Colin James on National’s candidates
August 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David FarrarColin James touches on some of National’s new candidates in his column yesterday:
… the parliamentary party’s future looks brighter now than for a very long time. That is not because National is streets ahead in the polls and odds-on to lead the next government. It is because there is an impressive crop of late-20s to early-40s new candidates: Nikki Kaye, 28, in Auckland Central, part-Maori Simon Bridges, 31, in Tauranga, Amy Adams in Selwyn, Sam Lotu-Iiga of Maungakiekie and Louise Upston in Taupo, all 37, Todd McClay, 39, in Rotorua, and Michael Woodhouse in Dunedin North and Melissa Lee, both 42, on the list.
Most of these hold multi-degrees, some with first-class honours, and have useful life experience. In intellectual potential they look more like a Labour intake than a traditional National one. Add Harvard- and Oxford-alumna Hekia Parata, 49, and media mogul and campaign chair Steven Joyce, 45.
The class of 2008 looks to be indeed a good one. I just hope as many of them make it in as possible.
So when National ranks its list on Saturday it has rich pickings. A Prime Minister Key reshuffling cabinets would have quality replacements for old lags he could not avoid initially appointing.
Indeed. If National wins in 2008, I would not expect initial Ministers to serve a full nine years (if re-elected). Rejuvenation is key and I would not be surprised if by 2011 the majority of Cabinet is taken from the classes of 2005 and 2008.
The message to Labour when it does its list on August 30 is that to stay competitive it will not be able to afford passengers. That is a crunch test for Clark.
Labour have a real challenge. Will they protect incumbent MPs as they usually do, or put enough new blood higher up the list, so that they will come in even if they get a poor result.
Related posts:
- The final Colin James article in the Herald
- Colin James on can Key do it?
- Colin James on the carbon plan
- Colin James on Key
August 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I hope some of these fresh faces actually care about a few root principles, rather than just hoping to offer to run our lives in a way that will win them more votes than their Labour opponents.
As an example, I find hardly anything more sickening along these lines than the occasional comment from DPF himself, on the EFA’s “excessively low” spending limits, that need “reviewing” to “more reasonable” levels.
BARF. BARF. BARF. Did our soldiers fight and die in World War 2 so that a “lite” version of Naziism, with not quite such nasty treatment of Jews, could be ushered in instead?
[DPF: And 20 demerits for trivial Nazi comparisons]
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Bit over the top Philbest. Didn’t know you were a supporter of the EFA.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
What I would dearly like to know is the previous occupations of candidates standing in this years elections .ie What did Lockwood ,Bill English ,Trev Mallard,Annette King do prior to helping our Nation?
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Phil: I sure as hell don’t think anyone intended to die for your write to be a total idiot in public, but if that’s the price of a free society it’s relatively low.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
To say this is more like a traditional Labour intake is a rather superficial comment. What Mr James fails to recognise is the intellectual case for Labour disappeared years ago hence the difficulty they have in attracting quality people for their cause. Instead they are left with party hacks.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:42 am
It is certainly great to see some good young faces in the lineup. A balance between the older experienced and younger energetic should always produce the best results if they determine to work together. The young will certainly determine the long term future of our country. However who would National really be able to work with? The two major parties are really not that far apart, nothing really new or fresh. National is focused on the economy and the economy alone will not do it. Labour has been focused on destroying the normal family unit and has done such a good job that they will lose the election because of it.
Vote:Somewhere in the midst has to be a better way. My pick on trawling through the minor parties would be National plus The Family Party. http://www.familyparty.or.nz Have a serious look at their (the Family Party) policies and put aside the rubbish thrown by those that never want anything new –yet always want change and I think you would have a sane and balanced government.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
It will be interesting to see if Key can really ‘lead’. True leaders create momentum and elective allegiance.
In a relative sense this should be pretty easy for him, as Clark has simply demonstrated old-fashioned, nasty, iron-fisted dominance rather than true leadership.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am
The incoming National Government should, in my opinion, have a strategy for renewing itself over multiple terms. Governments all start to look stale after a while, but I think this can be avoided with a careful transition of MPs and Ministers. If I were Key, I’d start to move long serving politicians out of government after the first term, with almost complete turnover (including the PM) by some time early in the third term. If this is planned properly, then National have lots of options for renewal.
On the other hand, Labour are essentially going to be in trouble until at least 2014. The MPs left after this election are likely to be those selected on the basis of seniority. It is going to be hard to market a Goff-led opposition with an average age close to 60 as anything other than tired and sad. Some new blood will make it in to parliament in 2011, but won’t be effective or attractive until 2014. I’d hope that National had a mostly-fresh team in place by then.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Steve Trendy, you might wanna try going to the MP’s webpages.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Anyone who votes for the Kiwi Party is wasting their vote. They dont have a hope in hell of winning a seat or getting 5%.
Vote:Vote National for a change in Government. If you want Labour out, the only other parties you could rationally vote for are United or Act.
United has its problems ie it will need a reasonable lift just to even pick up one more MP other than Dunne. have a look at the polls closer to the election and decide whether it would be a wasted vote or not. ie Dunne will need around 1.4% for 2 MP’s?? Not sure.
Act will not moderate National, quite the opposite and therefore unless you believe in policies to the right of National, you wont be voting Act. Even if you believe in policies to the right of National, the public may reject a National govt with too much influence from Act. Ideally Act will return 2-3 more MP’s giving National a useful partner but small enough to not become a problem (like Winston’s mob was in 96-98).
A vote for Winston is a vote for his survival & a small chance of Labour forming a government. Both terrible outcomes in my view.
A vote for the Maori Party is a risky one since they could go either with National or Labour and will win 5-7 seats. They would need to double their current vote to get any list MP’s in so once again its potentially a wasted vote.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I look forward to the day when someones race and/or sexuality are not a +or – as a candidate.
WTF sort of a qualification is “part-Maori”?
Shit I have that one, elect me!
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
# Ross Miller (414) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“Bit over the top Philbest. Didn’t know you were a supporter of the EFA.”
Sorry, I don’t seem to have made myself understood. Maybe Craig Ranapia misunderstands my point too. I strongly oppose the EFA and think it should be tossed out lock, stock and barrell. I am sickened by DPF’s talk at times, of “the need to raise” the spending limits. ANY spending limit is against free speech.
And there are plenty of writers on the Libertarian right who refer to businessmen and “the rich” as “the new Jews”; seeing there is so much straight-out unjust treatment of them, the rule of law being suspended in their case, at the hands of laws drawn up by socialist (and “socialist lite”) politicians with the acquiescence if not the outright support, of the majority.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The other explanation for this latest crop of new talent is a cyclical one: After a protracted period in opposition a better quality of candidate is attracted. National was of course reduced to a low ebb in 2002.
The long period in office of National and the personality of Muldoon resulted in better than average candidates selected for Labour in 1981 and 1984.
In terms of renewal, if Labour continues to prioritise defeated electorate MP’s for the list ahead of fresh talent, then the renewal may take longer. If National is looking strong for the election in three years time, that will encourage retirements in Labour, particularly among the ranks of ex Ministers. After three years in opposition they lack information advantages over current Ministers, and looking towards another three years in opposition are also missing the salary and the feeling of actually doing something.
“Labour are essentially going to be in trouble until at least 2014”
Oh dear I love this sort of over confidence.
As I said one should look for cyclical patterns. If Labour is much diminished this election, who knows how it will respond in terms of re-building post Clark. Will the new Leader have as much internal influence as Clark does? One influence on Labour’s renewal (and the type of candidates attracted to Labour) will be the performance of the National led Government. If times are economically tough and the Government’s political management (like the MMP referendum) is poor, they might be in trouble much sooner. Goff if Labour Leader would be extra hungry, because he only really has one shot at it. However he might lack internal power like Lange, Palmer and Moore.
Regarding political skill, National’s strategic positioning (largely adopting the popularly supported bits of Labour’s programme) is good for winning elections after a long period in opposition – but perhaps not so good for governing afterwards. We have little idea about how Key and National will manage politically on a day to day basis – recent events provide little comfort on that score. However Key has the capacity to learn quickly.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It’s a sad statement of how low our beautiful country has come that a ‘first class honours degree’ is considered a recommendation for political office
All it demonstrates is that one was able to impress a socialist uni professor for a few years. Big whoops.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
It’s a sad statement of how low our beautiful country has come that a ‘first class honours degree’ is considered a recommendation for political office
All it demonstrates is that one was able to impress a socialist uni professor for a few years. Big whoops.
Yeah! Down with book lernding!
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Cue RRM and talk of a degree not being a patch on beetroot farming…
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Good post davidp – National certainly has a diverse range of people standing as candidates this year – particularly interesting to see immigrant communities well represented – a direct challenge to Labour who have tried to claim immigrants as their natural allies. Perhaps the immigrant community is now looking more discerningly at the Labour/NZ First relationship.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
BTW Phil my grandfather volunteered to do the Med Tour from Hell for one reason. So my father and his children could do whatever the hell they liked.
Thats what he said and I have reason to doubt him.
Should I need anyone to reiterpret his motives I’ll give you call. Till then hands off thanks.
Also he described the 2NZEF as “a bunch of thieving bastards who would be in jail if they weren’t in the desert”. Don’t get too doe eyed and weepy about what motivated conscripts.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Ryan I have nothing against book learning. Quite the reverse. I don’t know if you’ve ever stepped within the halls of one of our nation’s so-called halls of knowledge but getting good marks in your degree has less to do with critical thinking than it has to do with slavishly following what your invariably left-leaning, labour-voting, middle-class liberal lecturer thinks.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
A good piece, and indeed, those candidates are impressive.
I am disappointed though at some National candidates who will end up in Parliament-
Terry Heffernan (formerly of Social Credit, Democrats, Alliance and NZ First)
Ravi Musuku
Aaron Gilmore
These three, along with several others will bring nothing to a National Goverment other than numbers. I’d far prefer some of the high calibre candidates the other parties are offering-
Vote:Sir Roger Douglas (ACT- former Minister of Finance)
Kenneth Wang (ACT – former MP)
Pauline Gardiner (ACT – former United and National MP for Wellington Central)
Lindsay Mitchell (ACT – well known welfare commentator)
Kevin Hague (Green – CEO of West Coast DHB)
Kennedy Graham (Green – Law lecturer and former diplomat)
Brian Mockridge (United Future – well known politician in South Auckland)
August 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Ive said before and Ill say it again We need a constitution that provides a Prime Minister can only serve 2 consecutive terms A Cabinet Minister 2 Consecutive terms and an MP 3 consecutive terms.
Why New blood Fresh ideas That why good corporate governance now provides directors dont serve more than 9 years on a Board and 5 to 6 years as Chairman.
If they aint made their mark in that time they never will And if they have done the job they will be stuffed and outta new ideas.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Vinck … is it perhaps a little churlish to suggest that all of those ‘high quality candidates’ (your words) except perhaps Kennedy Graham will end up in the dustbin of history. But the certain prediction is that none will win an electorate seat and therein is the problem. If they get there at all it will only be at the vagrancies of a flawed electoral system.
And clearly National is the only Party with the balls to put their money where their mouth is on that.
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Hey Vinck – what don’t you like about aaron – a 34 year old self made multimillionaire with global business experience, a masters degree in economics who is well connected to and standing in his local community from a modest background has worked in the beehive before and has a couple of kids to boot?
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Vinick – would that Pauline Gardiner be the same one who left National for United in 1992, then left there to go on to nothing…then now ACT?
Just another self interested wannabe
Vote:August 13th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“Vinick – would that Pauline Gardiner be the same one who left National for United in 1992, then left there to go on to nothing…then now ACT?”
The very one. During her time out of Parliament she has worked with the Life Education Trust and headed up a drug treatment group I think. Will be interesting to see where the ACT party members rank her.
Vote:August 14th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Indeed Vinck, the results of such voting will be public very soon.
Vote:August 14th, 2008 at 3:43 am
I agree with PhilBest on this one. Scrap the EFA.
Spending limits, we don’t need no stinking spending limits.
Vote:August 14th, 2008 at 3:45 am
The single most important factor besides scrapping the EFA is to remove the broadcasting allocation. Parties should be free to raise as much money as they want and spend it on as much television advertising as they like. Reform of Parliamentary Services is needed as well to remove state funding by the back door. All this needs to be done within six months and preferably before 1 January 2009 to remove sources of funding from a corrupt, venal, and soon to be weakened and broke Labour party.
You reap what you sow.
Vote: