Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsOctober 24, 2022

Your local board is currently a hive of deal-making and politicking

Image: Archi Banal
Image: Archi Banal

This week in Auckland, the inaugural meetings of the city’s local boards will take place. Former member Shirin Brown shares a glimpse into what’s been going on in the background.

This month’s local elections have brought in a raft of newly elected members to councils and boards of all sizes. In Auckland, 36% of local board members are new.

This period between the declaration of the final election results and the inauguration of elected members is known as the interregnum period. In Tāmaki Makaurau it involves inductions and meetings including presentations by council controlled organisations (such as AT and Watercare) and council heads of department. It is also a time for new board members to try valiantly to get up to speed with processes that can seem remarkably unintuitive such as standing orders and committee structures, and details like who their go-to people are within council.

There is also a raft of quasi-Orwellian terminology to contend with. For local boards these include the “democracy advisor”, who ensures that what you say or do is consistent with legislation and procedures; the “relationship manager”, who mediates your relationship with the policy arms of Auckland Council; and the “strategic broker”, who helps progress local initiatives within communities. Alongside these are a pile of passwords, access keys and software that need to be grappled with to ensure that elected members can access the information they need.

Then there is the negotiation of roles, which can be a minefield, particularly for new candidates. Local board members elect the chair, and while the community might feel this right and responsibility should belong to the highest polling candidate, that may not be how it turns out. That candidate may not want the role, or the ambition of other members may trounce their aspirations. This is where having relationships with other board members and being an astute negotiator can lead to sometimes surprising results.

A local board chair is considered a full-time role and is paid twice as much as elected members. For some members it is the salary that makes this such a contested role, while for others it is the power that comes with being a spokesperson and advocate for the local board, both internally within council and externally with other organisations and the public.

‘Become a member and help us keep local, independent journalism thriving.’
Alice Neville
— Deputy editor

Those who are not seeking to be the chair themselves, or would be unlikely to get the support for the role if they tried, can still be kingmakers. They may have their own aspirations, including to the deputy chair role, and can use their influence to move the board in the direction they desire. Members who are in a minority or whose vote is unnecessary to the final outcome, on the other hand, can find their phone deafeningly silent. For those who do have sway, it pays to listen, not over-promise and have some integrity as alliances change rapidly and different offers are made.

In Auckland the inaugural meetings, where chairs and deputy chairs are elected, occur in the week starting October 26 and are open to the public (a schedule is here). In the best-case scenario, differences have already been ironed out and compromises have been reached that will put the board in a good position to work together over the next three years. In the worst-case scenario, agreements reached before the meeting are overturned due last minute lobbying, people who have appeared to back one candidate for chair suddenly withdraw support, dominant tickets show disregard for minority groups or members, and blood is left on the tiles when the meeting draws to a close.

While much of the deal-making happens away from public view, the inaugural board meeting provides a glimpse of what your elected members look like and how they behave. Given that trust and collaboration are essential qualities in good working relationships, it’s always interesting to see how this first meeting unfolds. It’s also an opportunity to connect with others in the community over a cup of tea, see a local performance group, and watch who have taken the trouble to say the oath in both Māori and English.

Details of the 2022 Auckland local board inaugural meetings, which are open to the public, are here.

Shirin Brown was a member of the Waiheke local board from 2013-2019 and is currently undertaking a PhD in local government, focusing on the experience of local board members within Auckland Council.

Keep going!
Former UK prime minister Liz Truss at a press conference on October 14, 2022, following the sacking of her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. (Photo: DANIEL LEAL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Former UK prime minister Liz Truss at a press conference on October 14, 2022, following the sacking of her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. (Photo: DANIEL LEAL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsOctober 23, 2022

There’s something wrong with British politics. It’s called the Conservative Party

Former UK prime minister Liz Truss at a press conference on October 14, 2022, following the sacking of her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. (Photo: DANIEL LEAL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Former UK prime minister Liz Truss at a press conference on October 14, 2022, following the sacking of her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. (Photo: DANIEL LEAL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The party of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and endless infighting only has itself to blame for this mess, writes Ben Wellings.

The current turmoil in British politics needs to be understood not just as a response to Liz Truss’s short time as prime minister, but as the result of problems within the governing Conservative Party since it came to power in 2010.

The Conservative Party is a group of about 180,000 people who tend to be wealthier and older than the average UK citizen. It was this group, more than Truss’s fellow MPs, who chose her as leader of the Conservative Party. It was also this group that endorsed the policies she tried to impose on the country, causing outcry from the populace and the markets.

This method of selecting the leader of the party needs to be changed. The current method was designed when the Conservatives were last in opposition (1997-2010). This means it was unwittingly designed for changes of leader while out of government.

Choosing the leader of the Conservative Party is strictly speaking a matter for the Conservative Party. This is fine when in opposition. When in government, a change of leader means a change of prime minister. This narrow franchise weakens the legitimacy of whoever becomes the new prime minister among the wider UK electorate.

Too much emphasis on leaders

The Conservative Party has also given itself up to an over-emphasis on leaders. This is part of the spirit of the times. But it is also the case that the prime minister is no longer “first amongst equals”. Instead, he or she plays an increasingly important part in why people vote for a particular party.

The Conservatives supported Boris Johnson because he promised to “get Brexit done”. However, the 80-seat majority he won in 2019 gave the impression that the electorate was voting for a leader (Johnson) rather than a party (the Conservatives).

But if this new support was about Johnson and Brexit, rather than a more permanent switch to the Conservatives, it also meant it could not be counted on thereafter. This helps explain the urgency to oust Johnson and the poor reception for Truss’s policies.

Johnson’s new pro-Brexit supporters did not have the same political instincts as most Conservatives. This group of voters likes it when the government intervenes. They liked Johnson when he promised to spend money and address persistent inequalities between northern and southern England – inequalities exacerbated by the actions of Margaret Thatcher’s governments of the 1980s.

So, when he was replaced by Truss, who models herself on Thatcher, the support rapidly evaporated in the north, where memories of the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike persist. In the leafy suburbs of the south, normally rock-solid Conservative voters have seen their mortgage payments and energy bills rise as a result of Truss’s “small state” ideology. They are not amused, and were already drifting away from the Tories as byelections held this year suggest.

The Conservative Party’s travails may be traced back to Boris Johnson and Brexit. (Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

No new ideas

Perhaps we should not expect a self-described conservative party to have many new ideas (after all, that’s the point). But the poverty of thinking among its leaders stands out. Brexit had a nostalgic element to it. The Truss-Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget was more 1980s than Stranger Things. Even the markets couldn’t take the retro infatuation with trickle-down economics.

The Conservatives are stuck in a place where all their ideas are from Britain’s past. In the Conservative Party mindset, the past does not operate as a helpful guide for the future, but as a point of destination. It is a security blanket in the chaos of their own making.

They show no sign of learning from all of this. The instinct of new Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is to return not to the 1980s, but to the 2010s. If you don’t like trickle-down economics, you can have austerity instead.

Austerity is where the current Conservative Party began its time in office back in 2010. Back then, David Cameron promised to address what he called “Broken Britain”. Little did electors realise this was more predictive than descriptive. Cuts to public services punished the worst off while the government claimed “we are all in this together” (in the way that everyone may be on an A380, but some people are in business class).

If that’s a no to 1980s trickle-down economics, how about some 2010s David Cameron-style austerity instead? (Photo: Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

Admittedly, it has been hard to predict the mood of British voters. Brexit, another product of internal Conservative division and poor party management, bent political loyalties among the electorate out of usual shape. It was this voter volatility that led Theresa May to call an election in 2017 and lost the Conservatives a healthy majority, even though its vote share went up. This was the greatest miscalculation in British politics since as far back as the previous year, when David Cameron lost the Brexit referendum.

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder

All of these problems are in some ways internal to the Conservative Party. Voters angered by austerity turned to the right-wing populist party UKIP, forcing Cameron to call a referendum on EU membership. To try to quell the low politics of the militant pro-Brexit wing of the Conservative party, Cameron gambled with the high politics of the UK’s membership of the EU, and lost.

To realise all the illusive and illusionary opportunities that Brexit should in theory create, its most ardent supporters latched onto Johnson to bring down May. Johnson created the parliamentary deadlock of Brexit and then appeared to solve this self-inflicted wound with an election victory built on shifting sands.

However, he soon became embroiled in scandal after scandal, and his behaviour was finally too much even for the vulnerable MPs in “red wall” seats to stomach. Then, just when MPs thought it was safe to go back to their constituencies, Truss damaged already weakening support in the “blue wall” seats in southern England with the mini-budget: perhaps the most spectacular own-goal since Jamie Pollock scored against Manchester City in 1998.

Most Conservatives thought Truss should resign, which she finally did this week. Yet in a final fling of nostalgia – and harking back to the glory days of the first half of 2022 – their favoured candidate to replace her is Boris Johnson.

The Conservatives have lost sight of where their interests and those of the country depart. By falling back on old certitudes that are no longer fit for purpose, they are behaving like a party that is already in opposition

Ben Wellings is senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.


Follow our politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.