Sold to the lowest bidder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what campaign managers do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on this post are now closed.