KEY POINTS:
Persuading a political leader his use-by-date has arrived can be a messy business for the followers, particularly when he's gone rogue and become convinced of his own infallibility.
But if the dominant City Vision bloc on Auckland City Council wants to survive the coming election, it's going to have to put poor old Bruce Hucker out of his misery once and for all.
Ten days ago, his colleagues sacked him as party leader because of his intransigence over water charges.
But they couldn't bring themselves to deliver the coup de grace and strip him of the deputy mayoralty as well.
The urban lefties misguidedly thought they could fell a rampaging bull elephant with a pea-shooter.
Yesterday Dr Hucker repaid his team's soft-heartedness by dumping all over its new water policy before the ink had even dried.
He declared that the existing council policy, which his team now rejects, was "extremely prudent and extremely sensible".
This came hours after the team's newly appointed co-leaders, Richard Northey and Vern Walsh, had apologised for the old policy saying it was "not financially sustainable or fair for households."
City Vision has enough making-up to do with voters without having to try and explain away Dr Hucker's disruptive noises as well.
My advice: It's time for the big-bore elephant gun.
The only thing going for City Vision is that the council's conservative rump is just as wedded to the old policy as is Dr Hucker - and Mayor Dick Hubbard.
There are two issues here. First is Dr Hucker's inglorious leave-taking from the political stage. After 21 years on the council, much of that time as the solitary left-wing conscience at the table, his refusal to accept the majority policy decisions of his teammates might be understandable. But it is disappointing regardless. And undemocratic.
How Aucklanders pay for the reticulation and disposal of water is shaping up to be a major issue at the October local body elections.
Dr Hucker's teammates have now come up with a policy which promises to separate stormwater disposal charges from drinking water bills, and not to ramp up drinking water bills to pay for other council activities.
But while former team leader Bruce Hucker refuses to back this new policy, why should voters believe any change of heart has occurred?
Politics is a team sport. If Dr Hucker wants to play for the other side, his teammates should reclaim their jersey and let him play by himself - or with the conservatives.
But what the Auckland city politicians are scrapping about is merely tinkering with the problems of Auckland water.
Over the next couple of decades, several billions of dollars will have to be spent on improvements on networks for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.
But in contrast to public transport and roading, we're trying to tackle water piecemeal instead of regionally.
We have seven territorial councils, each with a water company of some sort, plus Watercare, which is a regional oddity, governed by a committee of council representatives - headed, as it happens, by Dr Hucker.
All of which is inefficient and wasteful and expensive.
So expensive, indeed, that as I pointed out not so long ago, a consultant report in 1995 estimated that integrating the region's water industry into one company would achieve annual operational efficiencies of about $13 million, less new annual costs of around $1 million.
If the reform had taken place then and there, Aucklanders would have saved somewhere in the region of $120 million. That would have paid for Project Hobson, the new underground replacement for the century old sewer now crossing Hobson Bay, and left us with change.
These are the issues Auckland politicians should be debating. Hopefully new faces will emerge in coming weeks to do just that.
