Will Rich head up Wellington business?
January 14th, 2012 at 10:06 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Names are already being floated for the top job at Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, but no-one will say whether a popular former politician is in the running.
Former National MP Katherine Rich is rumoured to be a contender, although this could not be confirmed by either Rich, who was unavailable, or chamber chairman John Johnston. “We’re in the early stages of a process,” said Johnston.
However, he stressed the chamber was seeking a candidate “who’s got a track record in a senior leadership role with outstanding commercial acumen and very strong relationship management skills.”
Well if Katherine does want the job, they’d be morons to not hire her.
Rich was a three-term National MP front-bencher who is now chief executive of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council.
Here’s the thing. Before Katherine took up the FGC role, I had never even heard of the FGC. Since her appointment they have been in the news many times. In fact you’ve even had some people complain that they’re become too influential – which is the ultimate compliment to Katherine.
Mind you I’ve still not entirely forgiven Katherine for retiring in 2008. She robbed us of a great Cabinet Minister!
Related posts:
- Fine the rich pricks more
- Lonely Planet rates Wellington top capital
- Rich and Maharey
- Rich to retire
January 14th, 2012 at 10:13 am
The best people never go into politics and if they do they soon quit and go back to the real world. Power, Burdon, Clarkson just to name a few of the successful.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 11:48 am
“Mind you I’ve still not entirely forgiven Katherine for retiring in 2008. She robbed us of a great Cabinet Minister!”
You are joking DPF.
She might be a nice lady but she was always in the wrong party, she is a progressive and her natural home is the Labour party.
In many ways she is a lot like Nikki Kaye, both are natural Labour politicians and should not be National Party MP’s.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Mind you I’ve still not entirely forgiven Katherine for retiring in 2008. She robbed us of a great Cabinet Minister!
Who, of course, like the populist John Key, would have achieved sweet fuck all if she had continued on, complementing Key’s achievements of sweet fuck all as Prime Minister.
Parliament needs less politicians like Key and Rich, and more like Douglas and Richardson. Pity as it seems their time is gone. NZ has moved past radical ideas and is now a society of ‘moderates’ and ‘middle mum and dad voters’ who like politicians that smile and wave whilst warming the seats in Parliament whilst watching the economy go down the toilet.
Big Bruv – beat me to it.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Nothing against PR, but painting Katherine as a business woman is a bit misleading – she’s not leading a corporation, she’s leading a lobby group.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I think she is doing a great job and I am glad she is no longer an MP making National wetter than they already are.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
What is it with DPF always praising ‘youngish’ (as in 20s/30s) women MPs regardless of their actual abilities? I mean, I hope it’s getting him some pussy at least. Jacinda Arden, Katherine Rich, [insert relatively unknown young Labour/Green activist who he has a lot of respect for because he has met them although disagrees with their positions]… Just a bunch of useless people who have achieved fuck all in Parliament let alone for the country.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
I agree with DPF regarding Katherine Rich.
However, I think the comment regarding Katherine Rich and Nikki Kaye being Labourites in all but name is completely misguided (along with the general sentiment), while the comment that the ‘good’ people in National like Edmund Burdon and Simon Power get out quickly is accurate.
What connects these statements can be seen in the history of the National Party. It’s an awkward coalition between Liberals and Conservatives, perhaps even more awkward than the pseudo-coalition between Greens and Labour. In both cases we see that there are obvious overlaps in policy and values which makes either coalition more ‘natural’ than, say, a coalition between the Greens and Conservatives! (But note that Greens + Liberals, most of whom are self-identified ‘Blue-Greens’, in an era where the Greens are calling for sustainable economic growth is quite ‘natural’).
Only in National’s case, they’ve seemingly not dropped the New-Right commitment to killing our mixed economy, to the detriment of the middle-class more than anyone else.
I reckon it’s time for the Liberals and the Conservatives to split. That’s the only way the Liberals will get more sway over the Conservatives on the Right, just as the Greens (and before them, the Alliance) have an increasing influence over Labour. All New Zealanders would be better for it, as would our ailing democracy.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
I reckon it’s time for the Liberals and the Conservatives to split.
Vote:Amen to that, except the conservatives would then rush off and join up with their Labour comnpatriots and once again we would continue with the current brand of socilism. Its a given.
January 14th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
I don’t think they would, Viking. Or, I certainly hope they don’t. But what you say is a reminder that the New Zealand political system has a schizophrenic ideology!
I’m also curious about what you mean by the ‘current brand of socialism’, and what you hope to take its place.
I think most working and middle-class New Zealanders would like to see a more fundamental change in the way we operate than either National or Labour offered us in the last election. We’re not interested, and moreover, never have been interested, in what has been both partys’ mantra during the past 25 years of cutting back public services, privatising state assets, and undermining social security. That’s why we have consistently booted out successive governments who try to implement that agenda, and why we voted for MMP and chose to retain it.
Unfortunately Labour hasn’t made it clear whether it believes in small to medium private businesses operating onshore and exporting quality goods offshore, with a robust social safety net to ameliorate our risk aversion, and a commitment to genuine equality of opportunity through improvements to health and education standards among lower socio-economic groups. Instead, it appears to middle and working New Zealanders to be the party for lazy scroungers and idiots… As DPF highlighted: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/01/pagani_v_dim_on_economic_growth.html
And National are apparently ready to be booted out in 2014 as long as it gets its popular leader to pass unpopular policy. Which, aside from these policies being inept, is hideously undemocratic.
Yet we have a liberal group within the National caucus and within the Labour caucus (including, it would seem, the new leadership and power core) who are onside with New Zealanders’ needs and aspirations. And thankfully the Greens are committed to that same agenda, pointing out that manufacturing and exporting high-quality products to a global market hungry for ‘green’ innovation.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Big statement for a self appointed spokesperson. I happen to think that many in NZ are sick of the growth of cost of government with no real improvement in service delivery – more people doing the same thing, more regulations to solve hypothetical problems, more nanny state, more pay for the people administering all this. People want less spent on useless government, more focus on the useful bits of government, and less petty regulation. They have no interest in the government owning “assets” that are private in all but name, and are strip mined by governments who want cash (look at the dividend extraction from govt power companies – all those dividends come out of consumer pockets).
Is there any reason that your opinion is more valid than mine?
I’m all in favour of manufacturing and exporting high-quality products to a global market. The problem is that the Greens aren’t really in favour of that, they’re in favour of government subsidies to uneconomic production – they delude themselves that we’re going to manufacture green products cheaper than the Chinese. There’s a reason most of the PV production has moved to China. It’s a nice dream, and I have no problem with people spending their own money on it – and if they’re successful, I have no problem with letting them keep most of the profit they make. Conversely, no way whatsoever I want the government spending my money on it.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
PaulL, this is how a liberal democracy works: a representative or body of representatives (a ‘Party’) attempts to understand the needs and interests of a large number of people, and reflects that back to the wider electorate to ask for their authority to be their representative.
So I’m not ‘self-appointed’, I’m merely trying to read the trends in our political history over the past 30 years. So no, your opinion is no less valid.
“I happen to think that many in NZ are sick of the growth of cost of government with no real improvement in service delivery. [...] People want less spent on useless government, more focus on the useful bits of government, and less petty regulation.”
I should hope so! Why would *anyone* want to pay more for less? But I would like to know what you think constitutes “petty” regulation. I think some regulation that advocates for the public good is a core function of government. So we disagree if you think that there should be no regulation protecting the environment, public health, and stability of the financial system. But we agree if you think that there are too many hoops to jump through that don’t actually serve the public interest.
“look at the dividend extraction from govt power companies – all those dividends come out of consumer pockets.”
As National pointed out a few times, but quickly realised was stupid given that they were trying to convince the population that asset sales were a good thing, Labour had taken steps and were planning to continue to cut the dividends and directing the SOEs to translate that into lower utility costs. This is something that working and middle New Zealanders want, and is a far more effective way of improving the welfare of families than giving a new winter-months electricity benefit (Progressive policy) or extending working for families (Labour) or giving a small tax cut (National). It’s also a more equally distributed way of benefiting kiwis, so is morally superior.
“The problem is that the Greens aren’t really in favour of that, they’re in favour of government subsidies to uneconomic production”
And so what? If this means that more New Zealanders are employed in higher waged, better jobs, and more kiwis get to own and operate businesses, then why shouldn’t we subsidise manufacturing? There’s nothing wrong with global free trade, but we must trade goods, not just our good ideas and the means of production, if we want to get ahead.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Um – shouldn’t the CEOs of major business lobby groups be somewhat neutral politically?
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
a fortiori (4) Says:
January 14th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
And so what? If this means that more New Zealanders are employed in higher waged, better jobs, and more kiwis get to own and operate businesses, then why shouldn’t we subsidise manufacturing? There’s nothing wrong with global free trade, but we must trade goods, not just our good ideas and the means of production, if we want to get ahead.
NO. because subsidies create priviledge and priviledge creates waste and inefficiences.
The issues for our manufacturing are, we compete with imports that are not taxed to provide Kiwi’s with the ACC, unemployment benefit, hospital services etc that the Kiwi manufacturer is. Anyone can import from another country that doesn’t charge their manufacturers those costs with no regard to our own need to provide those services.
We have a less than agressive R& D policy controlled by Govt. Remove the barriers to R& D and encourage its growth.
Look to germany and Sweden.
We have a poor quality policy with regards to plant depreciation and replacement. Germany allows very rapid writeoffs of new fixed plant and equipment. Here we have to eek it out forever. Depreciation takes 10 years and worse there is more oppourtunity for your average lawyer et al to get a tax break by owning, depreciating or leasing a merc than a manufactuer who needs the latest plant.
Up depreciation on new fixed plant and equipment (not including farm tractors and motor cars) to 40% per annum and put a tight limit on the depreciation allowable on cars, 40K should be sufficient at the same rates as today. Apply the same rules to lease cars. Currently there is more money being spent on top line cars than can possibly be justified. Yet to meet a lawyer that needs a Merc or a top of the line BMW for his trip to work each day. Nice to have but no reason why the taxpayer should subside that.
Remove the Labour barriers to people going to work. 24% of 18 to 24 year olds are unemployed and worse many are racking up student debt that they will never repay, because they cannot get jobs.
Jobs are the key to much of this countries ills but without a major change in political mindsets they will only ever be paid lip service.(by all parties.)
Labour are for the working man?
National prattle on about jobs but retain the barriers to creating more and cause Kiwi’s to migrate so that the apparent jobless rate comes down, only to allow chinese and Vietmnmese etal to come here to work for cheap on the side.
The Greens want taxpayers to subsidse jobs for uneconomic work and with labour refuse to recognise the possibilities that exist in area’s like mining.
Just remove the barriers to work and stop destroying morale. Put everyone to work to acheive a transformation.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
If she had done something that would have broken the stranglehold of the Foodstuffs/Progressive duopoly that is screwing New Zealand consumers blind I would give her much respect.
She has done nothing other than reinforce their predominance in the market.
Good bloody riddance to the useless tart.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
“However, I think the comment regarding Katherine Rich and Nikki Kaye being Labourites in all but name is completely misguided”
Oh really?
Nikki Kaye is without doubt the wettest member of the National party caucus. While many cheer leaders were hoping that Kaye would win her seat over the odious Jacinda thing the reality is that it mattered not one jot.
Both candidates are progressives so the people of Auckland central ended up with a pinko even if that is not what they wanted. At least the Jacinda thing had the honesty to say she is a stinking socialist.
Vote:January 14th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
The only thing I’ll remember about her is being that pretty MP that supported that dog sue bradford with the smacking bill. Her role in doing that completely changed my opinion of her. She may be good at what she does but she sided with a dog.
Vote:January 15th, 2012 at 12:15 am
@CharlieBrown
There is no need to describe a woman as a ‘dog’ just because she put a bill before parliament that you disagree with. That is an offensive personal attack.
And for the record – pretty much all of parliament voted for the ‘anti-smacking’ bill apart from Winston and a few religious nuts from United Future who are now long gone. It was a common sense law that had the support of pretty much all our elected representatives and the backing of pretty much all the agencies that work on the front line with family violence.
The media were irresponsibly sensationalist in their coverage of the law and the politicians (including Sue) did a terrible job explaining it to the public, but the bill itself was a necessary move forward if we want to become a less violent society.
Vote:January 15th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Personally, I think it is one of National’s greatest strengths that it embraces a broad spectrum of opinion in New Zealand and does not (like Labour) limit itself to a narrow clique. It is that breadth that has historically made National so successful, while Labour has usually supplied one-term Governments.
Vote:January 15th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Katherine Rich, just another progressive trying to infiltrate the business community.
Vote:No wonder she has been touted as a”potential great Cabinet Minister” by our host.
January 15th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Richard29
Charlie Brown’s description of Bradford is correct, recent electoral results would also suggest it is one shared by the majority of people in this country.
As for the personal attack, well that dog Bradford personally attacks every hard working family each and every time she opens her mouth. She is a parasite who wants to steal more of my money and give it to lazy bastards and bludgers who choose not to work.
Vote:January 15th, 2012 at 10:25 am
a fortiori – it would seem not.
No they hadn’t. They had promised that long before the election, but in the campaign they made it clear that the current level of dividends would be retained to fund other promises they made. Which would have done nothing to reduce the likes of power prices.
[They also neglected to mention the fact that the reason the SOEs in question had been delivering such high dividends is that they had been selling bits of themselves off and returning the proceeds of the sales as dividends to government. So, in actual fact, in can be argued that Labour does support the sale of SOEs.]
Aside from breaking international agreements on trade (of which we would suffer more from the repercussions thereof – try selling your subsidised goods to markets that have been closed to us, or which have imposed high tariffs or low quotas on our goods in response to our actions), subsidies are economically inefficient means to bolster the economy:
- they do not promote efficient production as the producer will get paid the same
Vote:- they do not promote continued improvement in quality – for the same reason
- they are a program of ‘picking winners’ [but then 'winners' is actually inaccurate unless those businesses were already viable without the subsidies - which also would seem to defeat the purpose of them]
- they penalise every other consumer and business alike, as the subsidies have to be paid for by someone – and the ‘someone’ is everyone who is not receiving them
January 15th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Richard – Bradford is a plague on decent people wanting to live their lives and bring up families outside the dogma propagated from a socialist police state – I was insulting dogs by using her name in the same sentence. People like bradford have came to power in other countries before and her views ultimately lead to tyranny such as the ussr, burma or failed states such as most tin pot african countries.
Vote: