It could be called ‘pandering’. According the Cambridge Dictionary: to do or provide exactly what a person or group wants, especially when it is not acceptable, reasonable or approved of, usually in order to get some personal advantage.
I’ve just re-read dozens of the candidate’s replies to this question BayBuzz put to all candidates for our local councils:
Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?
The replies fall into several buckets.
Firm NO’s
This is actually the courageous majority of candidates. Many of these, but not all, are current incumbents, who point out the many faults and fishhooks in such a blunt measure, as well as the need to rethink the broader local government funding approach.
Reluctant If’s
These are candidates trying to straddle the fence – rates caps might be OK if they provide for various exemptions or exclusions, mechanisms to suspend, alternative central government funding, other loopholes. Really, these are candidates who actually don’t want caps but lack the courage to just say so.
Wafflers
A few candidates who express concern about rates, but never actually commit on the matter of rate caps either way.
Firm YES’s
These are candidates who truly see rate caps as the magic wand that will rescue HB ratepayers from rates hell. I haven’t spotted any HDC or NCC incumbents in this relatively small band.
Some voters would say that’s exactly the problem! But the reality is that incumbents have had to deal with the realities of disaster recovery, past infrastructure neglect, and the inflating costs of funding core functions (the public expects). Candidates in the ‘Firm Yes’ bucket are clueless. They’re selling false hope … pandering. None would get my vote.
All candidates of course talk about rates restraints, promising reviews, focusing on ‘core’ spending and the like. The most draconian of these insist that it would or should be possible (without caps) to limit rate increases to household inflation levels. In my opinion, they are also selling false hope. I’d avoid them too.
Without doubt, savings can and should be found in every council budget, but these will never suffice to deliver the ‘Holy Grail’ of rate increases equal to household inflation. That would require far more systemic change – driven by central government – in how local government is funded, as some of the more astute candidates have described.
For serious, informed candidates, the issue isn’t simply rates … those are only one piece of the local government funding conundrum. I’ve expanded in more depth on this here and here.
Of course you need to make your own judgment about how the candidates plan to address the important rates issue. To make that easier we’ve compiled the responses of NCC and HDC candidates (because there are so many of them … hint, hint) on this one question into these two posts:
‘Best of class’ responses – Siiam Daniel, standing for HDC; Keith Price, standing for NCC.
Pandering defined as gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste). Exactly what the current Mayors are doing to local iwi. We give them enough. October is nearly here! Bye bye Sandra and Kirsten. Woo hoo (Song2)!
I’ll be very slightly off topic, but I strongly feel that councils ought to be considering bringing “works dept’s”, back in house, thus removing profit motives. For example, rather than contract some sort of infrastructure maintenance out to private firms like Downers or Fulton Hogan or alike, why not have their own inhouse works n maintenance teams. Thus, the profit motive is done away with.
I’m sure there are other aspects of council where a similar concept could be applied. Simply going back to the old ways. Public institutions like councils where once going training grounds for young people to learn skills, something the private sector is less enamoured with, so another advantage, so not totally just about costs savings either.
You want to swap out competitive tension for time wasting staff who have no oversight ?
Nicely surprised to hear your categorisation Tom. Can’t understand why those candidates who seem to promote that they can ‘fix’ rate increases without addressing the realities
AMALGAMATION. amalgamation amalgamation ! It should have been the referendum for this years election ! Why do we have to wait ANOTHER 3 years ?
Yes false hope is re-electing current councillors for Mayor.
If they had a detailed plan or fresh ideas to lower rates they would have already done it whilst in Council.
They didn’t and rates rose 15% in Hastings accordingly.
Only 1 canditate has proven ideas that keep rates down and thats my 4 point plan.
Restructure council remove fluff roles will save 10million once we drop staffing back to pre 2022 levels. Along with cutting waste and moving loss making assets into trusts.
Tell me how that “proven idea” of yours to build an apartment building on a gifted reserve above the library was going to work? Don’t you think if there was money in apartments then a developer would be doing it?