effect on Wanganui ratepayers is likely to be negative, since Council have funded this extravaganza with your money - supposedly to a limit of $150,000, but the normally over-excitable Dotty is keeping very quiet on the exact bill - most of which ends up in the pocket of a Wellington events agency despite Council having its own events staffer.

So enjoy the fun, Wanganui, but when you wake up tomorrow morning, check your wallet - and reality.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Pull the other... string.

With 18 days till the buy-election, and voting papers in the sweaty palms of breathless, excited electors (enough trying to talk up the lack of excitement - Ed.) the Buy-Election Poll is showing a clear preference amongst LawsWatch visitors for Margaret Campion, who's on 42 percent.

In a healthy second place is Mark Simmonds, with Allan Anderson and Phillipa Baker-Hogan third equal. None of the other candidates seem to be exciting any interest whatsoever. The exact results (to approximately 2.45 pm today) are:

• Margaret Campion 42%
• Mark Simmonds 24%
• Allan Anderson 16%
• Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision) 16%
• Rana Waitai 2%
• Chandra Osborne 0%
• Bren Sinclair 0%
• Heather Marion Smith 0%

When asked to become political pundits, however, Watchers seem to be backing their third choice candidate to actually win:

• Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision) 47%
• Margaret Campion 28%
• Mark Simmonds 19%
• Rana Waitai 5%
• Allan Anderson 2%
• Chandra Osborne 0%
• Bren Sinclair 0%
• Heather Marion Smith 0%

Anderson's chances can't have been hurt by the appearance of his face on the top right corner of the River City Press - a prime position graced by the Diva's visage for the past few mouths. That space - and, some would argue, the entire paper - was bought for the next two years after LawsWatch was advertised right next to Dotty's Council Comment. And, all of a sudden, LawsWatch's advertising - paid for in cold hard cash - was no longer welcome.

So with a two year contract in place, what's Allan Anderson's head doing where the Diva's ought to be? Enquiries to the RCP seeking to book the same space were rebuffed - the Mayor has it for another year, the would-be advertiser was told.

It seems, however, that the normally well-organised and meticulously planned Diva had conveniently forgotten to pay his bill, thus rendering this prime bit of newspaper real estate vacant for the first three weeks of 2006, right in the middle of an election. And, coincidentally, Mr Anderson popped in with his copy at just the right moment. How terrifically fortuitous, and we congratulate Mr Anderson on his impeccable timing.

It's common knowledge that Mr Anderson has stated he's no great fan of the Diva. But what's not so widely known is that he was encouraged to stand by 'friends' of his in the Vision party. Does the Diva perhaps see Mr Anderson as someone likely to benefit from an anti-Laws / anti-Vision vote, but then able to be manipulated? We certainly hope not.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Please, not the swimsuit parade!

A succinct and apt comment to the last post:

Election papers out tomorrow ... go people power!!!

People power indeed. Though the distinct inability of visitors to come up with a single pertinent question which other visitors might care to ask of the candidates before casting their ballots suggests an almost issue-less campaign.

The fact that the majority of candidates seem to be relying primarily upon their hoardings to get them across the line would tend to reinforce this perception. That's a dereliction of their duty to inform and engage and, on what we've seen so far, no one deserves to win.

That of course suits diVision, who clearly plan to rely on name recognition to get Phillipa Baker-Hogan across the line without her having to front up to any awkward questions about her team's prior performance. But it doesn't excuse her, and it doesn't excuse the other candidates, who ought to be out there espousing a clear alternative.

The buy-election isn't a beauty contest (and how else one judges a candidate's merits on the basis of a hoarding we don't know). Do we really want to see Rana Waitai in a swimsuit, let alone any of the other candidates?

This blog has spent the past seven months highlighting the most controversial questions facing Wanganui, but there are other signifcant issues which Council faces. They haven't been highlighted here because we have no quarrel with the way they're being handled - such as the $35 million sewerage / stormwater project for starters. But that doesn't lessen their impact on the city's budget.

At the very least, the candidates need to espouse a clear policy on:

• whether they'll support any additional borrowing and, if so, under what circumstances.
• whether they're happy with the present schedule for debt reduction and, if not, whether they have any firm proposals to change it.
• their position on asset sales and in particular which assets they would support selling.
• whether they have any proposals which involve increased spending.
• whether they intend aligning themselves to the dominant Vision bloc (of course we already know the answer to this in the case of Ms Baker-Hogan, but what of others rumoured to have ties to the Diva such as Messrs Simmonds and Waitai?).

And that's leaving aside issues of lesser importance such as whether they support reviewing the Code of Conduct to provide a more effective muzzle for the Diva, or whether they support Council starving community activities - such as the Film Festival - of funds in order to save cents while splashing out (excuse the pun) dollars on other projects.

At the risk of introducing a hand-wringing tone, we can only hope residents find out the answers to those questions (and any others that may particularly concern them) rather than tick the box based solely on a gut reaction or, worse still, name recognition.

If a candidate's answers accord with your own beliefs, they may just be worth your vote, even if they look like Nanny McPhee.

Scroll down, Watchers! The Buy-Election Poll is below. If you haven't already done so, vote now. It's also available at LawsWatch Polls.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Duck and cover

Going DOWN:

• Wanganui itself apparently, which scientists say is sinking and is now 350mm lower than it was just two years ago. It's all due to earthquakes, they say, it's just that we don't feel them. Watchers have made a note of this theory in order to explain lacklustre performance in, shall we say, domestic duties. The ground did move for you, it was just a "silent quake". Time to corner the market in scuba gear, Watchers. The only consolation is that Manawatu is sinking at the same rate, and we have all those paintings in the Sarjeant - yards and yards of waterproof canvas just waiting to find a proper use.
• The NZ dollar, last heard of at US69 cents and falling. So just not imported scuba equipment, then. Still, there's an upside to that, too. It means imported rubbish like American Idol becomes more expensive for the TV channels to buy, so they'll make more local rubbish, like a Game of Three Losers (a.k.a. Idle Celebrities).
• Business confidence, now at a 20 year low. Export expectations are at a 17 year low. So domestic scuba sales only. Might even have to sell some to people from the Manawatu.
• The NZ stockmarket, last heard of almost 13 points down, with the most recent quarterly survey of business opinion showing a net 61 per cent of firms expected conditions to deteriorate in the next six months. So better make that a private scuba company, because there isn't going to be a surfeit of investors around. Which is a pity, becuase there could have been a lot of fun to be had with a play on the word "float" during your IPO.

Going UP:

• Wanganui's borrowing, by $2.6 million to fund the Splash Centre extension.
• Wanganui's debt servicing costs, which Council finance guru Julian Harkness warns could increase by anything from $0.6 million to $1.6 million by 2008/09, on top of the annual charge of $2.9million. And that doesn't take account of an estimated $3.5 million for Heart of Wanganui.

Is it just us, or does borrowing in the midst of a... well, no one's using the "r" word yet, so let's just say an "economic downturn"... seem just a little reckless? Watchers don't claim any great depth of economic insight, but it seems that the typical pattern of local spending during a recession is that it remains fairly steady, falls sharply in subsequent years, and recovers more slowly than the rest of the economy, at least according to this article from the US Federal Reserve of San Francisco.

While there are significant differences in scale between US and NZ government, and US states have additional taxation and revenue options available to them, the lessons of the article are still applicable. It concludes:

The key point about [local] budgets and the economy is that the health of the economy determines the health of [local authority] budgets. Ongoing economic weakness limits [local authorities]' abilities to grow their way out of current problems...

If Wanganui follows that pattern, the "subsequent fall" part of the theory suggests that this diVision-led Council is tying the hands of future administrations, who'll be lumbered with paying for their profligacy. And talking of lumber... we can't rely on that to bail us out, so what's left? Bussing in genetically deficient tourists from Raetihi and offering them cheap entry to the Splash Centre?

The fact that the Wanganui District Council, in common with other local authorities in NZ, relies heavily on rates revenue for the largest portion of its income leaves it with few options if debt servicing costs grow further. So wave a fond goodbye to local assets. Or be prepared for something considerably more than a "nil" rates rise...

Update (5.25 pm): We hope, for the sake of Rangi Wills, Ray Stevens and any other Councillor who's ever dared suggest the Diva might, just possibly, be wrong about something, that he's not an avid reader of the UK press. Seems Tony Blair is about to set MI5 to phone tap, spy on and otherwise trample on the democratic rights of MPs. Can Wanganui be far behind?

Comments on this post are now closed.

The lump under the rug

Given the Diva's recent attacks on the character of persons he perceives as opposing him LawsWatch cannot help but wonder what became of the second recommendation of the Audit & Administration Committee investigation into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

Yes, there were two recommendations. The first was to recommend to the Council that the Diva hadn't breached the Code. That was well reported at the time and is trotted out at appropriate moments to justify most of his sprays.

But the second has vanished without a trace. LawsWatch, though, not only has the hide of an elephant but the memory of one too. For those less well endowed, here's the full text:

THAT it is also recommended by the Audit and Administration Committee that the Wanganui District Council proceeds with the review of the Code of Conduct as already resolved by the Council at its meeting held on 21 February 2005.

Can there be a single Councillor who believes that the Diva's conduct over the past few days has brought glory upon Wanganui and counts as appropriate behaviour for an elected public servant? Yet with a toothless Code of Conduct - which Dotty's committee have decreed must always take second place to their rather liberal definition of "free speech" anyway - any action against the Diva has all the positive attraction, and likelihood of a similar outcome, of banging one's head against the proverbial brick wall.

The fact remains this was a formal recommendation to Council from one of it's committees which has been completely ignored. Council can of course resolve to reject a recommendation - though that would be very unusual - but that involves dealing with it in a formal process. In this case it would also mean formally revisiting one of it's own decisions and overturning it.

Instead, it seems to have been swept under the rug to join the unsightly pile of other things Councillors simply aren't allowed to think about.

A formal review might call for public submissions, so the people of Wanganui can tell their Council just what is, and what isn't, acceptable behaviour from their chief employee. It might even be chaired by an independent person, such as a retired judge or QC, to ensure that no one person could unduly influence the eventual recommendations.

Of course, none of these things can happen while this recommendation remains buried. Time to update the Order Paper, Dr Warburton.

P.S. Don't forget the buy-election poll is still open, and can be found below.

Comments on this post are now closed.

We have issues

Despite the best attempts of the Mayor to divert attention from the now-imminent buy-election with incendiary personal attacks, it's now 25 days away. And of course many people will complete and send back their ballots before the closing date.

With a relatively small number of votes in the poll (still open, located in the post immediately below) Margaret Campion is out in front, with Mark Simmonds and Allan Anderson pretty much level-pegging for second place. But visitors don't think Wanganui will vote the same way as they do (which is probably a fair bet), with most picking Phillipa Baker-Hogan as the eventual victor.

That's the who. But what about the why? What are the issues that voters want to see candidates address? Bearing in mind that no candidate can change the behaviour of the Mayor (many have tried, none have succeeded...) nor are likely to be able to undo past decisions, what ought they to be addressing in the various bits of propaganda you'll be receiving between now and polling day?

Watchers detect a feeling of ennui about the place, perhaps occasioned by the weather, perhaps the time of year, perhaps tired by the relentless drone of spin, perhaps the realisation that, when it comes to the Diva, every day is Groundhog Day. Or perhaps all of the above. But don't let it prevent you from completing the ballot paper, hopefully having first obtained sufficient information from the candidates to make an informed decision. You owe it to everyone else. And to yourself.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Vote early, vote often

With the buy-election papers going out in a week, and voting closing in less than a month ... and slivers of information beginning to filter through about the candidates, it's probably time for another LawsWatch poll.

Two in fact, since some people were confused by our last poll which listed possible contenders and asked who readers thought had the best chance of winning (not necessarily the person they'd vote for).

So this time we'll ask, first, who you're going to vote for. But then a second poll asks you to predict the winner. That might be two different candidates or it might not.

As always, we've applied what level of security we can to prevent multiple voting, but it's by no means foolproof. As a result these polls don't claim scientific validity. As always, you can view the ongoing results at any time, and they'll be displayed after you've voted.

Who will you be voting for in the buy-election?

Allan Anderson
Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision)
Margaret Campion
Chandra Osborne
Mark Simmonds
Bren Sinclair
Heather Marion Smith
Rana Waitai



Free polls from Pollhost.com

Now, regardless of who you voted for above, who do you think will win the buy-election?

Allan Anderson
Philippa Baker-Hogan (Vision)
Margaret Campion
Chandra Osborne
Mark Simmonds
Bren Sinclair
Heather Marion Smith
Rana Waitai



Free polls from Pollhost.com

Comments on this post are now closed. The poll remains open, and is also available at the LawsWatch Polls blog.

Yah boo sucks

It seems ordinary individuals are now enjoying the privileges previously confined only to groups en masse - Raetihians, Stratfordites, people from Christchurch... and most recently, the entire nation of Tonga who are apparently all "drones" and the Department of Statistics, who are all "f***wits". A particularly intemperate spray from the Diva this morning purports to know who's behind LawsWatch.

As we've pointed out before, Watchers are everywhere. True, many are presently enjoying better weather than can be had in Wanganui (i.e. are pretty much anywhere else) and this blog is in "summer mode" while there's not much news about.

An obsessive focus on two or three people - whether accurately or not - is a fairly standard modus operandi for a politician like the Diva. The idea being that if the targets you hit aren't the right targets, well it'll damn sure put the willies up the people you'd like to hit, if only you knew who they were. And maybe, just maybe, they'll decide they're not going to wait around till his sights are trained on them.

It is, in fact, very much like the way Saddam used to run things - carpet bomb enough civilians and you might hit the target you're after, or you might miss but scare them off, or the terrorised civilians might offer you up the people you're after if only you'll leave them alone. And don't worry about the innocents who might get maimed along the way.

Fact is, the only people who spend the day obsessing over Michael Laws are... well, just Michael Laws, actually. Thankfully there are enough Watchers to share the burden of the three or four hours a day (including writing, artwork and comment moderation) that this blog takes. And plenty more where they came from. Because, as Saddam has discovered, despots will always get their comeuppance.

And it fits perfectly with the bread and circuses strategy. Commenters alleged many months ago that the Diva "knew" who was "behind" the blog. So why wait till now to float this particular kite? Simple, readers - distraction. Roman Emperors used to throw people to the lions as well as provide less gory entertainments. And while the citizenry were transfixed by the spectacle (and thanking the various Gods it wasn't them being mauled) the Emperor got on with the dirty business of politics - in this case a buy-election.

And as today's effort proves, politics don't get much dirtier than when practiced by Michael Brian Laws.

Update: The Chronicle are understandably wary of publishing any of the Mayor's potentially defamatory dribble, and so, courtesy of Sean Hoskins, we can reveal that at least one of the Diva's targets isn't about to take the latest spray with the alacrity of some of his other victims. And it seems the Diva wasn't being entirely truthful, either. Now there's a surprise. (Note: This is an 88kB pdf file, and we've masked contact details to protect the privacy of individuals)

Comments on this post are now closed.

Incoming!!

Welcome, Dear Readers, to a LawsWatch summer special report. Today your favourite blogspot has embedded a reporter on Wanganui’s Direct Democracy Mayoral Spin Chopper One as it tours the mountains, lakes, forests, farms and beaches of New Zealand and beyond seeking out buy-election candidates for re-education Diva-style.

Our intrepid reporter is joined in turn by a fellow embedee from Notional Radio's Soporific Summer Series as we take to the skies at dawn on yet another beautiful January morning for the first sortie in Operation Re-education, with Colonel Laws and Tail Gunner Larry Mitchell.

But first, dear readers, turn off the sizzling sausages and join us for some background to this extraordinary example of Democracy in action...

"Cheap shots score no bullseyes" was the unusally provocative (for the Chron) headline above a story on Monday quoting buy-election candidate Allan Anderson's suspicions that the Diva might be being just a tad alarmist in his buy-election hyperbole.

"Is it safe to live in Wanganui? Or even to venture into the city?" he asked, rhetorically we hope. "… is it safe to walk the crumbling footpaths, drive on our dirt roads, drink the water or even flush the toilet? And, as for bird flu… just forget it. Update your will."

And hitting several nails on the head with a resounding bang, Anderson added, "This is the stuff of populist politics. Denigrate everything in sight and blame the previous administration. It sometimes works and helps deflect attention from one’s own shortcomings. But it does not make for harmonious and constructive decision-making.

"Instead of denigrating all that exists Wanganui needs to acknowledge that most of what is now coming to fruition – roads, footpaths, wastewater scheme and the revamp of the avenue/Mainstreet – was initiated by previous councils," he pointed out, adding presciently "it will take more than a mayoral mile to pay for our sewerage scheme." And our flash new swimming pool, and just about everything else on the buy-election bread and circuses agenda, he might have added.

Such a clear and down-to-earth analysis didn't go unanswered for long. The Diva promptly cranked up the spin machine to announce he was "disturbed" (we've known that all along - Ed.) and accused Anderson of having "no idea how serious the council's state of finances is".

So... because a candidate points out that the city needs to find money - money it doesn't have - to pay for sewerage let alone a swimming pool, that shows he doesn't understand how bad finances are?

Anderson had "obviously [not] read any council document over the past year or the reports of the Audit Office or independent auditors. His lack of awareness is just bizarre." Then leaping deflty from unwarranted assumption to unsupported conclusion, the Diva added that Anderson's comments "did highlight the fact that candidates might not be as knowledgeable as current councillors".

Oh those informed Councillors like Dotty "Professor Phard" McKinnon, perhaps? Or Muzza "what's with all these annoying meetings?" Hughes.

Candidates need not fear, however. The burden of forming their own conclusions will soon be lifted from their shoulders. Just like the present crop of spineless lackeys councillors, candidates are to be deluged with reams of Mayoral spin telling them how to think.

But now we return to our embedded reporter on board Spin Chopper One ...

Since this is the zenith of the holiday season, and candidates need all the relaxation and recharging they can get to prepare for the possibility of two years in the Guyton Street war zone (which is precisely the reason the buy-election was called for this time of the year - Ed.) - Colonel Laws' first stop this morning is a faraway beach on the Chatham Islands and he wastes no time rushing out with his whiteboard and laser pointer, and delivering his briefings to startled sunbathing candidates, one of whom was seen to stir slightly in his lounger and reach for the sunblock at the chopper's approach.

Gunner Larry Mitchell, the Diva's favourite report writer, has come out of retirement on his Puhoi farm, and is handing out remaindered copies of his $44,000 vanity publishing exercise, replete with lots of nice pictures and stories about the Diva's fancy fiscal footwork. One grateful candidate was seen tossing their holiday reading (a work of fiction by that psychopathic pollie Jeffrey Archer) into the surf and plunging into Larry's masterpiece, once the Diva has explained just why and how it is remotely relevant to the business end of WDC.

Meanwhile we can report that en route to the Chathams Gunner Mitchell was able to drop copies of his 50kg bomb on unsuspecting candidates sheltering high in the Southern Alps and walking the Routeburn Track.

Colonel Laws has however issued an official denial to rumours that yesterday's operation struck a snafu when Gunner Mitchell programmed the wrong coordinates into Spin Chopper One's GPS and large quantities of the Mitchell Report were dropped on a Norweigian ski trail, startling Prime Minister Helen Clark and her entourage and prompting her to call the Skyhawks out of mothballs for a defensive action.

Comments on this post are now closed.

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you

When the Diva took over the running of Winston's motley band of malcontents immediately after his ignominous departure from Parliament - an appointment that, in the spirit of open government and accountability espoused by the pair, was at first blatantly denied till journalists found a lycra-swathed form sneaking up the back stairs one day - the office was quickly renamed "Paranoia Palace" by its inhabitants. Well, those who weren't informing on their workmates to the Diva in the hope of personal advancement, anyway.

Paranoia and the use of informants has always loomed large in Diva's modus operandi and, judging by a comment left to our last post, still flourishes:

Anonymous said...
ALERT! Heard at council today that the mayor's office has somehow got hold of private e-mails circulating between WAG and arts supporters about the River Queen premiere. i'll say no more because I suspect you know who frequents here but forewarned is forearmed. He's about to go public with them.
7:53 PM, January 09, 2006

Shock! Horror! What can these unreconstructed Trotskyite layabouts have been planning, we wondered? Molotov cocktails on the red carpet? Overturning vehicles and barricading the roads to the theatre? Kidnapping the stars and demanding a ransom in oil paints and modeling clay?

No, these emails - which went to multiple members of the Wanganui Artists Guild (WAG) merely canvassed the idea of some sort of low-level protest over the anti-arts climate being whipped up by the Mayor (movie making ironically being, in some eyes at least, an art form).

WAG - unlike the more outspoken SoS, which was unashamedly an activist group - have been involved in trying to reach the ear of the Mayor and councillors and the artists involved in the group are generally trying to focus on their work and not let the Mayoral-driven anti-arts juggernaut ruin not just their livelihoods but also their creative processes.

In short, a more harmless bunch of people one could not hope to meet, unless perhaps one attended a SciFi convention.

Anyhow, a WAG member posited the idea of some form of protest. Emails circulated debating the issue, with some saying it ought to be light-hearted.

Fortunately for the artists wiser heads prevailed and the consensus was the River Queen "premiere", whilst unashamedly being driven as yet another Mayoral Look-At-Me Day, was nonethless Wanganui's chance to celebrate a notable achievement and not the time and place for protest. Anything in the nature of a protest would look churlish, petty and ultimately be self-defeating. So there hasn't been and won't be any meeting, and no protest will be going anywhere near Mickey's Big Day Out.

So keep those emails, those accusations, and that paranoia firmly under wraps, Mickey. There won't be any reminders of how you talk up one part of the arts - the part that lets you join the parade - while talking down the other parts.

But what of the Diva's informant, we wonder? LawsWatch suspects this rat in the ranks is, as usual, someone well rewarded by the Diva in another sphere altogether who's then willing to act as a Fifth Columnist among their artist friends.

While most artist types aren't known for their sharp political instincts, how long can it be till the informant is outed? And then what? Tarring and feathering, but with oils and decoupage?

The moral of the story surely is, that if the Diva behaved like an elected official ought, and gave respect and consideration to the various groups within the community, recognising and attempting to balance their various and at times conflicting needs, Wanganui wouldn't need to be run like East Germany circa 1956.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Question time

Last time we sat round rubbing our crystal ball (that will do with the double entrendes - Ed.) it failed us abysmally.

So we'll leave it demurely covered by a gypsy scarf in a corner of the cave and instead ask our readers their answers to an interesting question put to Watchers by an email correspondent:

Given the performance of the Vision team up till now, the brand must have lost most of its pre-election shine. Seems even Ms Baker-Hogan was a last minute and somewhat reluctant recruit. So who amongst the present crop of Vision Councillors, do you think, will sign onto the ticket at the next election?

To which we'd add: will there be any defections mid-term? (Watchers, incidentally, doubt there will be). And will the supposedly non-Visionites like Rangi Wills just quit the pretence next time and wear the party colours?

Comments on this post are now closed.

Can you say "conspiracy theory"?

Not content with constantly banging on in the many other fora available to him, from his radio show to the Council website to his own website to (some suspect) LawsWatch comments, the Diva is back polluting the Chronic letters page with his imagined conspiracies and trotting out the tired old "malcontents" line. Still, it makes a change to see the Diva doing his own dirty work for a change - his usual attack dog, Bob Walker, must be on holiday.

If simply disagreeing with someone else's point of view makes you a "malcontent", then the Diva himself is a professional malcontent - he gets paid to disagree with people who call up his radio show. It's a nonsense, of course, and would simply be a harmless rant if specific people weren't named in his letter.

The only conspiracy here is that the Chron has held back any anti-Diva letters received during the week and ran them in a block, presumably to support his conspiracy theories.

And the crime commited by these people who, unlike the Diva - who clearly was given a sneak preview of the block of letters from "malcontents" - have no opportunity to defend themselves? Why, they're "trying to influence the upcoming council by-election".

Nothing better illustrates how anti-democratic the Diva has become. The democratic process is all about trying to influence the outcome of elections, votes, and other functions of democracy.

Isn't that what the Baker Hogan billboards are all about? (even though advice of her connection with Vision is restricted to a postage-stamp sized logo in the top corner). Wasn't that what the manipulation of Taylor's resignation and scheduling of the buy election is all about?

If writing letters to the newspaper or leaving comments on a blog are actions that ought to be perceived as somehow shady or immoral, what then does that say about the rumoured links between, or approaches from, the Diva to the likes of Waitai, Anderson and Hunter-Bell?

Incidentally, in his book "The Malcontents" (subtitled "The best bitter, cynical, and satirical writing in the world") Joe Queenan includes works by Candide, Mark Twain, Flann O'Brien, Machiavelli and even de Sade. Not bad company to be keeping, Chron letter writers.

---

Now poison of a different kind. We don't usually devote blog space to the various computer viruses, worms, spyware etc that infect the Internet. But a vulnerability has been discovered in Windows that is so serious it warrants our (and your) attention.

All that's needed to trigger this vulnerability is for the user to open and email or visit a webpage with an "infected" WMF (a type of image) file on it. Nothing to download, no click required. The end result can be anything from a complete takeover of your PC to immediate and irreversible damage requiring a complete re-format of the hard drive.

Full details are on the respected ZDNet site, which includes a patch (Microsoft's "official" patch won't be out till next week). We value your visits here (yes, even you Mickey) and wouldn't like to lose you to a nasty infection.

Comments on this post are now closed.

If only, perhaps...

So far, not a single candidate has opted to take advantage of the free, unedited publicity opportunity offered via the Buy-Election Blog. We hope it has nothing to do with the fact that the "price" of this opportunity is that readers get an opportunity to comment and question. Watchers will continue the policy of rejecting comments that are simply insulting, so candidates need not fear they're simply setting themselves up for a torrent of abuse. But they do need to be willing to engage, and their pledges and policies will remain beyond the buy-election, to be measured against their subsequent actions.

Perhaps most are still away on holiday - we're aware of at least a couple that are elsewhere, on long-planned-for trips with family. Which is, of course, precisely why GK Taylor's resignation and the subsequent buy-election were stage-managed by the Diva so as to occur at this time.

While minds are turned to sausages, vintages, and (occasionally) sunshine, it gives Watchers time to reflect somewhat more philosophically...

Here, for instance, are the reasons you can complain to the New Zealand Ombudsman about a Council (or indeed any other agency that comes under the Ombudsmen Act 1975):

...whether the act, omission, decision complained of:
(i) appears to have been contrary to law
(ii) was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory
(iii) was in accordance with a rule of law or a practice that is or may be unreasonable, unjust, oppressive of improperly discriminatory
(iv) was based on a mistake of law or fact; or
(v) was wrong.
An Ombudsman can also consider whether a discretionary power has been exercised for an improper purpose or on irrelevant grounds or after taking account of irrelevant considerations, or whether reasons should have been given for the decision or recommendation.

While it gives the Ombudsmen a reasonable degree of flexibility, that definition concentrates very much on breaches of law and due process. Contrast that with the UK, where a specific Local Government Ombudsman exists, and explicitly provides for a much broader range of matters about which citizens can complain:

The Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities.The law does not define maladministration but according to the LGO it means that "there has been a fault in the way the council has or has not done something". The LGO, in its leaflet, gives the following examples. It would be maladministration if a Council:

• took too long to do something
• did not follow its own rules or the law
• broke its promises
• treated you unfairly
• gave you wrong information
• did not make a decision in the correct way.

The LGO however can only investigate a complaints if you can show that you have been caused 'injustice' as a result of maladministration. This could for example be:

• you did not get a service or benefit you were entitled to
• you suffered financial loss; or
• were caused distress or upset.

(Our emphasis). We'll leave you to ponder what could be done about the state of governance in Wanganui if a similar law were enacted in New Zealand.

Comments on this post are now closed.

Governance by press release

A miscellany of interesting tidbits emerges in comments to the last post. Pip asks if we've seen The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. We hadn't, but judging by the plot summary we'll be asking the local video store if they stock it, or buying a copy on ebay:

Rimmer... believes the key to success is to ask the right questions. So he gets a job with an advertising agency [and] bombards England with questions. His ingenious system enables him to predict the outcome of a general election. So accomplished is Rimmer at asking questions that he finds his future wife through market research. To insure that he gets the right answers, Rimmer is not above manipulating the polls... Then he enters politics. In a short time, he gets himself elected to Parliament, becomes a cabinet minister and eventually moves into Ten Downing Street as prime minister after pushing the incumbent prime minister off an oil platform. By this time, every eligible voter in Britain can cast ballots with a television remote control. Alas, the electorate tires of the endless referendum questions that they must answer as part of their daily routine. This development serves only to catapult Rimmer to further success, for the people decide to place all decisions in his hands as dictator of England...

A lesson there for us all, as they say. A lesson too in this recap of recent history by an anonymous commenter:

Laws did not win through the back door - let's dispense with this myth now shall we? He won 43% of the vote and was upfront and obvious his whole campaign. He got 10 of 13 of his Vision candidates elected.

John Martin got 27% of the vote despite having the backing of the arts community, the church groups (who did split their votes with Chas) and the Chamber of Commerce. Mark Simmonds & Warren Ruscoe openly supported Martin's campaign - they wanted change but Laws scared them. Chas got 20% of the vote. Ray Stevens 5% and Barbara Bullock 4% (running the worst campaign ever).

Even if Chas had not stood, it would have needed ALL his votes to go to Martin - and he would have endorsed either Bullock or Stevens, probably Bullock who ran on a pro-council line. Then you have a look at all the other Laws-endorsed candidates - they took 4 of the 5 top-polling council candidates, had Leonie Brookhammer defeat a sitting councillor (Blaikie) and two well known businessmen in Rob Vinsen and Bob Walker; and then had the No 1 and No 3 candidates for the health board (Baker-Hogan & PJ Faumui).

That's the thing you have to remember about 2004 - Laws not only won the mayoralty but he had most of his candidates elected too and elected easily. Can we make a pledge to each other for 2006? We'll deal with the facts from now on. If we run away from the reality we'll under-estimate how much support the mayor really has which is the reason none of us are running in the by-election if we're honest with each other.

While some of the conclusions drawn by the commenter are arguable - who "us" are, and why anyone chooses not to stand in a by-election is really unknowable, and whether Poynter would have endorsed anyone or simply stayed out of it, for instance - the salient point here is the 2004 election wasn't, as we agreed in a comment in reply, a "hanging chad" election. There were no rigged ballot boxes. No dead people voting. No branch stacking. None of the things which can suggest a result wasn't kosher.

The problem is that while the campaign was "upfront and obvious" in terms of who was aligned with Vision (a factor that's by no means obvious in this buy-election) it was by no means obvious what the real agenda was once the Diva and his acolytes were elected, which was government in secret, with communication through spin. For example:

Finance and Administration Committee, 30 August 2005

MOTION TO REOPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC
THAT the meeting be reopened to the public and the preamble, discussion and recommendations associated with Item 9: Cooks Gardens Trust Board Finance and Governance, Item 10: Mowhanau Subdivision, Item 11: Late Item: 'River Queen' Premiere, and Item 12: Chief Executive Officer’s Report, remain confidential until all parties have either accepted the terms of the proposals or agreed to cease negotiations. The Chief Executive Officer or Committee Chairperson may then release a press report on the matter.

Aside from the subdivision, these are all matters of public (your) money and public administration. Yet it seems unlikely that the "terms of the proposals" will ever become public, since the Cooks Gardens discussions included Council involvement in the finances of the Barnes concert, and even though that event seemingly made money, there's not exactly a rush of Councillors wanting to inform us whether they took the risk of underwriting a commercial event with your money, as we suspect may have been the case.

Similarly the River Queen "Premiere": just how much is being spent, and by whom, to make Councillors look good on their trip down the red carpet, led "reluctantly" of course (he's just "too Wanganui", you know) by the Diva.

These are legitimate questions, and ratepayers have every right to know the answers - unvarnished by spin. But if they're to receive any information at all, it seems, it's to be via "press report", no doubt published verbatim and unquestioningly by the River City Press.

That's what wasn't upfront during the 2004 campaign, and no one thought to ask because that wasn't the way Wanganui had been administered up until that point. In fact, the Vision team made specific promises about accountability and integrity which haven't been met.

Just what their commitment is to truly open government is a question worth asking all the buy-election candidates. One of many.