ICT/Comms – Cunliffe has taken this himself which signifies he sees this as a major issue. As a former Minister he will bring his experience and knowledge to this area and will place pressure on the Government in areas such as the copper pricing review.
Tertiary Education – Grant Robertson gets this again, I think for the third time.
Police/Corrections – an unusual move giving these to Jacinda Ardern. Labour is perceived by most people as weak on law & order and hence they try to compensate by having tough speaking (if not acting) spokespersons such as Goff and Cosgrove. Will be interesting to see if Ardern makes more headway vs Tolley than she did with Bennett.
Social Development – Moroney got this off Ardern. She’ll be up against Bennett which will be a challenge for her
Foreign Affairs – Shearer takes this off Goff. Shearer will do very well in the portfolio, while Goff is sent a clear signal to retire.
Broadcasting – Faafoi picks this up off Curran. As a former TVNZ employee should do relatively well in the portfolio
Transport – given to the 25th ranked Fenton. I presume they are leaving this portfolio open for the Greens to run in a future Government
Arts, Culture and Heritage – this vital portfolio retains three Ministers – Ardern, Robertson and Fenton. So many functions to attend!
This entry was posted on Monday, September 23rd, 2013 at 7:06 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Anyone investing in NZ telecommunications should now demand a risk premium against the outside chance that Cunliffe takes power and repeats his Telecom “unbundling” confiscation of shareholder property rights.
thor42 and bereal have summed up nicely what it’s all about really. Someone *hammering* Moroney, someone hammering Ardern, Kanwaljit bat Singh hammering Moroney (without wearing his turban) and Even Ian McKelvie being able to hammer Ardern.
How terrible if it descended to being about actually about coming up with the best policies to progress the country and doing the best to get people on board and share some common goals.
The moronic attitudes show we’ve got the politics and politicians we deserve.
DPF – have the number of portfolios proliferated or does it just seem like it?
For example, the Herald says, “Ms Mahuta takes Treaty negotiations and Maori development portfolios Mr Cunliffe announced this afternoon. However, unsuccessful leadership contender Shane Jones retains the Maori affairs role.” What Maori Affairs are there for Jones to handle outside the Treaty and development?
Education seem to have about 5 flavours too, and Finance now has economic development and revenue as hangers on.
I imagine that it’s a matter of being across the issues and using all the brains in the house. No party wants another party to have someone ready to drive an issue without someone to defend it. That said, why not just have a few real Ministers with broad portfolios and support teams with roles in each major element? Ego? Chance to get noticed by voters? If the latter, I’d more happily vote for “associate minister of real portfolio” than “minister of tiny defined area of responsibility”.
The mere thought of the Greens, in particular the car-hating Julie Ann Genter running the transport portfolio fills me with dread. I can see vast sums of money being spent on public transport projects that will run at massive losses. And I hope that Transmission Gully and Puhoi to Wellsford are sufficiently underway that they cannot be canned or neither road will be built in my lifetime at least.
@ Matthew Percival – quite so. The hugely capable Mr Prasad as well as Raymond Huo must be feeling very hard done by. Both deserved far better roles based on their contributions so far, and certainly neither deserved to be ranked behind Trevor Mallard 😀
Doggone7 – Are you confident that new Labour can rise to that challenge? Or are they going to go straight for the gotcha politics which it appears is all they know how to do.
I assume you meant both National and Labour but I see that issue as being Labours problem more than the other. They are supposed to be holding the government to account ie challenging government policies that don’t make sense and/or suggesting feasible alternatives. But they don’t. Ever. They are always tackling the man, never the policy, well hardly ever. And all they ever say is that they will reverse anything the government puts up. Now maybe they do disagree that wildly but it looks more like it is opposition for the sake of opposition – nothing is ever positive or proactive.
And, unfortunately, what is the first comment we get out of Cunliffe “I’ve got Keys number”. FFS. How about trying to be an effective opposition for the good of NZ. Nah, they just want to “Get Key”.
No doubt you will say that Key isn’t “nice” either, but, to be blunt, I don’t know how he keeps his temper with them. With their imbecilic and puerile questions in the house “Does he stand by all his statements” it would be impossible for me to take them seriously. So when it looks like Key is brushing off a question, I can understand completely. If you get asked stupid questions day after day, and I am not talking about the “stand by his statements” question, then I probably wouldn’t really be listening for the one out of ten question that vaguely made some sort of sense.
Hopefully Cunliffe can turn them around. But in the last few weeks of Shearer it was horrible just watching and listening. Just a train wreck rolling on and on. And the same people are still there. And, I expect, the inane, incompetent questions will keep on coming – “I’ve got his number”. Oh, oh.
@Tom J How is Julie Anne Genter qualified to be MInister of Transport? She’s got a degree and tits and numerous toilet tissue certs of “planning practice” but I’m at a loss to see how this adds up to authority on the said portfolio.
Julie Anne Genter https://www.greens.org.nz/people/julieannegenter
Master of Planning Practice, University of Auckland (1st class).
Urban planning consultant and internal environmental coordinator (2006-08) for Sinclair Knight Merz;
Transportation Consultant for MRCagney (2008-2011);
Darien Fenton http://www.labour.org.nz/people/darien-fenton
taught music to Indian children and acted in Bollywood films
working for Playcentre, being a self-employed music teacher, working at the Tower of London for the Master of Armouries
What really bugs me is although Parker has been confirmed as shadow finance spokesman, his iPredict stocks (those that place him as the next Minister of Finance) tend to hover around 40c, yet the next government to be Labour stocks usually sit above 45c.
Cunliffe and his advisors will be banking on the fresh look and new leader vibe making a difference because the shallowness of the talent pool remains regardless of who gets what portfolio. I think Cunliffe has handled the winners/losers things as well as can be expected. Parker as deputy on balance is better than Robertson. Robertson will try his best but bide his time should the wheels fall off…again. In the one on one House match ups, there is nothing here that would cause Key or his team to lose sleep and Cunliffe’s first outing in the House was a fizzer. Mallard and Goff have been effectively put out to pasture – in Duck’s case that’s the right call but with Goff not so good as he is a young 60 and still has a term left in him and was usually a safe pair of hands in Cabinet.
Demoting Fenton and Curran well … a nasty piece of work is still a nasty piece of work regardless of where they sit in the rankings so they were easy targets for revenge that no one will lose sleep over. Cunliffe keeps King and Cosgrove close – the right thing to do as punishing them would’ve left them idle to plot and destabilize.
It always depends on the LOO as he is the wanna be PM. Shearer failed to convince voters, the media and eventually his colleagues that he could break though. Cunliffe will handle the messaging and the media better and it would be hard not to have an LOO office that runs smoother and is better organized after the shemozzle that was Shearer’s office. BUT … the big but…Cunliffe has baggage that Shearer didn’t have and Matthew Hooten hit on this brilliantly on the NTN Politics segment yesterday. Apart from the hidden US bank account, Shearer was believed by all to be honest. Cunliffe shows that sometimes he just makes stuff up – yes the left will argue that who cares about the minute details of his charitable efforts but the trouble is the numbers of things that he makes “mistakes” about keep multiplying and add to a perception of dishonesty. Key and his team have proven to be very adept at finding and exploiting weak spots and so Cunliffe’s exaggerations and untruths will be front and centre in their attacks.
Finally despite all the talk of Parker’s centrist economic views and having right leaning Jones in the economic development role, the is no getting around the fact that even under Shearer Labour was lurching left and that’s BEFORE Cunliffe must deliver concrete manifesto promises that enshrine his contribution to the left wing union friendly bidding war that was a hallmark of the Labour primary campaign. What will a veer to centre look like other than sound bites and window dressing because only a softening of announced policies like the chan ban, Kiwipower and Kiwibuild and a jettisoning of the rich prick tax and most of the union sops would really be considered a change of direction. The ONCB poll, after weeks and weeks of Labour’s primay dominating the news, saw nothing more than a re-arrangement of the left’s vote (Greens down and Labour up). Cunliffe’s whole campaign, personal orientation and rhetoric seems more targeted at staunching the flow to the Greens than winning back Waitakere Man. And then there’s the likelihood that he will not stop the party passing a man ban remit at their Conference!!
I can’t help but contrast your reasoned analysis with the succeeding comment…
You talk about the shallowness of the talent pool, but that tends to be a jibe thrown at either party when in opposition. In reality, a major party only needs 5 or 6 competent Ministers to do most of the heavy hitting. National have that, and the top 10-15 of the Labour caucus could probably match that if given the opportunity. The key thing now is to target weak ministers, like Parata and Tolley, more effectively.
Mike – “The key thing now is to target weak ministers, like Parata and Tolley, more effectively.”
Sorry mike but wouldn’t the better thing now be to move their policies off the back of the beer coasters they are currently written on and turn them into real, considered and costed details of how these thing would work in practice. For example, the CGT (which I assume is still a policy -the Greens won’t veto that will they?).
What is going to be covered family homes, shares, kiwi-saver, etc. How will they calculate the current value of an asset. What will the tax be calculated against ie the appreciation or the full value. What will the tax rate be. Who will administer this – identify the assets to be taxed, send the bills, collect the money,…. Will this be a new ministry or will IRD do it? How many public servants will need to be hired to do this. And once you have done all that , will the result be tax positive for the country or will the costs be greater than the collected tax.
The lack of quality of Labour’s front bench is evident in how infrequently they trouble their government counterparts. Parata really is the only Cabinet Minister who gets flustered in PQ time and has made damaging pratfalls that required rescuing by more senior ministers (Novapay). Labour have a few senior members who were good Cabinet ministers (Goff, King even Mallard on a good day) but the emphasis is on few hence the term “shallow pool”. National draws on a much broader cross section of the community when it seeks candidates and thus it can choose from its newer MP intake a range of talented people who have had considerable success in prior businesses, occupations and the community. Labour’s harder left extra-Parliamentary party has driven out many of the types of people who would make excellent cabinet ministers. I could name you a dozen such people that I knew personally who persisted in the party despite the humiliations and low list rankings but were never selected or ranked high enough on the list because they couldn’t tick all the PC boxes. When you are controlled by ‘a gaggle of gays and trade unionists” as Damien O’Connor accurately said, you get this much thinner talent pool. Inside the Labour party, being a teacher, university lecturer or trade unionist is highly regarded indeed they are almost priority professions. Outside in the real world, they are not considered to be anywhere near as important backgrounds to become good MPs and ultimately effective Cabinet Ministers. So whilst there is a degree of political snark in my comment, it has a solid foundation in truth.