Keeping it in the family

10 comments on “Keeping it in the family ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rex Widerstrom 1

   16 June 2008 at 6:13 pm

   Federated Farmers has pretty much always been the National Party in gumboots in terms of their political affiliation. But they’re also not about to appoint a drongo simply because he has Nat affiliations. Geez they employed me to edit their newspaper (when they had one) and let me get away with front-page headlines criticising Bolger when he was Opposition leader.

   Conor English seemed to me to be one of the better Press Secretaries. Presumably he has the skills needed to be a good FF CEO. If not, the only people who’ll lose out are the organisation’s members.

   I doubt Key has a red phone sitting on his desk that he can pick up and tell the BRT or FF or any other lobby group who to appoint. So why’s this filed under “same old National”?

   You going to put it in the “same old Labour” category when the CTU appoints a unionist as secretary?

   Who do you suggest the Feds (a member-funded lobby group which exists only to look after the interests of its members) appoint? Russel Norman?!
2. the sprout 2

   16 June 2008 at 6:37 pm

   well i guess both National and FF have a pretty limited talent pool

   [lprent: spout – you’ve gone active again?]
3. James Kearney 3

   16 June 2008 at 7:21 pm

   You going to put it in the “same old Labour’ category when the CTU appoints a unionist as secretary?

   Of course the CTU will elect unionists to the position. It’s a union representative body. The analogy you’re looking for is if the CTU exclusively appointed former Labour MPs or staff members.
4. Pascal's bookie 4

   16 June 2008 at 8:51 pm

   I doubt Key has a red phone sitting on his desk that he can pick up and tell the BRT or FF or any other lobby group who to appoint.

   Me too. The Brash Cash deal would suggest the instructions go the other way.
5. Patrick 5

   16 June 2008 at 9:19 pm

   I have to say, I’ve always thought of FF like a union, I just had no idea they were so closely linked to the Nats.

   However, even as a Labour supporter I can’t say I have any particular problem with it. Likewise, I certainly don’t have a problem with posts like this that point this out, I do think it’s fair enough that people know where FF’s allegiances lie.

   So will they be registering as a 3rd party?
6. Lew 6

   16 June 2008 at 10:24 pm

   In fairness to AYB, there’s no imputation of misdeed here, except for the `same old national’ categorisation, which is what you make of it.

   It’s as the sprout says – not just FF and National, but the whole country has such a shallow talent pool that coincidences like this are practically guaranteed over time.

   I sure wouldn’t want to be shut out of my field just because my brother (uncle, partner, drinking buddy, whatever) were an MP.

   L
7. Rex Widerstrom 7

   17 June 2008 at 12:18 am

   The analogy you’re looking for is if the CTU exclusively appointed former Labour MPs or staff members.

   No that’s not the analogy, James, because the Feds don’t “eclusively” appoint “former National MPs or staff”. They’ve had two consecutive CEOs with National Party links. There’s a large staff there who – at least when I worked there – were of all sorts of poltiical persuasions (I even detected the odd nascent greenie there!).
8. BeShakey 8

   17 June 2008 at 8:50 am

   Interesting to see Bill English railing against FF and his brother if/when they try to register as a third party. There are clear links between the two, and English/NAtional have taken legal action over a union registering so it can campaign on workers rights issues.
9. Felix 9

   17 June 2008 at 10:04 am

   Rex:

   Yes it is. For exactly the reason you give.

Links to post

1. Cheap shots « ‘SodBlog: posted on 16 June 2008 at 8:53 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS