MPs backgrounds
Senate Communications published this week a little study of MPs primary former occupations. They found that more and more MPs are professional politicians who have worked in Government only, and then into Parliament.
Senate kindly broke the data down by party, and I did the above pie charts, showing the breakdown by party. I think they tell a real story.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Parliament, Senate Communications
June 18th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Not surprising to see such a high amount of Labour MP’s with only a Union or public sector background.
Thanks David.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Business people and career political operators alike, want to shape the country in their own image…?
June 18th, 2010 at 10:12 am
The National Party chart shows a proportionality that very much reflects sector activity within NZ society. Very reassuring.
The Labour Party chart showns all that is wrong with the makeup of their cohort; a predominance of teachers, union organizers, and bureaucrats. But the most glaring deficiency is the lack of representation from the agricultural sector (Hodgson is a vet I guess); the industry that has carried the economy in the past and looks to continue to do so.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Bloody Nats. Discriminating against the bruvvers and sisters of the unions again!
June 18th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Obviously only an approximation as some will have varied backgrounds. But an interesting pattern, and not surprising.
It is common to suggest that politicians should have real world experience. Is that best? In all cases?
Politicians are really the management level for the country. Do private enterprise managers all have a good breadth of real world experience? It’s common for those in accounts to only have accounting experience, those doing legal work to have legal backgrounds etc. And many managers and directors are effectively professionals in that area of expertise.
Could a mix of professionals and those with industry experience would work best? Or maybe it comes down to the quality of personal – capable managers in one field can apply those same management skills to another unrelated field quite effectively (usually).
I’m not trying to conclude anything here, just open up some discussion.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Given that Labour’s proportionality would equate to around 2.5 percentage points for each individual MP, there are at most THREE Labour MP’s with a “business” background? That raises two questions: who are they, and does Labour have the business acumen to run the country?
June 18th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Do you have any figures of MP’s with a Police or a Defence Force background?
June 18th, 2010 at 10:25 am
That raises two questions: who are they,
A couple of them had previous lives in private equity – Cunliffe being one.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
so 63% of Labour were either teachers, unionists or govt workers lol go figure.
this should be pointed out at every election.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:28 am
16% lawyers plus 19% government? No wonder you still need RMA Resource Consent to re-clad your bach or put a window in your rotten old villa.
Oh, sorry. I get it, this is supposed to make us feel better about the National government and see them as different from Labour, when in reality they’re very similar (except with more concessions to the separatist aspirations of a small minority of Maori).
June 18th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Labour MPs are a motley array of unionists and failed teachers. While the former poison labour relations, the latter do their part to brainwash and corrupt the mind of NZ children.
Too many lawyers on both parties make the bloated government even more legalistic.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Business people and career political operators alike, want to shape the country in their own image…?
Not all business people are evil rich pricks.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Says it all really, which group would a recruiter go to for a middle manager let alone a CEO or other senior exec.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:33 am
so 63% of Labour were either teachers, unionists or govt workers lol go figure.
this should be pointed out at every election.
How much of the population regards these things as being ‘bad’, really?
June 18th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Stephen – not many people i know were/are a fan of teachers.
Vote Labour – that way teachers can still tell you what to do!
I have to admit though, Ive banged like 15 teachers… leaves me conflicted every time!
June 18th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Far too many theorists in the labour party and not enough practical experience.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:45 am
dime said:
Were they moonlighting as hookers dime? Perhaps you should tell their union……
June 18th, 2010 at 10:46 am
…does Labour have the business acumen to run the country?
If the country were a business, the answer would be “Obviously not.” However, the country is not a business, so the question is pointless.
The National Party chart shows a proportionality that very much reflects sector activity within NZ society. Very reassuring.
Yes – why, I run into many of the 16% of New Zealanders who are lawyers every day…
June 18th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Thanks to the the efforts of successive governments some of them are also evil poor pricks……
June 18th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Stephen – not many people i know were/are a fan of teachers.
Well regardless Teachers Are A Good Thing, anyone pointing out that a dozen Labour MPs were teachers as ‘a bad thing’ is going to look like…they don’t like teachers!
June 18th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Good teachers are a good thing. socialist indoctrination agents are not.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:54 am
One of the Labour Business MPs is Clayton Cosgrove who really was only a communications manager for Telstra. Such people should be considered a journalistic background rather than a business background.
David Parker does have proper business experiemce and has the failed companies to prove it.
Don’t remember the third one
June 18th, 2010 at 10:55 am
This in itself paints a picture of why this country is fucked, great pie chart David….
This alone can shed light to the idiots out there who wonder why we are heading where we are heading, National have a hard ship to turn around, best they pull finger….
June 18th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Don’t remember the third one
Cunliffe!
June 18th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Matty – nah they werent hookers
a few were hate fucks though.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:06 am
@ Metcalph – Was Parker business or law? There’d be the same number of lawyers as businesspeople, and immediately Dalziel, Chauvel and Parker come to mind.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Come to wgtn, it would be great if there were only 16% lawyers here.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:14 am
does anyone still doubt that national is a special-interest party…..?
..the business-elites…the farmers….and the lawyers…?
(they do cross-pollinate within their class..as i understand it…
but class-straying is frowned upon…)
and that the national party..as it has always been….is a vehicle to further their interests…
to increase their share of the cake…
..and on the way..to ‘break’ the unions…
..and ensuring the underclasses are kept well under boot…
(btw..7% unemployment is ‘ideal’ for these elites…it keeps both workers ‘in line’..and wage claims down..)
and specifically charged with ‘growing the gap’ between the haves and the have-nots..
how are they doing so far..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 18th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Easy to see why Labour is so out of touch with business in general and agriculture in particular.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:22 am
So Labour has no MPs from agriculture NZs primary exporter.. and National has no MPs with a background in shit stirring telling us how to best phuck profitability.
In my opinion Nationals pie chart has far too much govt background.
Labours pie will why vote for a political party that has no MPs with a background in agriculture our primary export earner.
The majority of National MPs backgrounds are from the productive sector and the majority of the Labour MPs from the unproductive sector… say’s it all really.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:22 am
The PDF of the report can be also be downloaded here:
http://www.senatecommunications.co.nz/
This information shows how today’s MPs are increasingly “professional politicians” and are therefore more inclined to be interested in the personal remuneration and perks that come from what they regard as a “career” rather than a “duty”. Previously, MPs virtually all came from backgrounds where they had been in “proper/real” occupations and careers – Labour MPs were often wage workers, and National MPs were very frequently farmers, lawyers and in other middle-income professions. This situation has shifted enormously, and now there is – as we see in this report – a much greater likelihood of MPs coming into parliament at an earlier age and only having experience in “the political world” of lobbying, local government, PR, parliamentary research jobs, etc. So they regard their time as MPs as being part of a career path in which you try to maximise your remuneration and take advantage of the perquisites of what you regard as a “job” even though the public still consider you to be in service of the “public life” and hence don’t particularly like it when they grasp all the material comforts that they can get. So this partly explains the increased propensity for what is often called “troughing”.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:29 am
@ Phil U – you conveniently ignore the fact the the business elite pay a large amount of the country’s wages, and the farmers earn a large amount of the country’s revenue. Without them, there’d be no tax take, and without a tax take, there’d be no benefit for you. Just sayin’
June 18th, 2010 at 11:38 am
He will never get it IV2, don’t even bother.
He used to always rabbit on about the fact that capitalism is going to collapse and we are all going to live in little green hippie villages, he does not realise if that happened he would be the first to be culled for being so bloody useless.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“..@ Phil U – you conveniently ignore the fact the the business elite pay a large amount of the country’s wages, and the farmers earn a large amount of the country’s revenue..”
u conveniently ignore the fact those elites own a grossly disproportionate ‘share’ of the nations’ wealth…
..in a country with one of the biggest gaps between haves and have-nots..
(a tried and true recipie for eventual social-unrest..b.t.w…)
gaps that this govt is doing/has done all in its’ power…to make even wider…
confirming it is just a vehicle for those elites…
..and they just bullshit/lie/make false promises…to trick other ‘mugs’…to vote against their own best interests..
..and throw their votes to the bosses-party..
..eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 18th, 2010 at 11:42 am
“..He used to always rabbit on about the fact that capitalism is going to collapse ..”
still ‘rabbiting on’ about that..eh..?
here is todays’ ‘good news’…
http://whoar.co.nz/2010/if-greece-was-northern-rock-spain-is-lehman-brothers/
“…Unlike the football result, Spain’s financial fiasco was entirely predictable.
Though her problems are not as deep-seated as those in Greece, they are more dangerous simply because the Spanish economy is so much larger than that of Greece – about five times larger, in fact.
It is the sort of difference, to draw an uncomfortable analogy, between Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers.
The first was serious indeed, and a precursor of worse to come … but it did not shake the world;…
… Lehman Brothers was globally systemic … just as Spain is.
Spain’s economy is five times the size of Greece’s; she is too big for Germany and France to save, and threatens the euro’s survival.
But, to borrow a phrase … Spain is also too big to fail.
The short-term problem is that investors are unwilling to lend to Spain – the Spanish government, Spanish banks and Spanish companies are finding it difficult to raise funds.
Without those funds, they cannot go on.
It is a credit crunch, based, as in Greece before it, on a rising tide of scepticism about Spain’s ability to meet her obligations as they fall due.
The banks, in particular, need liquid funds to carry on their normal business of lending.
If they cannot rely on those, then they will fail …
… with disastrous consequences for the Spanish, European and world economies…”
a bit of a worry..when keys’ policies are predicated/gambling on a continuing-recovery’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 18th, 2010 at 11:45 am
disproportionate ’share’ of the nations’
So nothing to do with working your fucking arse of every hour of the day then?
June 18th, 2010 at 11:49 am
“off“
June 18th, 2010 at 11:54 am
“u conveniently ignore the fact those elites own a grossly disproportionate ’share’ of the nations’ wealth…
..in a country with one of the biggest gaps between haves and have-nots..
(a tried and true recipie for eventual social-unrest..b.t.w…)”
Oh no, the lazy dole bludgers are going to rise up and disposses the bourgeois farmers of their lands Zimbabwe style.
If you do not even have the social and life skills to get a minimum wage job at McDonalds, phil, I don’t see a revolution of your pathetic ilk happening anytime soon.
June 18th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
You really are a bludging hypocrite phlu.
If I calculate how much I contribute to the nation’s wealth vs how much you contribute to the nation’s wealth I get the result that you are a thief.
June 18th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
If the claim is that “more and more MPs [compared with earlier years] are professional politicians who have worked in Government only”, then it would be interesting to see this demonstrated…
June 18th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Yes Repton I agree, was thinking the same thing myself but more along the lines of how to get a better picture of the minor parties – having a historical picture going back to say 1996 might mitigate the small sample size used here.
June 18th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
40% of ACT MPs came from government or education, arg
June 18th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
National has twice as many business people as government employees. Labour has four times as many government employees as business people. With this stark difference in makeup, why is their so little difference in policy between the two parties?
Probably because most so called “business people” in either case depend on government for their patronage.
The bottom line to increasing living standards and prosperity is for all of these fuckers TO STOP TAKING SO MUCH MONEY OFF PEOPLE AND OUT OF THE PRODUCTIVE SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY.
They won’t do it though. From top to bottom, in one way or another, this country is run by the fucking welfare lobby. If it ain’t parasites like the odious scumbag who constantly fouls this site with his unreadable shit, its companies feeding off government services and cheques.
Cycle track… pffft. What a fucking farce.
June 18th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
This came in from an Aussie mate today.
“Of the leading members of the Australian Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years – but only 13 of those years in the private sector.
If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, which total 11 – of the 181 years, only two years were spent in the private sector.
So out of those 181 years:
- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.
But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they plainly don’t understand.”
Going off DPF’s pie-charts – Australia seems to be even worse off than we are.
June 18th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Really..?
Labour is full of unionists, teachers and career politicians and National is full of farmers, business owners and career politicians..? Mind blowing stuff…
June 18th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Phil, in one sentence, highlights the great wrong of the left.
“u conveniently ignore the fact those elites own a grossly disproportionate ’share’ of the nations’ wealth…”
People do not automatically get a “share”. Wealth doesn’t just happen. Wealth and prosperity are earned, not given.
June 18th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Is one of the “labour” MPs with business experience Jim Anderton. Been a long time since he was responsible for his own money – about the time Muldoon stalked the earth. Things have changed since then.
June 18th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Slightly @ 1:30…
“People do not automatically get a “share”. Wealth doesn’t just happen. Wealth and prosperity are earned, not given.”
wealth and prosperity are never “earned” (sic), like say interest on my portfolio or a beer at the end of day’s fencing. True wealth and prosperity are scrapped for…and anything goes…
June 18th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
National’s pie is round, Labour’s pie is egg shaped. Why is that?
June 18th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Eh?
Any political party is a “vehicle to further [one's] interests,” phil. The problem with you is because you’re a lefty, you naturally think conservatives treat power just like lefties do when they get it. Because lefties dominate, cheat, lie, steal and use every disgusting tactic in the book to implement their totally fucked ideas, you think that’s what conservatives are like as well. Normally you’re quite a clear thinker, but on this subject, you’re curiously obdurate and unusually obtuse and you have been for years and I just can’t be arsed anymore with not saying anything when you present your total wrong-headedness.
Re: increasing their share of the cake: Have you ever seen Commanding Heights? It’s a PBS doco that explains Rogernomics, Reganomics and Thatcherism historically, ideologically and contextually. Friedrich Hayek’s theories were and are the equivalent of Keynes’ and if you don’t understand them you will never understand current conservative economics. Either watch it then come back to discuss or just shut the fuck up about that point until you do, because as I’ve said before many times, conservatives grow the cake, so the slices grow bigger. We do not grab more than our fair share when the poor people aren’t looking. I often suggest we start doing this, but I always get over-ruled. It’s not fair, but that’s my problem and not germane to this discussion.
June 18th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
45% of ours come from Ag, Business and Law. If this doesn’t teach you something about the engine room of society then what does?
19% of theirs come from a union – 1 in 5. Combine with education means 35% combined – 1 in 3.
We out-number them. Let’s attack at dawn.
June 18th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“..dominate, cheat, lie, steal and use every disgusting tactic in the book to implement their totally fucked ideas, you think that’s what conservatives are like …”
indeed they are…and indeed they do..
(c.f keys pre-election ‘assurances’/lies…heatley..double0dip-dipton..(need more…?..)
“..We do not grab more than our fair share when the poor people aren’t looking…”
ne..we were looking…as you all got big tax cuts…
..and the middle class got a coupla crumbs..
..and the poor got sfa…
and speaking of ‘disgusting tactics’..
how about that nine out of ten victims of rape/sex-abuse….are turned down when they apply for counselling…?
..under nationals’ new regime…
how fucken disgusting is that..?
‘..disgusting..’ enough for you…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 18th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Liarbore scrunts come from government, unions and teaching to screw the taxpayer and as soon as they’re chewed up and spat out they’re through the revolving door back to their old positions screwing the taxpayer.
Jobs for the boys innit.
June 18th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Look phil, the poor always get sfa, whatever it is that they get. That’s why they call it: “poor.”
Tonight I heard they’re looking into it, which is good, ain’t it.
June 19th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Often, but not necessarily. Some are poor because of their living and spending habits. Regular boozers and regular smokers (quite a few are both) keep themselves poor.
June 20th, 2010 at 9:00 am
“..Look phil, the poor always get sfa, whatever it is that they get. That’s why they call it: “poor.”..”
you just don’t fucken get it..do you..?
those countries that have the narrowest gap between rich and poor..and who care for all their citizens…(thru whatever circumstance..)
..are those countries that report as ‘the happiest’..as the countries with the least crime/social ills etc…
..isn’t that what you want for new zealand…?
or would you rather the opposite…?
..an inter-generational underclass..riven with crime/social ills/disorder…
..(all of which must spill over onto the haves…eventually..
i’ve said it before..if you want the eventual destination of your act-ite/rand-ite prescriptions for society…
..go to port moresby..new guinea…
..and observe the ‘haves’..cowering behind their broken-glass topped walls/armed-guards…
..and the gangs of the disposessed….
..ruling the streets…
..then ask yrslf if that is how you want new zealand to become..
..’cos..following yr model/ideology..
..port moresby is where we are heading..
..and possibly faster than you think..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 20th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Hmm, National and Labour have quite different backgrounds and yet both adhere to mixed economy, big government, nanny state policies. Both of them have the same attitude to their constituents – “dominate, cheat, lie, steal and use every disgusting tactic in the book to implement their totally fucked ideas” to use reids’ phrase. As far as I can see, conservatives treat power “just like lefties do when they get it”. If our current so called right wing parties have any understanding of Hayek’s theories, that just makes them bigger hypocrites. Why don’t they get on with making some real changes while they are in power instead of merely tweaking Labours policies?
November 13th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
If the aim of a political party party party party is to win an election then election winning is the name of the game. The fact that they get to party at the expense of the taxpayer seems of little consequence.
Fundamentally there are poor professional standards because there are very poor levels of accountability back up the tree of command. Mean while the command freely funds itself from fines and taxes. It seems it is easier to party that way.
People need to look through the smoke screen, it is not that hard although it may shatter a few dreams.