The time has come again where I have to try and figure out which of the various candidates for local body elections I can bear to vote for.
Here is a brief summary of my decisions - too late to do anyone else any good sorry.
Mayor
I'm not opposed to voting for lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in. However, I have my limits. So I'm not voting for Mayor. I am aware that a large number of Wellingtonians will outraged by this, but I'm not convinced that Kerry Prendergast with a slight green tinge will be improvement on Kerry Prendergast. Celia Wade-Brown, the only serious contender for mayor, has made it clear that economically she is no different from Kerry Prendergast. Recently the rates burden has moved from commercial to residential - a move Celia Wade-Brown supports. A 'green' approach to local body politics, can and has been cover for privatisation and an anti-people pro-business way of working.
I would get great pleasure from Kerry losing her job, and while normally that would be enough for me too vote for her opponent, but I cannot support Celia Wade-Brown.
Lambton Ward
What's super frustrating about local body politics is how hard it is to vote for any of them, because they seem to think voters are more interested in their CV, their love of Wellington and their family, than their actual policies.
1. Stephanie Cook - She's probably the reason that I bothered to vote at all. She has a good record of being on the right side of issues - and manages not to mention her family. So I'll vote for her - even though I think making her main campaign planting fruit trees is pretty inane.
2. Marcus Ganley - He has a clear statement against privatisation in his blurb, and is equally clear about his position on water metering. I've made me feelings about the labour party known on this blog several times. But with obvious (Alick Shaw) exceptions I think you can sometimes do +worse than a Labour party candidate on a local body. They tend to be on the left of the party, and they have a basic grasp that they should pretend to be on the side of people rather than business - under like their Green party counter-parts.
3. Mark Greening - I shouldn't rank him - because he believes in engaging youth to stop Graffiti - whereas I think that Graffiti is awesome. However, he's pro-library and he doesn't support water metering, or mention his family. Plus free wi-fi.
Yep I'm super unprincipled.
I'm not ranking:
Ioana Pannett - I vote for her last time, because I hate Alick Shaw just that much. I have appreciated her work against the liquor ban. But she supports the shifted burden of rates - Green party politics are particularly suseptible to neo-liberalism on councils. Plus she mentions her kid in her bio - which is the last straw.
John Bishop - I respect that he puts in that he's business friendly, I do like to see some policies, and respect for that fact that voters might want to know where you stand. But business friendly is Maia unfriendly.
Adam Cunningham - He actually ends his profile - SO IF YOU LOVE WELLINGTON TOO - VOTE CUNNINGHAM 1 IN LAMBTON WARD - just like that all in caps. I am not ranking him Number 1 - so clearly I hate Wellington.
Michael Fowler - He goes into the third person in his bio 'most of our lives were spent in Wellington' - I assume he means him and his wife - but he hasn't even mentioned her. Or possibly he has delusions of grandeur.
Ian McKinnon - Like John Bishop I respect that he made his politics clear, but I don't share them.
Kris Price - So I almost ranked him 4th just for not mentioning his family. Buthis complete lack of politics, as opposed to urban design ideas put me off.
Wellington Regional Council
I find it super difficult to choose candidates for the Wellington Regional Council. They're very pro-business.
Paul Bruce - Just to prove that my prejudice against the Green Party is not my ruling emotion.
Judith Aitken - I suspect she's less than awesome, but she has some good policies, and activism in the women's liberation movement goes a long way with me.
Chris Lipbscombe - clearly I'm getting soft near the end of the ballot, because I voted for him even though he mentions his family.
Not voting for
Sally Barber - Her water policy sounds suspiciously like she supports water metering
Dianne Buchan - More 'business is awesome' 'look at my business experience'
Charles Finny - I would vote for most people in Wellington before I'd vote for the former CEO of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Plus he hates bus drivers - how can anyone hate bus drivers? Bad person!
Michael Gibson - He hates trains, and writes about himself in the third person. Where do these people come from?
Chris Laidlaw - I may get soft on Labour party candidates in local government. But I draw the line at former MPs.
Terry McDavitt - Blurb is non-stop inanity.
Daran Ponter - If he'd had more actual politics I probably would have voted for him. But his material is so slimy - and he spends so much time talking about his family that I just couldn't do it.
Bill Rainer - Why do these people think we want to know about their experience rather than how they will vote?
Fran Wilde - See I have these vague warm feelings towards her, because of her role in Homosexual Law Reform, but that was almost 25 years ago, and she's pro-business.
DHB
My main criteria is choosing people who believe in fighting for the health system, and it's workers. Also avoiding anyone who might think their religious beliefs are relevant to other people's health care.
1. David Choat - I broke my very important rule and forgave him for mentioning his family - partly because I know them, but more importantly because he has policy that I agree with.
2. Margaret Faulkner - Nurses who are clear where they stand on politics are worth voting for.
3. Maureen Gillon (you may notice that I'm voting for people in alphabetical order - this is because I'm lazy). Another nurse.
4. Malakai Jiko - On my list on easy gimmes is people who have worked for Primary Health Services such as Newtown Union Health.
5. Peter Roberts - He used to work for the doctors union and the coalition for public health - I would totally have voted him higher if only his name was further up the alphabet.
6. Peter Kelly - He used the phrase 'social justice' in his list. When it comes to the Health Board it doesn't take a lot.
7. Judith Aitken - see above.
8. Russell Franklin - his heart is obviously in the right place, even though he has a dodgy past and 8 is pretty far down my list.
9. Mark Jacobs - You were inane enough that I ranked you 9 - congratulations.
Not Ranking
Elizabeth Anderson - She accepts the funding limitations, and thinks her management experience is what's important. Nope.
John Apanowicz - Management. Management. Management.
Maureen Cahill - She doesn't just mention her family - she mentions her cat.
Camilia Chin - She used to be the 'Corporate Management Reporting Accoutnant for the CCDHB' - not my priority.
Barbara Donaldson - I don't disagree "Our DHB is in trouble" I do disagree "The Board needs poeple like me with experience in governance, management and health systems."
Andrew Holmes - actually your young family don't give you perspective for visionary governance FFS.
Virginia Hope - All management speak all the time.
Helene Ritchie - I'm PREJUDICED against random CAPS.
David Scott - If you're going to advertise your christianity when you're running for the Health Board that better come with a disclaimer - "I support a woman's right to choose" or else I'm not voting for you.
Donald Urquhart-Hay - I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I saw a House of Cards at a far too impressionable age to vote for anyone called Urquhart.
Nigel Wilson - The ratio of meaningless jargons to actual words is far too high.
Jack Wood - Funnily enough when thinking about who I want to run my health system and 'international business consultant' isn't it.
Now I've done my democratic duty I'm going to bed. I'll do a report of the abortion protest tomorrow I promise.
11 comments:
I am not a bad person and I do not hate bus drivers. I do not like attempts by communist party members to take over the Trameways Union and radicalise it. I dont think that is in the interests of the average bus driver at all.
Interesting this seems to be identical to a post on another blog entitled "Capitalism Bad"
Regards
Charles Finny
Big ups for the Campaign Against Unnecessary Capitals - it's tiring being typographically yelled at by people who think we should vote for them.
And I would have voted for Charles Finney - he seems to be a completely unreconstructed class warrior who still thinks unions arguing for better pay and conditions are run by "communists". He would be worth it for the entertainment value alone, albeit his extremist right-wing policies would be a bit less fun to suffer under. And he does have the advantage of being the right age for the Greater Wellington Regional Council And Retirement Home.
But the mayoral non-decision? I don't get that. Not voting is a tacit endorsement of Kerry, and Celia seems like someone who at least won't hand over the waterfront to tasteless developers. She's also said she's against a Wellington super-city, which for me is a key point of difference given that Kerry wants to take us there as soon as possible, via a bunch of back-room meetings no doubt.
Red-baiting FTW.
If you'd ever been to this blog before Charles, then you'd know that I write on both this blog and Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty - in fact it says so right there on the side bar.
Everything you say about Nick Kelly is inaccurate, and offensive. The average bus driver vote on their employment agreements, vote on industrial action, and vote on their leaders, and I thin they know their interests better than you do.
Nick is a communist - have a listen
http://ia341206.us.archive.org/1/items/TheGreensAndMaoriPartiesAreTheyProgressive/NickKelly-TheGreensAndMaoriPartiesAreTheyProgressive.mp3
He has taken over the Trameways Union
And he did radicalise it.
Thanks Maia for your comments. I do find them a little disappointing however. Your criteria for voting seems a little inconsistently applied to candidates and is an interesting one for a self-declared feminist.
It was after feminist writers and thinkers who have rightly done a great deal to deconstruct the split between the public and the private, a split often upheld by male thinkers and legislators.
I don't think people should have to deny they are parents and think it important that people standing for public office are well rounded people.
I rarely mention my son (three times in public since he was born) and I think this is not only appropriate but important as making this city better for all children is a priority for me.
I consider myself left and don't think being left is determined simply by one issue (the rating differential and I do think businesses should pay their full costs - social and environmental). A more informed commentator would also know that I've been very critical of our relationship with China on the basis of their treatment of workers and I will always support the cause of the more vulunerable. I have also walked my talk and done a lot of work in women's issues. For example, I spent 5 years in Rape Crisis working for justice for survivors of rape.
I think it's a little disappointing that you haven't been more supportive of the women candidates. Whilst much has improved in the public sphere, it is still generally men that hold positions of power. Time to make sure that there is equal representation of women and men in all spheres.
Charles - even if Nick is a communist, so what? Arguably the communists have done far less damage to New Zealand than Roger Douglas's extremism at the opposite end of the political spectrum. After all, it was the hard Right that gave us damn near 10% unemployment in the early 90's, not the communists.
And while we're on the subject of extremism, it's not too long a bow to draw to point out that you radicalised the Chamber of Commerce in exactly the same way that you're accusing Nick of radicalising the Tranways Union - you're both monomaniacally arguing for the interests of the members.
Almost fourth, sweet! :) I'd like to acknowledge my mum and dad for having me, my sister for well whatever, and my imaginary other half and 2.5 children for putting up with the long hours.
A couple of comments regarding the rates. This single aspect has been unreasonably held up as a litmus test of progressiveness.
How about for/against a casino? for/against more road tunnels? for/against Hilton hotel on outer T? All differences between incumbent's and my vote.
Regarding the differential on the general rate between business and residents, remember that all are based on capital value so a big business pays far more than a small business and a Roseneath 5 bedroom pays more than a one-bedroom flat in Mt Victoria, for example. Wellington has done a great job of keeping the Uniform Annual Charges low - though some of right-wing would like to increase these so water and sewage are totally paid by uniform charges that take no account of the value of a property. Rates area TAX not a payment fro services so we must resist this.
Several of the Councillor commentators have NEVER attended a single meeting of the Finance and Activity Working Party. I've been on that and through every activity and argued strongly for sharing the costs fairly, for example, that libraries benefit businesses as much as residents. Therefore we've kept the general rate for funding libraries and many other activities - where commercial funds a total of $68 million p.a. as opposed to $63m for residents. Some past members of the working party wanted the libraries to be funded totally by the residential rates.
Jack Yan has said he'd like to get rid of the differential - if we did that it would mean a huge jump of rates to households (about $30 to 40 million in one go). When Council looked at the issues of claimability, passing on etc, we concluded that a differential of 2.8 to 1 was reasonable and I do NOT want to go below that. We have one more year of transition till we get there. It may be too late for most voters to ask but I think you should ask candidates what their ideal differential is for the general rates - should it go back to 7:1 as it was nine years ago - the four that argue against the change to 2:8 to 1 never actually suggest it go back to 7:1! I suspect that several would like it to go to 1:1. I suspect that even moor would fail to understand the basis for rates differentials and calculations at all.
Most Councils in the area have differentials of between 2.4 and 3, although other charges and levies e.g. Downtown levy in Wellington for tourism promotion, motel rates elsewhere etc make direct comparison difficult.
Over-simplifying the rates issue shows how easy it is to get onto "moral high ground", i.e. “any shift in diff = bad”, “keeping diff at current ratio = good”, rather than analyse and explain the costs and benefits.
A look at http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/annualplan/ltccp/pdfs/vol1/18fis.pdf may help show where different parts of rates come from.
A couple of comments regarding the rates. This single aspect has been unreasonably held up as a litmus test of "progressiveness".
How about voting for/against Hilton on waterfront? For/against
casino? For/against bus priority on Courtenay Place? For/against sale of Owhiro Bay sections? All these set KP and myself apart.
Regarding the differential on the general rate between business and residents, remember that all are based on capital value so a big business pays far more than a small business and a Roseneath 5 bedroom pays more than a one-bedroom flat in Mt Victoria, for example. Rates are a TAX not a payment for services.
I've argued strongly for sharing the costs fairly, for example, that libraries benefit businesses as much as residents. Therefore we've kept the general rate for funding libraries and many other activities - where commercial funds a total of $68 million p.a. as opposed to $63m for residents.
Jack Yan has said he'd like to get rid of the differential - if we did that it would mean a huge jump of rates to households (about $30 to 40 million in one go).
It may be too late for most voters to ask but I think you should ask candidates what their ideal differential is for the general rates - should it go back to 7:1 as it was nine years ago - the four that argue against the change to 2:8 to 1 never actually suggest it go back to 7:1! I suspect that several would like it to go to 1:1. I suspect that even moor would fail to understand the basis for rates differentials and calculations at all.
sorry for double post - the web response was "your comment is too long" so I cut and reposted - and then found the longer version was up after all! Delete whichever you like!
Maia, this was actually a great help to me in my voting. I made my own decisions but then came online to do further research around my choices, and you can't imagine how great it was to see a 'hard-left feminist perspective' post up and around. That's just my cup of tea :) I haven't read your blog in a while but used to see it linked on Pandagon or Amptoons a lot. I'll have to re-add it to my reading list. I see you may have been at the pro-choice protest this week - I was there too. It's nice seeing an online feminist voice here in Wgtn.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Helen
Post a Comment