For the first time in decades we have someone standing as an official Labour candidate to be Mayor of Wellington. This is very significant as there is a huge difference between someone standing as an independent (who is a party member) and someone standing as an official Labour candidate to be Mayor.
There are two rules in the Labour Party constitution that people should be aware of. The first is 110d:
I will faithfully observe the Constitution and policy of the Party and the policy of the Party
This means that a Labour Mayor will be constitutionally obliged to vote in accordance with Labour Party policy, regardless of the individual circumstances before Council.
But that isn’t the major problem It is 110e:
If elected, I will vote on all questions in accordance with the decisions of the Caucus of the ticket
Caucus in this case means the members of WCC who are Labour candidates. There are currently two Labour Councillors and could well be two again.
So what this means is that the two Labour Crs and the Mayor (if he is elected) will caucus on every issue and the Mayor would be bound by those decisions. Regardless of his personal views on an issue, he will be constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the decisions of his two colleagues.
This is why I could never support a Labour candidate for Mayor. They will be constitutionally unable to be a Mayor for Wellington, able to decide issues on their merits. They will be bound by the decisions of their colleagues.
People should be aware of the dangers in voting for a Labour candidate for Mayor. You will be getting someone bound to vote as their party colleagues decide, not following their conscience.