The Labour Party plans to stand candidates for Dunedin City and the Otago Regional Councils at this year’s election:
. . .Labour representatives in Dunedin did not respond to Otago Daily Times requests for comment about their plans yesterday, but some city councillors expressed concern.
That included Cr Christine Garey, a first-term councillor and potential mayoral candidate, who believed there should be no place for party politics around the council table.
”I don’t believe they belong … I think it muddies the waters hugely.
”It shouldn’t be about party politics at grassroots level,” she said.. ..
Cr Jim O’Malley also opposed the development, saying party affiliations caused politically-aligned councillors to caucus before votes, and Labour’s move could encourage other parties to follow suit. . .
Local body representation is better served without party politics.
That is reinforced by this from Dunedin’s mayor:
Mr Cull said he had also heard ”murmurings” of Labour’s plans, but was not against them.
While such a move could create issues, if councillors were told how to vote by their party, the discipline imposed by a party could also be positive, especially if a party-affiliated councillor got ”completely out of order”.
”Independent candidates, as we know, are not answerable to anybody.”
Cull has had well publicised problems with at least one councillor.
If he thinks he needs party representation to help him with council discipline, he’s admitting to his own leadership failings.
But worse, he’s showing he doesn’t understand democracy.
Councillors should be answerable only to the people they represent, the voters who put them there.
The mayor thinking party membership would help if a councillor got out of order shows party-affiliated representatives would be answerable first to the party not the people.
That’s a compelling argument against party affiliation in local bodies.