Here at City Vision Talk we have expressed some frustration at the strong media focus on the mayoral race at the expense of the more important overall balance of Council. Fundamentally, the best thing that Aucklanders who value public ownership of strategic assets, investment in our infrastructure, and better public transport can do is to vote for a City Vision led Council.
However Aucklanders do also have an important choice to make in deciding who will be Mayor. The Mayor has one important vote on Council, and acts as a nationally recognised voice and advocate for Auckland. The Mayor should be someone who has a positive vision and encapsulates all the things that are good about our city.
This writer had the opportunity of observing the two main candidates at close quarters at a candidate forum held at the Hillsborough Baptist Church a couple of weeks ago, during which my views about the respective merits of both candidates were confirmed.
The performance of John Banks was nothing short of a disgrace. Banks, who claims to have "transmogrified" sickeningly played up to the audience in a gross parody of a Christian preacher.
The first minute of his address was all about proving in the most craven tele-vangelist style that he was a Christian and should therefore be supported by Christian voters. Interstingly to this Christian he did not speak to any of the Bible's enduring themes of justice, concern for the sick and the poor, and love for all. Instead we were treated to a rant designed to whip the audience into a frenzy with frequent references to the "ho-mo-sexual" community, and repeated personal attacks on the mayor. Nowhere was there any positive vision for the city - just intolerant ranting and the same nasty and agressive approach rejected by Aucklanders three years ago.
Dick Hubbard was plainly upset by Bank's approach and veered slightly off track as a result. He did talk about his positive vision for a city that is greener and fairer, but sometimes became distracted by Bank's jibes. This more or less confirmed my view of Hubbard and his mayoralty - that while it has been far from perfect, he is basically a decent man who has positive plans for Auckland.
I personally disagree with Hubbard on a range of issues, from Metrowater to the Uniform Annual Charge. But given the choice on offer this election I will happily vote for his fallible decency over Bank's intolerant nastiness, and I encourage all other Aucklanders to do so too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Why not Coralie?
I held my nose and voted for Hubbard too. Realistically he is the only one who can keep Banks out. Hubbard will mostly go with whichever ticket wins majority control of the Council, so the Council race is actually more important than the mayoralty this time, as it looks so close. If Banks is mayor but there is a left-leaning council he will be a lame duck mayor, albeit very annoying and probably running off doing pet right-wing projects that then have to be scuppered by the rest of Council, meaning less ability to progress their own agenda (which will after all reflect the wishes of the electorate more than that of the Mayor).
It's likely that the Mayoral result will reflect the overall direction of the next council.
If Dick Hubbard wins, then City Vision and Labour plus Action Hobson and Independents will probably still hold a majority.
If Banks wins, then it's probable that the CitRats will win control of the city too.
I'm voting for Coralie!!
Can't bring myself to vote for Hubbard - he's just as bad as Banks.
I think that Coralie van Camp has some really strong points, and wouldn't be a bad Mayor.
However, there is a real-politik issue here. Auckland simply cannot afford another Banks Mayoralty - his abbraisive style, intolerance, and privatising instinct would be disastrous. Hubbard for all his faults is the only one who can stop this happening. A vote for Coralie risks letting Banks in.
I don't know Michael, that's like saying a vote for Action Hobson will let 1Auckland in.
Best just to vote for who you like, then nobody can accuse you of wasting your vote.
Obviously everyone has to make their own choices on these matters.
Strategic voting can be tough sometimes, but for me it's about looking at your own values and then considering the consequences of your vote. This year for me, that means voting Hubbard because that is the best chance of keeping Banks out. A Banks mayoralty will simply hurt too many people.
I've done my fair bit of idealistic voting in my time, hell I've even voted for the Alliance after 1999, but the mayoralty isn't like MMP - voting for your preference doesn't strengthen the whole team on that side of the political equation. The polls show it is Banks or Hubbard, and I'm voting accordingly.
Interestingly apparently John Hinchcliff promised to pull out if he was polling below 5%, which he is, yet he doesn't seem to have kept his word.
"Bugger the polls!" :)
If people voted with the polls, then it's the media, not us wj\ho have the final say.
What if there was no polling, someone like Coralie or another left-wing candidate could get 25% of the vote, and be a frontrunner in three years. But instead we are told it's a two horse race between Banks and Hubbard, so we vote that way and make it a reality.
Post a Comment