Those city wards: some fun with figures

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33141, 3 February 1973, Page 11

Those city wards: some fun with figures

by

G. A. POLLOCK

The controversy over the proposed ward boundaries has generated more heat than light, for I have yet to see a reasoned analysis of the probable effect on party voting strengths.

So, on the principle of “do it yourself,” I took pains to examine, booth by booth, the 1971 mayoral voting results, which may be taken as a reasonable indication of party support at that time. Admittedly, many booths straddle ward boundaries, but these I have apportioned, so they should average out. Here are the figures as I find them: West Ward (3 members) Guthrey .. 5156 Pickering .. 2889 North Ward (4 members) Guthrey .. 5533 Pickering .. 5108 Avon Ward (4 members) Guthrey .. 2498 Pickering .. 4773 East Ward (4 members) Guthrey .. 4471 Pickering . 5308 South Ward (4 members) Guthrey 3966 Pickering .. 5339 A moment’s examination clearly shows that the new system guarantees, in perpetuity, a built-in Labour majority on the Christchurch City Council of at least 12 to 7. Labour’s hold on Avon and South is unbreakable — as solid as Citizens’ in the West, while for Citizens to make any significant change in East they would need a swing of 4.3 per cent —not to be thought of in the present climate. Indeed, they are far more likely to lose North, which would involve a swing of but 2 per cent in the opposite direction.

Labour has shown the way in rallying partisan support; it is inevitable that party solidarity and party bitterness will be enhanced on both sides of the table. It is thus most unlikely that even in North or East the representation will ever be split. Party solidarity Clearly something is radically wrong with any system which, either to left or right, so drastically loads the odds. I have no doubt that the Labour councillors who settled the proposed boundaries did their duty as they saw it; but the alarming fact is that had they deliberately set out of gerrymander the electorate they could hardly have come up with a result more favourable to Labour. Indeed,it is hard to see how any other result is possible, however impartial the adjudicating body; the concentration of Citizens’ strength in the West and North and Labour’s in the South, East and Avon would require the wisdom of Solomon to devise a system fair to both sides. Amalgamation, if it comes, will complicate the problem rather than solve it. The inclusion of Waimairi, Riccarton and Heathcote, only slightly counterbalanced by Hornby and Lyttelton, could produce a result as unfair to Labour as the present scheme is to Citizens. Taking no risks Other consequences will be equally regrettable. In the past, certain councillors on both sides have displayed

such a degree of tolerance and vision as to cause many voters to cross the party lines; but under the new setup they will not even be allowed to try. Citizens could never afford to risk Messrs Skellerup or Hay in a forlorn quest for a seat in East, nor do I think Mr Macfarlane would care to chance his arm in North. In short, candidates as well as electors will be prisoners of parochialism and the party machine. Are we to have this in perpetuity—a cold war between haves and have-nots, with an iron curtain, say, down Quinns Road and Banks Avenue? A sad day for Christchurch if it comes to this; but as I see it, there are only two possible alternatives. One, frankly Utopian, is the complete banishment of national politics from municipal affairs. That surely must appeal to all who really love our city; but, alas, it is out of the question, at least in my lifetime. But if we must have wards, could not the rules be fair? Proportional representation, I know, has been tried before—on a city-wide basis, where it proved unbearably cumbersome; but applied to wards, with voting papers containing 10 names or fewer, it could provide a far more trustworthy indication of public opinion, without smothering the voters in confusion. So let the Labour majority put on its thinking cap again, and try to come up with a solution that will be simple, workable, but above all, just.