Dom Post rates the Ministers
October 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm by David FarrarThe Dominion Post has done a feature of several pages to evaluate the first year of the Key Government. Part of that is a ranking of the National Ministers. They have not ranked John Key (there’s a sort of automatic assumption that he would be top ranking) but have ranked Lockwood Smith, even though he is Speaker, not a Minister. The ratings are:
- 10/10 – Lockwood Smith
- 9.5/10 – Simon Power
- 9.0/10 – Steven Joyce
- 8.5/10 – Tony Ryall
- 8.0/10 – Judith Collins
- 7.5/10 – Chris Finlayson
- 7.0/10 – Bill English and Paula Bennett
- 6.5/10 – Nick Smith
- 6.0/10 – Gerry Brownlee, Murray McCully and Tim Groser
- 5.0/10 – Phil Heatley, Anne Tolley, Wayne Mapp, Nathan Guy
- 4.0/10 – Jonathan Coleman, Maurice Williamson and Georgina te Heuheu
- 3.0/10 – Kate Wilkinson, David Carter and John Carter
- 2.0/10 – Pansy Wong
The Dom Post refers to the top six rated as “the stars”, and I agree they have all handled their areas very well, even though of course I may disagree with some of the policy decisions. If it were not for the housing issue, I think Bill would have been there also.
These are of course the ratings of the Dominion Post gallery team.Not sure if the Herald will do their own ratings. In December I expect we will get the annual Trans-Tasman ratings of not just Ministers, but all 122 MPs.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Maybe they thought Lockwood was doing well as Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service?
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well they did praise him for revealing more spending info than any previous Speaker.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Can’t agree with Power’s rating.
“I agree they have all handled their areas very well, even though of course I may disagree with some of the policy decisions”
I would have thought their policy decisions were a critical part of their performance in the same way that any CEO’s strategic decisions are a critical part.
That’s why I can’t agree with Power’s rating: e.g. attempting to remove provocation marks him IMO as a knee-jerk populist and failing to advance processes to deal with Ellis’ clearly unsafe conviction marks him IMO as a weak unprincipled dumbo.
I’m also surprised about Smith’s 6.5. I mean, gaining enough support BEFORE you introduce a bill is apparently a pretty good idea when you’re a politician. I woulda thought Nick woulda known that.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
There are some weak spots in key areas and no doubt John Key will be giving serious thought to a mini reshuffle. My biggest disappointment is Jonathon Coleman, I had high hopes for him and I just hope he gets better.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The rankings seem fairly fair, IMO. I’m impressed actually that they haven’t automatically given Smith a really low ranking (as Kiwiblog viewers did in the polls on ministers), because you need to take into account he was given a bit of a hospital pass by being made responsible for some of the most controversial, unpopular, problematic portfolios (you could argue that many/most other National ministers wouldn’t be able to cope with those – so either he is seen as far more competent than many in the media have been giving him credit for, or Key et al were ‘setting him up’ to be the unpopular minister).
I too however think Power is a bit high. He’s been a little populist, rather than fully considering some issues (I’m not just talking about provocation btw), and some of his comments have showed a lack of knowledge/research/understanding. I would have given him about a 7.5-8.0, still good overall, but not the 2nd best…
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
kiwicraig, personally I think climate change is an easy issue to deal with.
All you have to do as a politician is to say that ignoring the Sun while claiming CO2 is the only factor in climate change, is not credible and you intend to fund research that addresses that imbalance. Meanwhile, you won’t be joining the religion.
Furthermore you could point out that proposing a tax on CO2 is the equivalent of claiming that human beings are a disease on the planet and you don’t intend to buy into that philosophy.
Furthermore you could also say that excluding developing countries from that tax is blatant wealth transfer and you don’t intend to subsidise China and India – they can build their own nations.
Of course this would enrage the globalists who are heavily pushing this religion because it helps them achieve their ends but this stance would get tremendous domestic support apart from amongst the climate change religious nutbars and who cares about them. Nick won’t do this of course, but he could and if he did, that’s his climate change solved.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
what have I missed about Groser .. why just 6?
[DPF: They say he has been a bit low profile and too focused on the deals and not enough on the big picture - ie acting as a negotiator, not as a Minister]
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Agreed Groser has kept a low profile but after saying that I would prefer him to be putting the deals together successfully than hogging headlines
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
In the circumstances Paula has scored exceptionally well. Labour had fingered her as being a weak spot.
Tim Groser – Negotiating is in his blood and is a skill needed in a well rounded Cabinet. If after the last election, the Maori Party was in a ‘kingmaking’ role, Tim would have been a vital (I was going to use the k word, but too much of a pun) member of the negotiating team.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
WTF Simon Power 9.5
Obviously the rankings are based on who can act most like a quivering eunuch in the face of the self-interested jabbering of auto-fellating policy mandarins.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
The Minister of Injustice aside, I agree with the rest of the ratings particularly the normally gormless Tony Ryall, who has who has done a great job of steering clear of the LabTests pileup.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Oh please, 9.5 for the Minister of Justice? PLEASE can somebody call the DREAM POLICE!
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
peterwn;
“In the circumstances Paula has scored exceptionally well.”
You mean considering National has failed to deliver on any of its 11-page welfare manifesto ?
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
ernesto gets all my votes re Simon Power!
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
6.5 for Nick Smith, surely they jest. How much did Smith pay them?
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
“In the circumstances Paula has scored exceptionally well. Labour had fingered her as being a weak spot.” .. Peterwn, it may pay to rephrase that, you got me exited.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
jabba – that is OK, you have left the room (ie exited).
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
The question I have is how well performance and general rankings like these matter come the next cabinet reshuffle? I read a few years ago that the ruling party in Singapore for instance is very aggressive about shuffling out underperformed ministers and MPs (1/3 new blood each election).
Is it realistic for John Key to make his own list such as this every 6/9/12 months and then move the bottom 20-25% of performers down a groups in rankings and replace them with lower ranked but better performing people.
I guess this happens to an extent already but it would be interesting to see what it would look like as a policy. I would avoid the problem the last government had of the same team year after year.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m surprised that Anne Tolley only got 6. Given that she’s about to introduce the biggest shakeup in education since “Tomorrow’s schools” and seems to have got most of the education sector on board (apart from the unions of course), i’d say she’s done a bit better than a six. Like some of the others have said, some of the results seem to be about how high the ministers profile is, not how effective they’ve been in their appointed role.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Oops, she only got a five – that’s even worse.
Vote:October 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Agreed. The article is basically a reflection of popular perceptions – it doesn’t provide any valuable insights, or anything we haven’t heard before. Gerry “bull in a china shop” Brownlee. Paula “the great unknown” Bennett. Yawn. And Tolley is vastly underrated, given the portfolio she has to deal with. Thumbs down to the Dom.
Vote:October 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Problem with these ratings is that there is so much that the general public does not see. Its impossible to know who is administering their area effectively by getting all the stakeholders on side and making effective decisions. It takes a lot longer to see the fruits of their labor or who is making lots of noise but getting nothing done.
In terms of who actually has actually achieved something (and there have been lots who have nothing to show)- you would have to say Nick Smith, Power, Bennett, Groser and Ryall have done the most.
What have Joyce, Brownlee and English achieved so far? Not much in my view- maybe SJ is working on the Broadband plan but considering it was almost the major election plank of the governement not much has been seen. As far as transport- the regions seem very unhappy whilst the holiday highway is a potential $2.3Bill millstone being created for the govt.
English can claim credit for the recession receding but as far as economic reform errr what reform??
Similarly with government supported economic development government activity seems to be minmal or absent.
The RWC ministers (McCully and Brownlee) must be another worry for Key- now that we are staring at a $40mill loss.
Its ironical that its the most experienced ministers who are causing the most trouble.
Vote: