Len Brown will I think win the mayoralty, but by a slim margin.
Albany: Julia PARFITT and Andrew WILLIAMS. Parfitt has strong credentials andin such a large field of candidates should make it. Williams’s mayoral bid has fared disastrously, but his profile should see him win given the wide dispersal of votes. Former MP Brian NEESON is unlikely to beat either. Although this are has had significant new development and is generally affluent, noneof the other right-leaning candidates seems likely to get there.
Albert-Eden-Roskill: Cathy CASEY and Christine FLETCHER. Casey has performed well as a City Vision councillor,and should attract support from this area’s strong educated left-leaning population. Fletcher is a former Mayor and National Party Cabinet Minister, and is bound to romp in. None of the other candidates seem likely to succeed, although Incumbent councillor, Don Brash hagiographer and unsuccessful National party candidate Paul GOLDSMITH might have a show, but Casey should beat him.
Franklin: a close call between left-leaning Dianne GLENN and C&R candidate Des MORRISON. Common sense would suggest that C&R would win in this very “blue” area. But Glenn has a high profile as the area’s rep on the ARC, and has backing from the outgoing Mayor. Also, the Super City structure is very unpopular in this independent rural district. Pick GLENN by a nostril.
Howick: This is a very right-wing constituency, with a large Asian population, and to date high voter turnout. Act Party stalwart and some-time athlete Dick QUAX is a shoe-in. Another leading candidate is councillor Sharon STEWART, who is identified with a successful racist campaigbn to stop the ward being named Te Irirangi, as well as a rather popular and high-profile campaign gainst the erection of cellphone towers in the area. Also, youthful Quax C&R running mate Jami-Lee ROSS may well reach the finish line second after Quax.
Manukau: A very large and divers ward, spanning from Mangere Bridge through Otahuhu, Otara, Papatoetoe to Manukau City itself. Expect high-profile Otara coumncillor and former National MP Arthur ANAE to win. Gary TROUP has a good show and has been very active in Manukau after succeeding Su’a William Sio as Deputy Mayor of Manukau. His deputising for Len Brown should help him. Labour Party candidates Alf FILIPAINA and Efu KOKA may attract significant support from Pacific Islanders given their ethnicity and party affiliation. Filipaina is an incumbent councillor for Mangere and Koka for Otara. Filipaina has attracted more publicity than his Labour Party ticket-mate, and Mangere is more populous than Otara. Of the two he is the more likely to win. Brent MORRISSEY has ARC experience and wide knowledge of infrastructure issues, but after losing oout on the Labour nomination is unlikely to make it. Expect ANAE and either FILIPAINA or TROUP. Troup’s chances probably depend on whether he can mop up support from outside his local Papatoetoe and middle-class Pakeha. On balance, sheer numbers maight favour FILIPAINA.
Manurewa-Papakura. One to watch. Sir John WALKER is a local Manurewa boy and national sporting identity with extensive community and council experience. He should win. Geriatric long serving former Manukau Mayor Sir Barry CURTIS is long past his expiry date, and voters should remember his lacklustre record and conceited attitude in the later years of his mayoralty. He is from Bucklands Beach, and appears to be simply using Manurewa as a constituency to enable him to re-enter municipal politics. Obviously he thinks that he fares better here than in his own Howick ward! But in local elections name recognition is key, and after so many years as Mayor many voters are likely to tick his box through mere identification. Papakura Mayor Calum PENROSE fough the Super city proposal tooth-and-nail, and made heroic but unsuccessful efforts to keep Papakura as its own independent fiefdom. He is likely to receive signifiacnt support in the Ppakura half of the ward, and also has backing from important figures in Manurewa. Outside these three candidates no-one has a chance. WALKER should win, and I would say that Curtis’s opportunistic proclivities make it more likely than not that PENROSE should beat him to second place.
Maungakiekie-Tamaki. The Labour party is fielding councillor and former Onehunga MP Richard NORTHEY as a candiadte for this ward’s sole council seat. He should win. C&R are standing an energetic and articulate Maori, Alfred NGARO, but he won’t have the numbers in this generally working-class area. Mayoral contender and theatre director Simon PRAST has no show.
North Shore: An open rase. former Northcote and North Shore Deputy Mayor Ann HARTLEY will have solid support, but there are many candidates and only two seats. Evil right-wing moron, former WINZ chief, TV show panellist and ARC councillor Christine RANKIN, unfortunately, may pick up a lot of support from the large cluster of wealthy white voters in parts of this area. On the other hand, former MP and current councillor Grant GILLON is well-known and active in the area as a left-leaning candidate, and although former North Shore Mayor George WOOD was ousted last time, he should retain strong local support after his time at the Shore’s helm. He is also the only candidate standing on the right-wing but well-recognised C&R ticket. From the left comes ARC transport committee chair, tireless envoronmental gladiator and public transport activist Joel CAYFORD. Most likely RANKIN and WOOD will make it, although one of these could lose out in favour of CAYFORD, GILLON, or HARTLEY.
Orakei. Grey and boring C&R council veteran should be ousted by lively Newmarket Business association chair and National Party activist Cameron BREWER in this wealthy blue-ribbon area. the third candidate, architect and monorail advocate Hugh CHAPMAN has not a chance.
Rodney. Like Franklin residents, the people of Rodney have militated strongly against having their unique rural district swallowed up by the single council. Rodney Mayor and former Act MP Penny WEBSTER has led the charge vocally, and should win in this well-heeled area. But the district ARC rep, environmentalist Christine ROSE, poses a credible challenge to Webster from the left. Either could win, but I’m picking WEBSTER.
Waitakere. The West should elect well-known ARC councillor and journalist Sandra CONEY. Will her running mate and long-serving ARC colleague Paul WALBRAN likewise make it? Probably, given that C&R candidates, former National Cabinet minister and Waitakere councillor Marie HASLER and local National Party campaign manager Mark BRICKELL face competition from businesswoman Vanessa NEESON and a host of others. Hasler could make it, but I’m picking CONEY and WALBRAN.
Waitemata. The core of the city. After C&R candidate and Chamber of Commerce head Michael barnett dipped ourt after being diagnosed with cancer, the right is divided between C&R-endorsed Heart of the City chief Alex SWNEY and businessman Tenby POWELL. There has been dissent within C&R over the ticket’s choice to endorse Swney over Powell. But ARC chief and long-time transport campaigner and all-round centre-left icon Mike LEE would have a good show even without the split on the right, and now is assured of victory. Rob THOMAS is a young greeniw who has fronted a vigorous campaign, but he will have to settle for a seat on the local board.
Whau. An economically, culturally and geographically diverse community with no real common “hub”. C&R Councillor Noelene RAFFILLS, widow of the late hard-right but oddly respected Avondale College principal Phil, faces no serious competition. Ross CLOW should come a distant second.
I’ve found something really astonishing in a 1922 issue of the Auckland Star. On Wednesday, March 22, 1922, at Auckland, Justice Alexander Herdman, a senior Freemason and former Attorney-General who (in)famously as Attorney appointed himself to the bench of the Supreme Court sentenced a Whangarei man on a charge of incest which related to a “most disgusting” sexual act he evidently had admitted engaging in with his sister.
Justice Herdman meted out to the prisoner in the dock, Hohepa Tanu Pomare, a six month prison sentence including hard labour. Sounds a bit light, especially for the times and given the ostensible depravity of the offending. But here is Justice Herdman’s account of how Pomare’s sentence was determined:
“If you were a European I would have given you a long sentence, but you are a Maori, and I suppose I must consider your peculiar ideas of morality. You will be imprisoned for six months with hard labour.”
WTF? By “your” “peculiar ideas of morality” His Honour clearly refers not to Mr Pomare’s own highly dubious moral values, but to those of Maori as a whole! He’s saying that the crime was abhorrent, but (in effect) the moral decadence and turpitude of Maori assuages his personal guilt. So much so as to qualify for him for a substantial discount on his sentence! Ninety years ago a judge could effectively treat Maori as so debased as a people that to Maori who commit incest are (far) less culpable than Pakeha who do the very same deeds!
Of course, despite the huge variation in mores across all cultures, incest taboos are universal. But to think that even given the backward attitudes ingrained in colonial minds at the time a judge could get away with this! It just beggars belief.
I have read the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry for Justice (later Sir) Alexander Herdman. No surprises there. A right-wing anti-unionist Freemason who despite his own mediocre legal background appointed himself to a cosy judicial post on retiring from politics, maintained a “tough-guy” stance on law and order issues….and saw Maori as sick and twisted savages who had such peculiar moral standards that their culpability for despicable sexual crimes was reduced….
What has changed? And what has stayed the same? (I leave for homework the connection between Freemasonry and Social Darwinism..)
Laziness
Most of us don’t or wouldn’t take too kindly to being called lazy, indolent,slothful, or idle. To label someone as such is to make a pretty serious accusation against him or her. It amounts to a charge that someone doesn’t pull their weight, and has no excuse for such inactivity or irresponsibility. At bottom, laziness involves taking from and relying on others without ‘doing one’s bit’. The lazy person takes advantage of the efforts of those around him. Taking advantage of someone for your own illegitimate benefit involves contempt for them as a person, using them for your own ends without consideration of their interests. This is why we take such a very dim view of the indolent.
Now, I want first of all to consider what could possibly make someone lazy or become possessed of a slothful attitude. I then want to consider whether there might be reasons for thinking that the individual who really is lazy (as opposed to having some inconspicuous psychological disorder which manifests itself as apathetic inactivity) is not ultimately responsible for his or her failure and unwillingness to “do her bit”.
Human beings are by our very nature productive, creative, and social beings. We have deep atavistic needs for fellowship and society with one another, and also basic immediate material needs: for sustenance, shelter etc. In human beings’ essential condition work is the project of fulfilling both our immediate physical needs and our broader social and cultural needs. With the former met and the latter unmet human beings suffer by their inherent creativity being reduced to a mere functionality. With the former unmet human beings simply perish. As social beings we depend on each other for mutual advancement, friendship, solidarity, and practical help. And ultimately this means that a) our social nature requires that we “lend a hand” to one another in going about our respective physical work; b) that we collaborate in those “broader sociocultural and intellectual endeavours and c) that we look out for one another at a basic emotional level. Each individual person depends totally on the support of others in each of these three respects; and failure to give in these ways as we ought involves taking from others and not giving back.
The idea that I wish to advance here is subversive in modern capitalistic society: the notion that in fact the individual who does this not only harms society around him but also harms himself directly. No man is an island; and an obstinate refusal to work, to support, and to collaborate demonstrates a blindness to what human beings require. The lazy person requires analgesic support by various recreational or pharmaceutical means. Inactivity is soul-destroying. Who would really want to spend ones life without having produced anything significant or made any lasting contribution to the world? Of course, such a contribution may not be rewarded by pecuniary remuneration. Late capitalism cons us into believing the blatant anthropological lie that production is about the acquisition of money/financial wealth. Human beings, as Marx recognised, thus become alienated from not only the fruits of their labour, but also from their active,creative, and productive “species essence”.
How perverse is it when a Prime Minister of a country can go on national television, as I saw Helen Clark do once here in New Zealand, and say that once Gross Domestic Product reaches appropriate high levels all parents will be able to “choose” to withdraw from the care of their small children and employ others to do this for them? Unpaid work raising children becomes seen as a form of inactivity! How utterly bizarre that human flourishing is seen just in terms of financial productivity. Ultimately all increases in financial profitability come from either increased use (depletion) of natural resources, more efficient use of those resources, or profit at the expense of some other individual, entity, nation, etc. The only ways that any entity, including a national entity, may increase its financial wealth without depleting scarce natural resources are by taking wealth from elsewhere (perhaps the “elsewhere” here is a “sector” of the economy- witness housing capital gains on the strength of capital flows into property at the expense of (e.g.) manufacturing), or by increasing the efficiency of production.
Efficiency is the most paradoxical of capitalism’s economic constructs. Efficiency means producing more for less, than by less is meant less cost; ultimately less labour cost. Efficiency is the production of more by fewer. It is the progressive redundancy of labour. It is the source of indolence. It is the mechanism by which labour and production become aimed at their obsolescence. It is the mechanism by which I am robbed of the satisfaction and fulfillment of my endeavours. Without this drive to increased consumption, production and efficiency, how could anyone not want to contribute to the work of the community around them? Such a person would be an anti-social creature and to that extent deserving of pity. Under today’s economic system, nothing is different except that the cause of laziness perhaps is to be found more in atomising and demoralising social structures than in an individual’s psychology, despite the fact that the laissez-faire individualism which condemns the unemployed and the “unproductive” as lazy thrives on the myth of the self as a self-enclosed subject. Herein lies another paradox. The source of inactivity in modern capitalism is large and structural; and yet that source is perpetuated by the myth that every man is an island.
I leave it to the reader, if there is such a creature, to apply this thesis to the debates surrounding social security and “individual responsibility”. But in closing I want to address one important objection to what I have been arguing: that competition is natural and healthy. It is innate to human beings. It has shaped our evolution.
All this is true and important. But true competition arises out of a contest in which the aim is the true flourishing of the individual, not of capitalism’s efficient creature. What is the true end for human beings is ultimate success in community, and thus genuine competition is aimed at the individual’s success in attaining the holistic ends proper to her individual nature and interests in right relation to others. To suggest that competition requires capitalistic individualism is to deceive oneself as to what is good for human beings.
I Suppose 