More jobs for the old “boys”

17 comments on “More jobs for the old “boys” ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Peter Martin 1

   19 December 2009 at 1:08 pm

   The NBR, during the last Government(s), had a weekly column called ( if I remember correctly) Crony Watch, where it listed what was purported to be the Labour Party’s jobs for ‘old boys’.

   I wonder if they still run it…and just how lengthy the list is with this Government.
2. burt 2

   19 December 2009 at 1:15 pm

   I laughed at this bit;

   No Right Turn has an excellent discussion

   Perhaps you could show me the discussion that you speak of ?

   Quiet news day again eh?
3. SHG 3

   19 December 2009 at 1:53 pm

   Ooh yeah, I has lots of interesting discussions over at NRT.
4. PBDT 4

   19 December 2009 at 2:04 pm

   http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/e/0/e/48HansD_20051123_00000741-Address-in-Reply.htm

   I googled some of the other names. Is Gavin Cook the same Gavin Cook who “is definitely the National Party kaumātua of Birkenhead”?
5. gitmo 5

   19 December 2009 at 2:20 pm

   “It is not by any means unusual for ex politicians to be appointed to positions for which they have experience and an appropriate background.”

   Surely this should read “It is not by any means unusual for ex politicians to be appointed to positions.”

   Governments over many decades having been appointing cronies, sychophants and cockkholes to all kinds of taxpayer funded QANGOS, NGOS, SOES etc etc where they proceed to achieve five tenths of fuck all.
   • Ron 5.1

     19 December 2009 at 4:08 pm

     But don’t you have to actually have gotten elected to something to be considered and “ex-politician”?
6. Peter Martin 6

   19 December 2009 at 2:23 pm

   An interactive discussion is but one definition of the word.

   I didn’t even smile at the attempt of the thread hijack.
7. Idiot/Savant 7

   19 December 2009 at 5:29 pm

   The issue here isn’t so much the cronyism (though I object to that as well), but the outright bigotry displayed by at least two of the appointees.

   This is a body which will be sitting on cases about sexist and homophobic discrimination. And it is entirely inappropriate for sexists and homophobes to be appointed to it.
   • Herodotus 7.1

     19 December 2009 at 7:15 pm

     Why is ot ok for Lab to promote their buddies but not national?
     What gets me here is how forgetful some contributors are. Some of those Lab list MPs from 2005 and “retired” to govt positions/boards. Can anyone here forget how great an effort to get Mr Sutton to go?
     When LAb get back in does anyone really think that there will be a change and “our” side will do what has gone before?
     Politics is unfortunately just a game and this is one of the benefits of winning.
     • lprent 7.1.1

       19 December 2009 at 7:18 pm

       I don’t think that the point of the post was about political appointments. It was more about appointing people who were competent for their roles.
       • Herodotus 7.1.1.1

         19 December 2009 at 7:34 pm

         There are very few that both sides would agree on. So then it becomes political. We have had the situation whereby Lab appointed Jimbo Bolger to a few boards, was he really the best person for those appointments ? I think not.
         Also as we have 4m resident and another 0.5m expats there is a limited base for selection. At least the US system (Not perfect) but you know what you get. A Sup Court Judge dies, and depending who is in power gets to appoint “their” person. We here seem to hold on to the old private school image of fair play. This was always a great sentiment but hardly ever followed.
         • lprent 7.1.1.1.1

           19 December 2009 at 10:54 pm

           From what I’ve heard, Bolger did a good job. He was actually a pretty competent politician and manager. Not great. But pretty damn steady. Thats why Labour put him on those boards. The same happened with a number of other people in different positions. They tended to select to the left, but would take people from the right is they found one available.

           Key, Ryall, etc just seem to pick the most incompetent for the roles and put them in. Christine Rankin comes to mind.
           • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1.1

             19 December 2009 at 11:10 pm

             “Christine Rankin comes to mind.”

             Sure does. I reckon it’s just pandering to the SocCons. There isn’t going to be any legislation unwinding civil unions, abortion isn’t going to restricted, s59 ain’t coming back; so National throws them these bones.
             • Herodotus …

               20 December 2009 at 9:55 am

               I have no issue with Christine on the families commission, should with 9 commissioners (I think) have a broard range of opinions, families are not monotypic, and to me having a committee made up from one perspective already displays of the agenda or how a group/faction has taken over.
               Someone else who should be for me brought into the frame, Celia Ashley, but I could not see this happening under Lab.
               Finally did not John K state that he was for the right person for the job instead of political alignments. I think this was discussing what potential Helen C had under his leadership. And I think if Helen had the right skill factors she and others would not be limited. I also think Michael C was also included. you see John K is a man of his word, also Bill E as we will not break election promises. What more could you ask for, politicians keepingtheir word?
     • Idiot/Savant 7.1.2

       21 December 2009 at 10:27 am

       Why is ot ok for Lab to promote their buddies but not national?

       I don’t think its OK.
8. Rex Widerstrom 8

   19 December 2009 at 6:32 pm

   Let’s not forget that conservative views have as much right to be heard as liberal ones (and I consider myself extremely liberal on social issues, though others may disagree).

   But it would be hoped that any conservative thought would be advanced in a rational, intelligent and reasonable manner. Thus I’m quite relaxed about — even pleased to see — someone of the calibre of Ken Shirley appointed.

   And I’m still trying to pick my jaw up off the ground after reading the name “Pastor Ravi Musuku”.

   As for “cronyism”, well governments tend to try to shape society in their own image (cf the President’s joy when a Justice of the Supreme Court falls off his or her perch). That’s only to be expected… but again it’s generally held that while Antonin Scalia might just make it over the bar, Jesse Helms wouldn’t have been the best choice.

   The choice of Neeson is even more confusing. He stood against Key which is pretty much the closest you can come to committing treason in NZ (given that the parties put themselves ahead of the nation and all) so perhaps it’s all a cunning plot of some sort… or they drew the names out of a hat… or a public servant had too much to drink at the Christmas party, got Ministerial sign-off on a set of blank nomination forms, and thought “Stuff the lot of yous…”?
9. Janice 9

   20 December 2009 at 11:49 am

   I didn’t know that Neeson stood against Key. However if Neeson was being dropped I think by standing in an electorate and losing he gets another 3 months parliamentary salary. Just another dip in the trough please?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS