Written By: - Date published: 9:12 am, August 13th, 2016 - 4 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, C&R, elections, local body elections, local government, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: auckland future, Denise Krum
The nominations are in and the lists have been published. There are a couple of candidates whose applications I believe are still being processed but otherwise what we see is what we are going to get.
Auckland Future was National’s brave effort to maximise the use of brand Key and take over Auckland Council and at the same time weaken the strong bonds between Labour and Pasifeka. But it looks like it will end in tears.
For a start the intrepid managers of that organisation managed to nominate two Auckland Future candidates for the Council seat of Maungakiekie-Tamaki. I can only imagine Councillor Denise Krum’s response when she first heard this. I am sure she did not use very christian language at the time. From Radio New Zealand:
A nomination blunder in Auckland has pitted two candidates from the same party against each other in the race for a seat on the council.
Current Auckland Maungakiekie-Tamaki councillor Denise Krum is facing opposition from a man backed by her own backers.
Viliami Tiseli from the National Party-aligned Auckland Future group has been mistakenly nominated against the group’s sitting councillor Denise Krum in the single-seat Maungakiekie-Tamaki ward.
Auckland Future co-ordinator Sue Wood was unaware of the slip-up when contacted by RNZ shortly after publication of the candidate nominations last night, and was checking to see what had happened.
Mr Tiseli was meant to have been nominated for the second-tier local board.
Returning officer Dale Ofsoske said that once nominated, a candidate’s name must appear on the ballot paper and could not be withdrawn.
Labour’s Patrick Cummuskey must be grinning from ear to ear because he suddenly has a good chance of winning.
In Albert-Eden-Roskill Two C&R candidates and an Auckland Future candidate will jostle for two seats. This should mean that City Vision’s Cathy Casey is returned and Peter Haynes must have more than a slight chance of winning.
Local boards are no different. In Whau there are two distinct right wing groups, Auckland Future and Community First as well as a National Party Member campaigning under the title “Shadbolts Independent” and a Westwards candidate. And I understand that the vetting of one of the Auckland Future candidates may not have been as optimal as it should have been.
Future Auckland has reached out to some Pacific Leaders and offered them resources and local board slots as part of a strategy of maximising support for council campaigns and as part of an ongoing campaign of trying to weaken Pacific support for Labour. A disastrous campaign result may damage the strategy. Fingers crossed …
Update: Auckland Future is trying to blame Auckland Council. According to Radio New Zealand Auckland Future’s coordinator Sue Wood has said this:
This is an issue of staff competence, the person nominating is responsible for the forms they sign, they rely on the competence of the Manukau Service Centre staff, they cannot be disenfranchised.
“Viliami will not be standing as an Auckland Future candidate in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Ward. He was given the wrong forms to fill in by Manukau Service Centre staff, this is an issue of staff competence.”
Good luck with that. A nomination can be withdrawn but only up to the date that nominations close and this has already happened.
And any seasoned campaigner will tell you that you should never leave something as important as the filing of nomination forms up to chance. They need to be checked and rechecked and rechecked again. Mistakes will be made. But it is important that they are not the campaign ending sort.
The best Auckland Future can hope for I suspect is that Mr Tiseli’s affiliation of Auckland Future is withdrawn. Otherwise he may have a significant effect on this particular election in a way that was never anticipated.