Back in the early part of the year, I flirted briefly with Mayoral Politics as a means of pursuing my long-standing opposition to the excessive leverage exerted by property developers, entertainment promoters and the doyens of the Wellington City hospitality industry on the activities and finances of Wellington City Council.
In particular, I tried to interest electors in the ongoing radical redistribution of the rates [local taxes] burden from the Commercial / Business Sector to Residential Ratepayers – and alert them to moves towards further exacerbating the inequity – see for example:
This endeavour was not entirely pointless as I received the following responses to my concerns from the candidates who remained after I informed people of my withdrawal:
1. Dear Keith Thanks for letting us know directly.
I'm in favour of keeping the current differential.
Regards
Celia Wade-Brown
Mayor of Wellington
2. Hi Keith:
I'm sorry to hear you won't be running. I would have enjoyed hearing your arguments further and I doubt you and I are that far apart on rates.
I campaigned in 2010 on reducing our debt and while it isn't my core issue in 2013, it's still a target for me. Hence running a frugal campaign: if I don't live it now, how on earth would I be expected to live it if elected?
I hope I run into you during the campaign in any case, Keith.
Best, Jack Yan
Interestingly, the two Right-of-Centre candidates Nicola Young and John Morrison declined to respond. One can only assume that they would have endorsed a further narrowing of the differential and the extraction of additional money from householders and local communities to fund office building, ‘attractions’ and booze-ups in Courtenay Place.
Of course Celia won – so we have a guarantee on at least maintaining the status quo on relative rates burdens for the next three years.
And I had the satisfaction of seeing sad old war horse Rex Nichols trotted out of his Oriental Bay stable for a run at demonstrating on behalf of the Establishment in favour of screwing young householders for the benefit of property developers like himself, Chris Parkin and Ian Cassels - only for him to be soundly flayed and knackered by the voters.
But then I can’t really talk about popularity as I got roundly trounced when I went on to stand as a candidate for the Capital and Coast District Health Board.
I came last in a list of 21 candidates vying for 7 positions. I received a paltry 465 first preference votes out of a total of 74,704 cast. My consolations were that: 1. Most of those who voted for me are dear friends and people who knew me personally 2. I was in Australia on holiday when the results were declared, and 3. My campaign cost me absolutely nothing.
Though I would love to be able to see myself as Old Boxer the Workhorse shunted out by dastardly deeds, the truth is more prosaic – I am not an effective political animal at all, such that I wouldn't even see the inside of a paddock or a stable on Animal Farm – labouring hopelessly as I do on both building fairy-tale windmills in the sky and then tilting at them!
Anyhow, the debacle was not a complete waste of time as one of my motives was to better understand the system.
Anyhow, the debacle was not a complete waste of time as one of my motives was to better understand the system.
THERE IS NO HEALTH IN IT
In the aftermath of the 2013 Local Elections, I thought of writing about the political system in Wellington with the idea of trying to improve levels of debate and voter participation but I flagged the idea as it seemed that my assessments would be immediately taken as sour grapes.
I am finally back at the keyboard because one of the Health Board’s successful candidates, Judith Aitken, emailed all 21 candidates to express her dissatisfaction with the process that we had all just gone through. Among other things she asked: how all candidates for DHBs, whether political party-sponsored or not, might get better and fairer exposure during the pre-election period?
Most of us had turned up time and time again at dark halls opened by reluctant and nervous key-keepers to find a convivial collection of contenders but virtually no public. Or where there was a public, the gathering was composed almost entirely of querulous Senior Citizens or zealots who made it immediately apparent that they had already made their choices but that they wished every candidate to subscribe to their pre-determined policy agenda. With most of their sign-up platforms being a visceral reactive to anything proposed by the NZ Government – regardless of the fact that it had been democratically elected.
I penned the following response to Judith and to Sue Kedgley who had joined in the conversation [both of whom are highly effective and personable politicians]:
Thanks Judith / Sue
First off – sincere congratulations – you are both great assets to the community. It was fun to meet you guys and I have no regrets about standing – and to be fair I ran a very laid-back campaign this time around. I have a lot going on what with my kids, consulting etc.
I was thinking about writing a piece about the wider problem of enlivening local democracy and broadening the candidate base – but I don’t want to be thought a sore loser. Anyhow I’ll let you in on some of my musings [if the cat will let me see the keyboard!].
In 2010 I stood as a NZ Labour Party candidate for the WCC Southern Ward. The LP decided that, even though I had been democratically selected at the Ward Level, all the resources should be devoted to my fellow LP candidate. I spent $12,000+ of my own money on advertising and walked every street in the Ward delivering my own material to some 12,000+ houses.
Even though I had spent a lot of money with Cook Strait Times, they wanted to run a rather mocking story about me when they were doing their round-up of candidates – as they, like the Dom, put the candidates through the crush early on selecting a couple for a two-horse race and the rest for the freezing works.
I have been working very hard over the years to try to build alternatives through the Internet but sadly I think now that the early promise shown by the New Media will never be fulfilled. There are too many distractions online and it has largely become a twitter flocking mechanism where birds of a feather reinforce each others’ prejudices and pick on stragglers.
It still comes down to Name Recognition - and for the 10% uncommitted of the 40% who vote, this means the Dom and the local papers.
I am constantly bemused about the casual way in which the newspapers throw around their recognition largesse. Take for example Helene Ritchie’s recent re-election to WCC [no reflection on her ability, integrity etc.]. The Dom ran a story about candidates who were non-resident in their wards and gave what could have been an adverse report an enormous twist of support by accompanying the piece with a large photo.
My assessment is that this kind dedicated story + photo of recognition would be worth up to the spending limit for a rookie candidate [$20,000].
Again John Morrison & Paul Eagle were given tremendous boosts when the latter got pinged by a Parking Warden outside Body Works in Taranaki Street – and they joined together to complain about over-zealous parking administration. I would have thought that the infringement merited a tut-tut 1-liner in the margins in the Dominion Post. It got a special report plus an Editorial! Again this was worth ‘000s in electoral advertising.
[See for example: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/9143514/Paul-Eagle-incensed-by-parking-ticket]
The newspapers seem to work on three drivers: a) as far as incumbents are concerned, they are already known and so newsworthy, and therefore able to help sell papers; b) as they are part of the local scene, incumbents become the confidantes and pals of reporters such that an ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch my back’ relationship can develop, c) differentiating candidates by policies and experience is boring – and in any event runs the risk of elitism.
Ironically I suggested to Chris Laidlaw that he should stand for the WRC when I knew him back in Kelburn in the early 1990s – of course he is an excellent candidate but if you compare his career and life experience to mine, they are not that different. What he has of course is Name Recognition!
All the best
Keith
Judith replied delightfully naming me her Cuddly Economist:
Hi Keith
Your comments are fascinating – and have enormous validity. The Dom especially is a worry (I literally never have any publicity from the Dom - they clearly hate me and any name recognition I benefit from is certainly NOT from the Dom’s patronage!!)
Helene Ritchie is almost never missed in a Dom week of “Capital Days” and temper-tantrum WCC meetings, and very few of us would ever be able to afford that half page photo and article the Tuesday before voting closed.
But the reasons for all this are worth looking at – Prof Claire Robinson has some very useful analysis and would be interested in our collective and individual experiences on the hustings.
More anon Arohanui
Judith
And Sue has just tried to kill two birds with one stone, raising both the issues and her profile with a Dominion Post article [‘Voter Turnout a Bad Sign’: 12/11/2013]:
This notes that:
‘There's been a lot of soul searching about the historically low voter turnout at this year's local body elections, which followed the lowest voter turnout in 100 years at the 2011 general election.
Discussion has focused on ways to make it easier for people to vote, such as online voting. But few have questioned the wider implications of the low voter turnout –and what it might mean for the health of our democracy.
The truth is that in New Zealand, and around the world, more and more people are becoming disengaged with politics, and disenfranchised from the political process.
Politicians rank at the bottom of the scale of esteem in many countries, including New Zealand, and many people feel they cannot trust politicians to represent their interests. Others are disillusioned with the way our democracy works, don't think government is relevant to their lives, or are simply apathetic. This is reflected in a pattern of declining voter turnout at elections, declining participation in political parties, and declining interest in politics.
A recent audit of political engagement in Britain found that Britons are increasingly "disgruntled, disillusioned and disengaged" with their political system, and indifferent to politics. Only 24 per cent thought their system of governing worked reasonably well, and only 49 per cent felt the issues being debated in Parliament were relevant to their lives.
Ruth Fox, who conducted the audit, said the finding that only a quarter of the population are satisfied with their political system raises serious questions about its ability to maintain public support and confidence in the future.
I suspect we would find similar levels of disengagement, cynicism and apathy here [in New Zealand]. This is a real concern, because ongoing cynicism and disengagement in our political processes poses a risk to our democracy. Public trust and confidence in political institutions is the basis of political consent between politicians and the voters they represent. If public trust and confidence continues to erode, it will undermine the authority and legitimacy of government, and trust in the democratic process itself’.
However, Sue then goes on to argue that as ‘the closer a council is to its local community, and the more relevant it seems to people's lives, the more likely people are to vote and to become politically engaged’ such that:
‘While [through local government amalgamation and reorganization] a corporate-style super city might bring about greater efficiencies (the jury is still out on that), it may well result in lower voter turnouts and even less local political engagement, which would be unhealthy for our democracy’.
This is a fair point but I sense some special pleading and spin from Sue as a Green Party politician. As I have already commented in a previous article [showing my own political colours in some colourful language]:
‘The Greens are by far the most effective political force in the Left of Centre line-up. In our recent Wellington City Council Election, the Green Party made a clean sweep of its targeted seats – including returning the incumbent Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.
Wellington City is a paradise for Brown Rice and Sandals Tree Huggers but even so they probably don’t amount to more than 20% of the population [12-14% nationally]. But if this 20% Green tribe votes en masse as it does, and the total turnout is only 40%, this gives the Greens a 50% recorded vote – and it only needs a few fellow travellers and some crass sexism from a 'Good Old Boy' Mayoral Contest opponent like John Morrison on the Right to deliver guaranteed victory.
You might very well reflect that the zealotry and organizational capability of the Greens is not dissimilar to that of the TEA Party - if so I could not possibly comment’.
And though decentralization and grass-roots democracy are natural values for a Left Libertarian Green Party, it is worth noting that Green Party votes across the Wellington Region as a whole are very focussed on Wellington City – such that a super-City might well reduce overall Green Party representation – hence possibly the special pleading.
And I may be wrong but I detect in Sue’s comments a nervousness on her part and that of her Party colleagues that although they can mobilize ardour, they can’t mobilize the mass that would give them real legitimacy.
Anyhow, I’ll leave it there for this article – and carry on to some generic comments in a sequel.
NOTE FOR OVERSEAS READERS
Under the New Zealand Health System the District Health Boards are the main providers of services, with funding drawn from public taxation at the national level. A private health system also exists in parallel that can be accessed on a pay-and-demand basis backed by personal health insurance.
The Capital and Coast Health Board is responsible for providing public health services for about 250,000 people living in Wellington City and its suburbs, the Porirua Basin, and the Kapiti Coast including Waikanae. With about 3,200 full time staff and an annual payroll of more than $190 million, CCDHB is a major employer in the Wellington region.
NOTE FOR OVERSEAS READERS
Under the New Zealand Health System the District Health Boards are the main providers of services, with funding drawn from public taxation at the national level. A private health system also exists in parallel that can be accessed on a pay-and-demand basis backed by personal health insurance.
The Capital and Coast Health Board is responsible for providing public health services for about 250,000 people living in Wellington City and its suburbs, the Porirua Basin, and the Kapiti Coast including Waikanae. With about 3,200 full time staff and an annual payroll of more than $190 million, CCDHB is a major employer in the Wellington region.
It also provides specialist tertiary-level care is provided to patients from the lower North Island and upper South Island, a population of about 900,000. These tertiary services include cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, renal medicine and transplants, genetics, oncology, paediatric surgery, neonatal intensive care, obstetrics, endocrinology, orthopaedics and urology, and specialised forensic services.
As there were 74,704 votes cast this year, and each voter gets 7 votes to fill the 7 elected positions on the Board, there were # 10,500 voters. This is equivalent to about 4 percent of the population served. Given that most of the 3,200 full-time staff will vote and that heavy votes will also be recorded from staff working in related but separately funded services in the disability and aged-care sectors, participation in the election is unlikely to be representative of service consumers at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment