Pearly wasn’t afraid of a good fight. He considered Utterspan less competent, less aware of the needs of the district, less skilled in leadership. Pearly had a considerable opinion of himself, without being blinded by vanity, and with enthusiasm began campaigning for re-election as winter deepened. It soon became clear that the central issue was going to be the port development plan. It was Pearly’s second-term priority, and he would stand or fall by it. Almost all council business, however, became skewed to a greater or lesser extent by the coming election: outcomes were of significance not only for their effect, but for who stood to gather commendation, or blame, from them. It led to inefficiency, to posturing, to distraction from the purposes for which Pearly and his fellows had been elected, but it was all part of the system to which he’d become accustomed, all part of the political game. Council meetings became infused with a certain theatricality, partly due to the increased interest of the local paper and radio station. Pearly had won two elections, increasing his majority in the second one, but Utterspan was a stronger opponent than he had faced before, and the longer there has been no change in office, the greater the interest in the possibility among voters.

In mid-July there was a test of strength at a full council meeting concerning the amount spent on consultant fees for the port plan. Pearly had ensured that the CEO had buried the figures deep in the financial reports, but a letter to the paper had appeared querying costs, and Roger Smith, a councillor predisposed to opposition by envious temperament and desire for attention, led the criticism at the meeting, claiming that the elected members had not been sufficiently informed of the scale of costs or given the opportunity to debate individual engagements. Pearly wasn’t surprised by this but discerned in the debate that followed a certain orchestration that showed Utterspan and his supporters were in election mode.

The deputy mayor didn’t repudiate the port plan in essence but questioned the quality of planning that had been carried out and the robustness of the costings. ‘Maybe too much has been decided by too few people,’ Philip declared. ‘I think it’s true, as Mr Smith suggests, that there’s been a certain selectivity in what material has come before councillors. And the public at large still seem to have little understanding of the project. It’s not too late to have public meetings to explain the proposals and discuss some of the issues. I acknowledge the scale and complexity of it all, and the commitment by many people, but all the more reason that from time to time we step back and make a calm appraisal of progress.’