Posted by BE on September 27th, 2010
Confused about you should vote for as Mayor of the new Super City? Well, Family First has come to your rescue with the results of a simple questionnaire to the leading candidates, published in a full-page ad in today’s Herald. The results make it absolutely clear that there really is no other possible option for upright and decent citizens to choose than the current North Shore Mayor, Andrew Williams. Let me explain why:
John Banks, Len Brown, Andrew Williams, Colin Craig and Simon Prast were given 10 questions to answer. They could respond to the questions in one of three ways: Yes, Not Sure/Maybe or No. If they answered Yes, they got a white smiley face; if they answered Not Sure/Maybe, they got (appropriately) a grey, neutral face; If they answered No, they got a black, scowly face.
Here are the 10 questions:
*AFFORDABLE HOUSING Will you take the lead to amend zoning restrictions to free up land so as to lower costs of housing for first-home buyers?
*ALCOHOL OUTLETS Will you introduce bylaws and lobby for the restriction of alcohol outlets in residential areas and reduce the number of licences issued and trading hours?
*BILLBOARDS Will you introduce bylaws and lobby for G-rated public billboards with a pre-vetting system?
*BROTHELS Will you introduce and lobby for bylaws restricting brothels in residential areas and close to sensitive sites such as schools, kindergartens, playgrounds and shopping areas frequented by families and children?
*FACILITIES FOR FAMILY EVENTS Will you introduce a bylaw preventing the hireage and use of Council owned buildings and facilities for R-rated events?
*GST ON RATES Will you campaign for parliament to remove GST on rates?
*LOAN SHARKS Will you lobby the government for greater regulation of loan sharks – especially those targeting lower socio-economic areas – including capped interest rates and registration?
*POKIES Will you introduce and lobby for a reducing lid policy on pokie machines, especially in low socio-economic areas?
*PUBLIC NUDITY/MARCHES Will you lobby the government to clarify offensive behaviour under the Crimes Act in order to prevent parades involving nudity and/or offensive behaviour eg boobs on bikes, beach nudity?
*STREET PROSTITUTION Will you introduce and lobby for bylaws to ban street prostitution?
Now to try to work out who came out best, I’ve given three points for each smiley face, two for each neutral face and one for each scowly face.
And the results – from worst to best, so as to create maximum tension – are:
Simon Prast (15)
Len Brown (21)
John Banks (25)
Colin Craig (27)
And (Drum Roll Please) ………………………………………………………………
Andrew Williams (29)
Congratulations Andrew. From this we can conclude that you are the candidate who most represents Aucklanders’ family values. You got nine smiley faces out of ten.
As for you, Simon Prast, with no smiley faces and five scowly faces, I can only assume that you are evil incarnate.
Mr Prast was also the least decisive candidate with five Not Sure/Maybe neutral faces, closely followed by Len Brown and John Banks with three each.
Len Brown had three scowly faces and John Banks one.
Well, it really couldn’t be easier, could it? Who wants an indecisive, scowly faced person running the Super City? It’s Williams by a country mile, with Craig as his deputy.
Now if you want to learn more – and I’m sure you do – you’ll want to go to www.valueyourvote.org.nz. They’ve got nice pictures of the candidates there too.
[this post authorised by family first new Zealand]
You guys really do need “The Naked Pie Man” for your mayor…
Williams was the only one crazy enough to agree to the “Facilities for Family Events” proposition, which would deprive The Edge (and Auckland) of half its shows, would unreasonably restrict the use of community facilities, and is an an all-round insane idea.
Lord knows what he might have been thinking.
Lord knows what he might have been thinking.
Or something that rhymes?
I hugely enjoyed your analysis of the Family First Survey.
All the best to you and Judy
Given his score I assume Simon Prast also favours satanic rituals at St Matthews in the City.
The obvious question was missed; “will you install more lamp posts around the city?”
Oh, the irony – Family First and Andrew Williams. I would have thought Bob McKoskrie would have been the first to denounce Andrew Williams for his alleged misdeads. Perhaps Andrew was quizzed about his preferences for the Super City after a long lunch at a Takapuna eatery.
Go Simon, you have my vote, contrary to what these idiots with their heads in the sand say.
Are you (family first) the same crowd that wanted to ban the horror movie, Wound, before you had even seen it.
I for one, would refuse to bring my children up in the totalitarianistic regime that you want.If you want people to respect your views, respect other peoples’.
Jill, “alleged misdeads”? “Allegedly” Andrew had a few drinks with friends, sprinkled holy water on a tree and went home to his family. I’m sure Bob’s done similar in his time.
Andrew didn’t slap his own head, attend dodgy dinners for Opera singers or anything.
In looking at each candidate’s responses to the questions on the website (www.valueyourvote.org.nz) I notice that only Len Brown and Andrews Williams have sort to provide detailed answers and/or policy in explanation of their chosen stance on the various topics.
Putting aside ones individual or personal view of the merits of each candidate, I suggest that scores should be based upon the quality of the contribution and in making an effort to engage with the questions on policy and ideas rather than just scoring an easy victory by stating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with no further explanation.
The aim seems to be to evaluate the candidates based upon their personal views or policy positions on each question. This is a fatally flawed exercise. How can you score top points for your policy position by not providing any discernable policy on which to assess if a candidate’s stated position is either viable or achievable?
Therefore, a new assessment based upon the criteria of participation and policy contribution could be interpreted as:
1. Len Brown
2. Andrew Williams
3. Simon Prast
4. Colin Craig
5. John Banks
“Amend zoning restrictions to free up land”… would this be the same as “let developers loose on land zoned for other uses such as reserves….”
Surely the answers provided by Andrew Williams to the below two questions would rule him out altogether would they not? I’ve a sneaking suspicion that if we were in fact privy to how Williams answered these points, it would clearly show the ‘poll’ for the farce it is.
‘… preventing the hireage and use of Council owned buildings and facilities for R-rated events?
AND LOOSE HIS ‘MAYORAL URINARY RELIEF ACCESS’ TO HIS FAVOUR COUNCIL GARDENS TREE? I THINK NOT.
‘… offensive behaviour under the Crimes Act in order to prevent parades involving nudity and/or offensive behaviour…?
AND LOOSE HIS ABILITY TO FLOP OUT THE ‘MINI-MAJOR’ WHEN EVER HE SO WISHES TO SEEK THE ABOVE MENTIONED ‘RELIEF’? I THINK NOT AGAIN
I found that ad very very helpful.
Perhaps not in the way family first had hoped.
Not that there was a mosquitos chance in a storm of me ever voting for Andrew Williams, that ad sealed the deal for me!
It also made me look again (in a positive way) at Simon Prast, although his general ignorance on our NZ drug issues ruled him out for me.