The council election and the "mandate" question

Claims of a mandate are an established part of post-election political manoeuvering. But they need to be taken with a good pinch of salt, and the recent Newcastle council election is no exception.

Jeff McCloy polled very well in the Lord Mayoral campaign, achieving 43.3% of the primary vote.

However, his campaign advertising blitz has raised questions about the extent to which he effectively "bought" the election through his capacity to vastly outspend the other groups and candidates.

Mr McCloy is now claiming his election as a mandate to cut the Newcastle rail line, and is now reportedly already talking to Macquarie Street about this.

The Liberal state member for Newcastle, Tim Owen (who publicly supported Mr McCloy's tilt for Lord Mayor), stated that he saw the council election result as a referendum on the urban design of the CBD.

But what does the election result really tell us in terms of any claimed "mandate", and what real status does it have as a quasi-referendum?

A referendum is a stand-alone vote in which voters cast their votes for or against a clear proposition.

Councils can hold such referenda or plebiscites in conjunction with council elections, but Newcastle did not do so for this election.

An election mandate to take certain action depends on a candidate being elected on a clear policy position that they were actively advocating in their public information and in public debate during an election campaign.

Mr McCloy was elected on less than 50% of the vote, and the material that he distributed to the general public during the election campaign appears to have been almost silent on the issue of the Newcastle rail line.

His widely distributed letter to ratepayers talked about developing and maintaining facilities for all, holding the council accountable, getting better value for money for ratepayers, providing 200 extra parking spaces in the CBD, establishing a street art program, and cutting council red tape - but not a single reference to the rail line.

A major opinion piece by Mr McCloy published soon after he announced his candidature talked about issues such as the need to fix Hunter St - but, again, didn't even mention the rail line.

The material distributed by Mr McCloy at the polling booths also said nothing about the rail line.

Mr McCloy clearly has a mandate to perform the role of Lord Mayor, to which he has now been elected. He can also legitimately claim an electoral mandate to attempt to carry out the specific policy initiatives on which he actively campaigned, and on which voters clearly voted for him.

However, claiming a mandate on less than half the vote, for an action that wasn't even mentioned in material distributed to voters, is stretching any reasonable notion of what constitutes an electoral mandate.

And that's without the added complication of how voters in the Newcastle Council area could legitimately "mandate" an action to remove infrastructure and services that directly affect so many commuters from outside the Newcastle council area.