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.