Rudman's city: Three-way split makes for intriguing mayoral battle

By BRIAN RUDMAN

John Banks is one of those cartoon characters you are happy to see as Mayor of Queenstown or some other faraway town - it gives you the chance to smirk at the yokels' misfortune and think superior thoughts.

But the thought of him heading your own city, well that is a truly scary concept - to say nothing of rather embarrassing to explain away to out-of-towners just waiting for a chance to smirk back.

It was such a scary and embarrassing concept for Auckland City's left-wing mayoral hopeful, Deputy Mayor Bruce Hucker, that he abandoned the race entirely and has taken to the hills, leaving two former National Party ministers to scrap it out over the chains of office.

However, all is not lost for those of us pining for a decent fight - and a modicum of choice. Reluctant debutante Alliance president Matt McCarten has jumped into the ring declaring people need a better choice than "two millionaires who don't know what to do in their day time".

Mr McCarten is a first-timer when it comes to standing for political office. He did it only after his efforts to persuade Dr Hucker failed. But political novice he is not, as his opening broadside shows.

In the 1980s he was the guerrilla fighter who eventually drove Mad Dog Rogernome Richard Prebble from his Auckland Central electorate. He's also the backroom operator who stitched the Alliance together, and has kept it alive and kicking for nearly a decade.

Like Mr McCarten, I find City Vision's decision not to endorse Dr Hucker as mayoral candidate a wimp-out. Surely the city's centre-left voters are entitled to the choice of a mayoral candidate to go with the Labour-Alliance group's council ticket?

To give him his due, Dr Hucker thought the same. He lobbied long and hard to persuade his City Vision colleagues to back him. But despite the antipathy many of them have developed towards incumbent mayor Christine Fletcher, they refused.

The cost of a mayoral race was one issue. But the main stumbling block was the fear that Dr Hucker might take votes from Mrs Fletcher and enable the scary Tory, Mr Banks, to slip to the top of the polls. To them, the Tory you know is better than the one you don't.

The possible permutations of a three-way race hadn't escaped Mr Banks either. From his regular opinion polling, he had come to the same conclusion as Dr Hucker's colleagues - that he could win if Dr Hucker stood.

A couple of weeks ago, in a move worthy of Machiavelli, he secretly forwarded his latest opinion polling data to Dr Hucker. His motive was to whet Dr Hucker's appetite for the race ahead. It worked. The figures showed the big three contenders were only 10 points apart, with Mrs Fletcher in front followed by Mr Banks then Dr Hucker.

For Dr Hucker there was the possibility that true believers would abandon the mayor's wishy-washy liberalism and flock back to him. This was Mr Banks' dream too.

The only risk for Mr Banks was that the mayor's vote would collapse too much in favour of Dr Hucker, giving him the victory instead. It was a gamble Mr Banks was willing to take. However, the cautious university lecturer and his equally cautious cohorts were not.

Who would have won? We have to go back to 1980 for a precedent.

Then Labour councillor Cath Tizard and businessman Colin Kay took on longtime incumbent mayor Sir Dove-Myer Robinson. In a turnout of just 36 per cent, Mr Kay won with 36 per cent of votes to Robbie's 31.7 per cent and the now Dame Cath's 31.3 per cent.

Dame Cath's chance came three years later, when the right offered up three candidates. With 33.8 per cent, she polled little better than in 1980, but with the Tories split, she sailed through the middle with a 3000 majority over incumbent Mr Kay.

It was the electoral fluke that Dr Hucker, on a good day, could see being repeated. His colleagues did not.

We are left with the engaging Mr McCarten as off-course substitute, which means that at least voters will now get the choice City Vision has denied them.

To Mr McCarten there is little difference between a "dull" Tory and a "scary" one. He also argues the fear of Mr Banks' appeal is overdone.

"None of the centre-left is going to vote for him. Banks has such a negative factor, he wouldn't have been able to break a certain level of votes."

In two months' time we'll know if he's right. But for now the battle has become a lot more interesting.