Perhaps we need to think about the spin put out by our candidates who are canvassing for election?

For example, the claim of being an "independent" candidate ... really, what does this mean other than the immediate interpretation of not depending on others?

By Oxford criteria it means as but one example " ... not depending on another person for one's opinion ..."

So, on that premise, all candidates promoting themselves as "independent" and asking for people to vote for "their team" cannot be independent ... so, why do they do it?

It is done for the independent candidate to acquire additional votes through preferential voting.

When the public vote for specified 'team candidates', who may not even wish to be elected to council, it is done to preference the said independent candidate.

Provided the public vote for who is on the 'independent candidates team', the claimed 'independent' may then secure all of the votes given to the team members and win an elected position.

The result is the person elected as an 'independent' wins an election by depending on the votes acquired by another person so they themselves cannot genuinely be 'independent'

People might also like to consider whether it is appropriate for the amalgamated MidCoast Council candidates to split council's legislated corporate role

Under the legislation one would hope that it is inappropriate (not necessarily illegal) to stand for say the Great Lakes area or for the Taree area or for the Gloucester area of an already amalgamated council.

To do so seems to defeat the entire purpose of the amalgamation and any candidate wishing not to represent the global corporate body of MidCoast Council should not be standing for election.