Localism is a wonderful thing. I recommend it to any politician in opposition. It draws applause and offers a chance to accuse one's opponents of being control freaks.
 
Last week, at the annual Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference, I watched Labour, Green and Opportunity politicians champion partnership with councils. 'Communities deserve respect,' they said. 'Ministers should listen. The Coalition Government is getting everything wrong.'
 
Then Local Government Minister Simon Watts came along with a less appealing message. Watts favours amalgamations and rates capping, a 'partnership' in which one partner (central government) decides how much the other (local councils) may spend and says that costs it pushes down to them are 'investments'.
 
I had seen this show before, with the same actors but in different roles.
 
Three years ago, Labour was pushing ahead with water reforms to transfer council water services to larger entities. Then National defended local control and objected to Labour's enthusiasm for centralisation.
 
Now Labour has rediscovered the council chamber, while National has become the party wanting to run everything from the Beehive.
 
Perhaps ministerial offices should come with a warning: prolonged exposure may erode faith in local democracy.
 
Before taking office, politicians see councils as the authentic voices of their communities. Afterwards, they discover councils are fragmented, inefficient and alarmingly inclined to make decisions ministers dislike.
 
I am being unfair, of course. Ministers face real problems. Rates rises hurt. Some councils spend lavishly on nice-to-haves while failing at core functions, like fixing water leaks, preventing wastewater spills or processing consents quickly. Nobody should have to pretend otherwise to qualify as a localist.
 
But opposition politicians know about those problems too. What changes when they win government is their access to the levers of power.
 
Giving communities power sounds splendid when it means somebody else surrenders it. The proposition becomes less attractive when you are the one surrendering it.
 
At its next conference, LGNZ should consider inviting each party to deliver two speeches, one that it would give in opposition and another it would give in government. Speakers could be given five minutes between speeches to change jackets.
 
Better still, LGNZ could ask each party which decisions it would leave with local voters, even when they might choose something the party dislikes.
 
Meanwhile, councils should simply enjoy the declarations of affection from opposition parties. But they should bear in mind that by next year, their keenest suitor at this year's conference might be lining them up for a merger.