When John Key endorsed John Banks for super-mayor in his speech to the National Party conference yesterday there were gasps according to the Radio NZ report. Were people shocked by the lack of political judgement in backing such a divisive candidate so early? Or were they dismayed that National’s super city crusade was about to take another body blow, its integrity undermined by association with such a blatant bid to install a National crony at the helm of the new super city?
Really. The Government is in the process of setting the rules of the game for our largest city’s democracy. It has used its majority in Parliament to ram through legislation under urgency and legislate away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum on this forced amalgamation. It has broken its manifesto promise to consult Aucklanders on the Royal Commission findings. And then in a highly unusual move installs the associate minister as chair of the select committee tasked with hearing public submissions on its second piece of super city law.
Just when all this unseemly haste and control-freakery made you start to wonder whether National-ACT have an agenda here, the Prime Minister virtually launches John Banks’ campaign for the super-mayoralty.
So is all this about getting the democratic institutions of our largest city right so Auckland can be a great city? Or is this about installing a National-ACT oligarchy to run Auckland and dispose of our assets?
It starts to explain why the Government wants councillors elected at large – it’s back to the pre-ward says of domination by the eastern suburbs. And it starts to explain why they dont want an empowered and resourced second tier that might actually reflect local voices and act as something of a check on the top tier.
I was shocked to hear Key endorse Banks so strongly and so early.
It would have been much more professional for the PM to not endorse any candidate publicly at all.
Key could have easily had his people tip off the media so the coverage was more like “sources close to Key believe he supports ex National MP John Banks for the top job, but that he wishes to maintain the credibility of the democratic process of electing the Mayor of Auckland without too much of wellington’s interference”.
This would have looked more credible for a man in his position, and still signaled to those looking to back the winner that Banks was the man.
Oh, and lets not even go into the fact that Banks would be a pretty terrible Mayor of Auckland. I’d rather have bloody Winston!!
Jake
To put it simply: John Banks, No thanks.
Not that I really want to admit to reading Kiwiblog, but there’s an interesting comment from DPF on discussion about the Super City at the National Party Northern Region Conference: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/06/nationals_northern_regional_conference.html
Sounds like half the message is getting through. Now, about those at large councillors.
WTF!! The Prime Minister supporting John Banks? What a moron! Mind you he’s probably doing it so National with Bank’s help can win the party vote in Auckland in 2011.
Of all the people Key should have endorsed, he should have endorsed a Maori to win back support from Auckland Maori, and a Maori candidate as Mayor would be good to rub it into that a-hole from Epsom who ignored pleas to have Maori council seats.
That’s the other thing. Why have National’s at least 6 (I think) Maori MPs done nothing to repeal no Maori council seats? You’d think, being Maori, they would have a conscience. But like their non-Maori counterparts, the Nat Maori are just happy to be “yes sir” to this kind of crap!
I would have thought John Banks would be the one worried about being endorsed by the government. Voting for him will now be seen as endorsing the takeover of local government by Wellington, something Aucklanders definitely would not endorse.
Did you see the poll results last week that indicated that 70% of Aucklanders felt there was not enough consultation? Further, the areas of Auckland that oppose the super city are actually the National voting areas. I suspect turn out in these National voting areas (mainly rural and semi-rural) will be very low.
I also suspect this issue will strongly affect the votes in the Mt Albert by election next week.
Keep up the good work, we may eventually get a half decent model yet.
@ TopCat
Good point. It may end up being the endorsement Banks will wish he’d never had. When the Business Council poll came out last week (the one you mention) Rodney Hide told Morning Report he thought that support would grow as the process rolled on. A forlorn hope I would have thought. Opposition seems to have been growing as “the process” has gone on.
Are you sure it was an endorsement? And not a term of praise, coupled with a topical joke? I can’t find a copy of the speech, but I’m withholding judgement on this claim until I’ve seen one. I suspect RNZ have jumped the gun.
We all new Key had very little actual management or Political experience.
The media did every thing they could to prop him up during the election campaign, Manly by not questioning any deeper than the PR lines that National ran and continuing the line what a great bloke he is, so relaxed and easy to talk to.
His ability to make good decisions and understanding of process whether it is democratic process or Natural justice was never questioned.
Of coarse his contract with the PR firm is over now, he is on his own! His endorsement of Banks is so stupid its hard to believe, he obviously just couldn’t keep the cat in the bag.
I think Key has done this because he thought it would please the National voters. What he does not understand is his election result is not his support base.Making decisions on National Radio about who you will meet or not meet is a great example of his inexperience!
Taking the people with you as you start changing things that effect their lives is a whole lot different to running a PR campaign. That is of coarse the true difficulty of Governance.
On the other hand Labour is pretty good at actually governing however our message/image was less than inspiring certainly in the later part of our time in Government.Hence we lost the election.
Can I suggest that when it comes to the Super city our message needs to be easy to understand and be backed up with good visuals.
The interesting thing is that opposition to the Super City is strongest in parts of Auckland that also support National particularly strongly. If you check out this poll on the popularity of the reforms, opposition is strongest in Waitakere, Franklin, Rodney and Papakura. The last three, in particular, are all VERY strong National voting areas.
National knows they have a LOT of potential lost votes if they annoy their heartland too much, hence the frantic back-pedalling over the powerlessness of the local boards in recent days.
I agree that it was inappropriate for John Key to say what he did, but didn’t he just say what we all knew anyway?
Key’s office apparently furious about this story, saying it is a complete beat up. It is worth noting that Banks himself acknowledged the “endorsement” on Radio NZ yesterday morning. And here C&R councillor Aaron Bhatnagar clearly thinks Key announced his support for Banks’ bid for the super mayoralty: http://aucklandblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/banks-gets-john-keys-backing.html
Thanks for the details. I’m now leaning toward “it was a silly thing to say, John Banks is a moron, and Aaron Bhatanger is a hyperpartisan for Banks.”
If the legislation was finalised then this wouldn’t be such an issue – as of course we all know that National would back John Banks, heck he used to be a National MP.
The issue is that the legislation isn’t finalised, and parts of it – in particular the at large councillors – is a very political issue where if they’re retained they will undoubtedly benefit the centre-right, whether that’s in the form of Banks, C&R or whoever.
This gives off the very public impression that National/Act are putting together Auckland’s local government structure in a way that will help their mates, not in a way that is necessarily in the best interests of Auckland.
Precisely correct. I mean, even if there’s no sinister plot—and my partisan blinkers mean I can’t see one—this kind of nonsense gives the appearance of impropriety, which has all the disadvantages of impropriety, but none of the advantages.