1/ A word that makes me cringe when we debate the performance of the @WgtnCC, and local bodies generally, is "governance".

2/ We use the term as if can't bring ourselves to simply say 'government', unwilling to contend with the messiness of local democracy or, God forbid, politics.

3/ The corporate model, introduced in the 1989 reforms, has transformed elected members into institutional defenders – hands off governors with minimal decision making powers, all of which sit with unelected mandarins who see themselves as steering the waka.

4/ That's why, when they are caught in public sounding like – Shock! Horror! – politicians, councillors are cast as troublemakers or promoters of dysfunction. This is wrongheaded.

5/ When you're running a corporation with a clear and unambiguous objective – to protect value for shareholders – unity and "speaking with one voice" is clearly optimal.

6/ But, for democratic bodies responsible for distribution of ratepayer monies across a vast and complex array of competing interests, debate, discord, even disunity, isn't just acceptable; it's desirable.

7/ The problem isn't that local body politicians argue too much, it's that they don't have the power to match their responsibility.