In 2016, I was struck by how promising and personable Justin Lester, the Labour candidate for the mayoralty of Wellington City was. Looking into his background, I found the 38-year-old (in 2016) grew up in a state house with a mother on the DPB (heavily penalised by the Richardson-Shipley cuts of 1991). He had degrees in law and German including a law degree from the University of Heidelberg in Germany. Prior to entering local body politics six years earlier, he had business experience in commercial real estate.

Admittedly his promises looked extravagant. They included completing projects such as the film museum, the airport runway extension and a convention centre, plus smaller promises such as giving first-home builders a $5000 rates rebate, introducing free entry for children under five to council pools, removing the fees businesses pay to have outdoor dining on public land, and addressing the council's ‘ingrained sexism’. (None of his Think Big showed any progress over the last three years.)

Even so, I thought he looked as if he could be significant at the national level of Labour politics, especially because, at the time, the party was battling over leadership. A few terms as mayor followed by election to a seat in Parliament, and who knows?

His loss this year of the mayoralty he won in 2016 reduces – but does not eliminate – those prospects. This time he was challenged by a much stronger candidate, Andy Foster, who has belonged to both the National and NZ First parties. He is 17 years older than Lester and has had 27 years of councillor experience. (Come to think of it, one-term incumbency is a Labour tradition.)

There will be much discussion over why Lester lost. I doubt that there is the data to make an authoritative assessment, but three anecdotes may be useful. I have had to give some local detail as not all readers will be familiar with Wellington.

The poster issue was the development of Shelly Bay, on the Evans Bay side of the Miramar peninsula, which was an RNZAF base for flying boats. Thirty years after the planes were decommissioned, the defence forces gave up the land and it has taken another 20-plus years to get around to developing it. Inevitably there has been public protest at the ambitious scale and profile of the residential project. Film-maker Peter Jackson has been notable critic; he teamed up with Foster, who also rejected the proposal. Lester supported it.

My impression is that the public tends to be opposed to the development preferring a lower level and more recreational facilities. There is antagonism to Jackson’s backing of Foster but many also see commercial developers backing Lester. I cannot tell whether such considerations influenced the outcome of the election. But it is a reminder that the environment is high among voters’ local priorities although perhaps not in a coherent way. For instance, there has been little public discussion about alternatives for housing the people planned for Shelly Bay. If they are in other districts, there will be both a loss of WCC rates revenue and additional pressures on the transport links.

Another local issue with wider implications has been the Island Bay cycle-way along the main arterial road, which was implemented before the 2016 election. It is generally thought to be very badly designed and dangerous; certainly there has been a public outcry and allegations of accidents caused by it. For three years the residents of South Wellington have been trying to get the cycleway replaced. There is deep sense of frustration that the council officers are dragging their feet when remedying the problem. One view is that their strategy is to do nothing, with the expectation that residents will eventually get accustomed to the current arrangements – accidents and all.

The inability of councillors to provide leadership to the bureaucracy is a constant theme of those who grumble to me. Apparently Lester did not appear at the protest meetings. The deep issue is who is in charge? The Rogernomic restructuring of local authorities in 1989 is said to have had the effect of emasculating democratic input.

One cannot help also wonder whether some voters blamed the Wellington City Council (i.e. Lester) for the disruption – ongoing a year later – of the changes to the public transport system. The actual responsibility for the mess is the Greater Wellington Regional Council, but arguably the WCC neither distanced itself nor, better still, represented the disgruntled commuters to the GWRC.

There is a parallel grumble with the central government. Many quite senior ministers are seen to be failing to offer leadership to their ministries, instead meekly following the departmental advice, even if their PR advisers try to dress up the inertia as a radical policy initiative. My impression is that despite the rhetoric of ‘transformational’ at the beginning of this government’s term, in many – but not all – areas it is demonstrating as much torpor as its predecessor.

The third issue is another Mt Victoria road tunnel. Those outside Wellington will not want to know the details – unless coming in from the airport they get caught in the jam at the bottle-neck of the first Mt Victoria tunnel and around the Basin Reserve. But it reflects a general issue at the national level.

Wellington, like Auckland and much of the rest of the country, is suffering transport congestion. The resolution, be it public transport or more roads – probably a bit of both – depends upon central government funding. (A further complication in Wellington’s case is that four territorial bodies are involved, each with its own priorities. But residents and business cross the boundaries; some of those frustrated at the Mt Victoria tunnel will have come from the Hutt and the Kapiti Coast.)

Instead of the central government saying to each council, ‘here is the money for your infrastructure, you make the decisions’, it has changed the ranking of the local priorities. (There is an associated story involving some of the probably relevant correspondence of the Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter – who is an Auckland Green MP – not being available under the Official Information Act.) The problem seems to be – remember, we have not got those letters – the balance between public and private transport. Wellington has a strong roading lobby; the central government (the Greens?) leans the other way. It is argued that the local council (i.e. Lester) failed to resist such centralised pressures in the way that, say, mayors Lianne Dalziel of Christchurch and Phil Goff of Auckland are seen to. Foster wants to renegotiate the deal.

Local sensibilities matter. The Ardern-Peters Government – or is it their officials? – often seems insensitive to them, and the government lacks any clear idea of either the problem or what to do. (Can you answer who is the minister of local government? Hint: it is not her main portfolio.)

Does Lester’s loss indicate that the Ardern-Peters Government is losing Wellington? Or was it his lack-lustre campaign? Instructively, Blue-green Foster presides over a leftish council, so I take it that Wellington electors did not reject the Labour and the Greens, not yet.

Here is the list of lessons for the central government which the Lester defeat illustrates – some are well-known, but seemed to have been forgotten,

            - Incumbency may not be a great advantage in an election.

            - Environmental issues may matter a lot to key voter groups. The electorate is probably very volatile,  (Young voters mattered in Wellington.)

            - It is unwise for oppositions to make promises that everyone knows cannot be fulfilled if they attain office. (Advice to National rather than Labour at the moment.)

            - Do not over-centralise; take local concerns seriously and listen (which is difficult for those on a party list).

            - At least give the impression that you are in charge of the bureaucracy. Do not rely on PR but on PeRformance.