One of the above mentioned ratbag groups here in Kapiti recently letter box dropped leaflets which were (intentionally?) not glossy, promoted concern about rate increases (and who isn't!) and suggested that responses to a questionnaire they had sent each candidate should provide the basis for decisions on whom to vote for. Most candidates hadn't responded to that group's questionnaire and this was displayed negatively - those who had responded were assigned ticks. Whilst not openly stated, these candidates were the ones the ratbag group wish to see elected. All presented as if the group's main interest was in helping the voter! A very skilful attempt to influence voting.
What makes you think it wasn't a genuine attempt to assist voters to make informed decisions? I have sent out an e-mail questionairre myself in the past to UH candidates. If candidates aren't prepared to respond to questions posed in good faith about their stance on rates and/or other key matters then that in itself is surely indeed negative.
Presumably you're not talking about the TPU's pledge with its 3 requests to support rates < inflation, transparency, democratic decision makers? Responses and non responses to that have been published.
That leaflet really only showed who had or hadn't responded to their questionnaire - it could not be considered as a true attempt to inform voters if most (or indeed, any) candidates hadn't responded. It implied that those candidates who failed to respond were not worthy of a vote. It implied, it did not inform. The leaflet was presented in such a way that its paucity of information would not be obvious to a casual perusal. Publicly promoting such "findings" as authoritative when they are incomplete is totally misleading, particularly when the promoters fail to reveal who, or what ideas, they themselves represent.
Thanks for a very interesting analysis. Should be required reading for all would be councillors, not all of whom understand the current rules of the game.
Thanks Bryce for another usefully informative piece of work. Your headline "who really runs our councils" is itself certainly a key question. Most of us when voting have little idea who would-be councillors are, other than from their glib manifestos. In other words their sales pitches. To be fair, the Tax Payers Union did at least this time try fix some of this by asking candidates to sign a pledge to support rates rises under inflation, transparency, and permitting only publically elected individuals to sit on decision making bodies. In the event very few signed the pledge (which I sent to all Upper Hutt candidates. The incumbent Mayor was one of the few that did.) Remarkably its seems a number were unable to distinguish between making a personal committment to support these very reasonable positions and actual support or not by the council itself. The dearth of information about what prospective local government representatives really stand for is a huge hole in democratic process that urgently needs fixing. It shouldn't be too hard to compile a list of questions on key current issues, ideologies etc that many people care about, against which candidates would be required to unambiguously state their positions in a uniform manner so that apples can be compared with apples. In the old days, local newspapers plugged many such gaps in information, effectively enforcing transparency to an extent, but of course sadly those days are gone, with most being little more than advertising rags with a small amount of he said, she said partisan reporting.
Definitely lots to look at Bryce - things like delegations to Community Boards, public excluded Workshops and Standing Orders to name a few. The TPU questionnaire sounds reasonable e.g. to pledge for transparency but workshops (not subject to LGOIMA) and standing orders will probably preclude this from happening. The TPU questionnaire, and responses or lack of, has been used as a political tactic. If you don’t respond, you get a red x against your name. If I was a candidate, I wouldn’t get sucked into a TPU questionnaire either. What we saw in the last triennium was LG elected representatives dealing with some very difficult issues (3 Waters morphed into LWDW which probably costs even more) and historic under-investment etc. From my observation lots of candidates have no clue what they’re putting themselves forward for. It’s not a Board and it’s also not that easy to represent your community - in fact the governance vs community representation roles are fraught with tensions that require considerable experience and critical thinking to navigate.
Very much agree with you Bryce. OMG what your analysis shows. Even in a little town like Waihi, HDC, I learn of the influence of mining on politicians of the business conducted between members and the council. Heaven knows who the new mob will be aligned with. What I do know is that the current council (and past) have relaxed many matters to appease the Gold company. The voice of those impacted has now further been silenced with Fast Track.
Bravo! thank you Bryce for this excellent briefing.
One of the above mentioned ratbag groups here in Kapiti recently letter box dropped leaflets which were (intentionally?) not glossy, promoted concern about rate increases (and who isn't!) and suggested that responses to a questionnaire they had sent each candidate should provide the basis for decisions on whom to vote for. Most candidates hadn't responded to that group's questionnaire and this was displayed negatively - those who had responded were assigned ticks. Whilst not openly stated, these candidates were the ones the ratbag group wish to see elected. All presented as if the group's main interest was in helping the voter! A very skilful attempt to influence voting.
What makes you think it wasn't a genuine attempt to assist voters to make informed decisions? I have sent out an e-mail questionairre myself in the past to UH candidates. If candidates aren't prepared to respond to questions posed in good faith about their stance on rates and/or other key matters then that in itself is surely indeed negative.
Presumably you're not talking about the TPU's pledge with its 3 requests to support rates < inflation, transparency, democratic decision makers? Responses and non responses to that have been published.
That leaflet really only showed who had or hadn't responded to their questionnaire - it could not be considered as a true attempt to inform voters if most (or indeed, any) candidates hadn't responded. It implied that those candidates who failed to respond were not worthy of a vote. It implied, it did not inform. The leaflet was presented in such a way that its paucity of information would not be obvious to a casual perusal. Publicly promoting such "findings" as authoritative when they are incomplete is totally misleading, particularly when the promoters fail to reveal who, or what ideas, they themselves represent.
It’s happened all around the country. If I was a candidate, I wouldn’t respond to a questionnaire like this either. Pure bad faith politicking.
Thanks Liz. Understood. To go to all the trouble to print a leaflet but fail to provide a simple summary of candidates' responses does seem odd.
Thanks for a very interesting analysis. Should be required reading for all would be councillors, not all of whom understand the current rules of the game.
Thanks Bryce for another usefully informative piece of work. Your headline "who really runs our councils" is itself certainly a key question. Most of us when voting have little idea who would-be councillors are, other than from their glib manifestos. In other words their sales pitches. To be fair, the Tax Payers Union did at least this time try fix some of this by asking candidates to sign a pledge to support rates rises under inflation, transparency, and permitting only publically elected individuals to sit on decision making bodies. In the event very few signed the pledge (which I sent to all Upper Hutt candidates. The incumbent Mayor was one of the few that did.) Remarkably its seems a number were unable to distinguish between making a personal committment to support these very reasonable positions and actual support or not by the council itself. The dearth of information about what prospective local government representatives really stand for is a huge hole in democratic process that urgently needs fixing. It shouldn't be too hard to compile a list of questions on key current issues, ideologies etc that many people care about, against which candidates would be required to unambiguously state their positions in a uniform manner so that apples can be compared with apples. In the old days, local newspapers plugged many such gaps in information, effectively enforcing transparency to an extent, but of course sadly those days are gone, with most being little more than advertising rags with a small amount of he said, she said partisan reporting.
Definitely lots to look at Bryce - things like delegations to Community Boards, public excluded Workshops and Standing Orders to name a few. The TPU questionnaire sounds reasonable e.g. to pledge for transparency but workshops (not subject to LGOIMA) and standing orders will probably preclude this from happening. The TPU questionnaire, and responses or lack of, has been used as a political tactic. If you don’t respond, you get a red x against your name. If I was a candidate, I wouldn’t get sucked into a TPU questionnaire either. What we saw in the last triennium was LG elected representatives dealing with some very difficult issues (3 Waters morphed into LWDW which probably costs even more) and historic under-investment etc. From my observation lots of candidates have no clue what they’re putting themselves forward for. It’s not a Board and it’s also not that easy to represent your community - in fact the governance vs community representation roles are fraught with tensions that require considerable experience and critical thinking to navigate.
Very much agree with you Bryce. OMG what your analysis shows. Even in a little town like Waihi, HDC, I learn of the influence of mining on politicians of the business conducted between members and the council. Heaven knows who the new mob will be aligned with. What I do know is that the current council (and past) have relaxed many matters to appease the Gold company. The voice of those impacted has now further been silenced with Fast Track.