HR for political parties, Ctd

I have been sent a suggested list of possible methods of creating KPIs for politicians by a National party insider. Labour would do well to look at some of these suggestions.

There clearly needs to be a mix of indicators. An overemphasis of one at the expense of others means you get an MP who will coast.

1. Party votes – the ultimate indicator of worth. Obviously this needs to be subjective since every electorate is different in terms of worth to the party, but there can be some kind of assessment whether the MP did a great job of winning the PV in their seat. Did they beat the previous election result, did they over or under perform against the average result, is the result reflecting the kind of PV needed in a “blue” or “red” seat.  Deb Mahuta-Coyle is probably regarded as next to useless because of her appalling result in Tauranga for Labour. She may never get a decent Parliamentary opportunity again because her colleagues know she can’t win votes.

2. Electorate vote – Obviously, people who win seats are better MPs. Sadly, list MPs who only go for PV are not quite as recognised for effectiveness, since they don’t bring in extra resources that come with a seat, not have the ability to keep an organisation going. MPs who win marginals and hold them should be highly regarded. The obvious KPI is “Did they win?”, followed by “Did they over or underpeform against the swing”. Louisa Wall will be regarded well in Labour for winning Manurewa well.

3. Membership - MPs who support organisations that grow membership have power that grows with it. A good MP is one who finds good people to help run their seat and grow membership, hold functions, engage in report backs and fundraise. John Carter would have to be regarded as a superior MP in recent years on this KPI, whereas Paula Bennett and Murray McCully would score dismally in this regard.

4. Media coverage – obviously positive news rubs off on the character of the MP. For a backbencher, that means getting into the local suburban paper for useful things showing community benefit. This doesn’t mean posing at ribbon cuttings for a community hall that was commissioned by the council, but rather posing with community constables recently coming into service due to boosted police numbers.

5. Name recognition – closely linked to media coverage. Lots of people know the names of Simon Bridges, because he is successful for Tauranga and gets good media. However, other politicians get name recognition because they get drunk and piss on trees, or maybe they they want to compulsorily arm Muslim taxi drivers. Everyone knows who those idiots are. The KPI in this category would need to carry plus scores and minus scores.

6. Parliamentary business – again subjective. Large numbers of PQs might only suggest they have a staff member who can ask loads of questions. But unless you ask questions, you don’t get answers that help drive stories of public concern to win votes.

7. Fundraising – an MP who can bring in money for their party is valuable. Someone who has good connections to fundraising sources is indispensable. Someone who is too frightened to ring around the Rotary Club asking for $100 from each member is probably not going to hack it as a successful MP. Even a good left-wing electorate MP should be able to raise a bit of money from small business people if they are personally liked.

8. Campaign skills –  Does this MP run a decent campaign – not just an election, but an issues campaign that crops up during the course of the term. Do they take the lazy way of campaigning and wave signs around or bother shoppers at their local supermarket or pub? Do they aggravate people on social media? Or do they take a professional approach, using skilled volunteers to identify pockets of potential support and then work them over with doorknocking, phone calls, written material and more? Do they work over the media about their campaign, and can they find decent photo opportunities to make their point. For example, Nikki Kaye had a technically competent campaign that helped withstand the tactical voting tricks of the Greens and Labour.

9. X-Factor –  Either you have it or you don’t. Amy Adams and Simon Bridges have X-Factor. David Shearer and Mark Mitchell do too. Richard Prosser doesn’t. Neither does Colin King. While those MP don;t have X-Factor, Darien Fenton has the exact opposite of X-Factor turning away more voters than than she wins, if any.

10. Mark on Parliament – What laws have they passed, and what have they done for us lately? What initiatives have they started that improved the lives of people? Brian Neeson weakly raised the fact he helped microchip dogs when he was challenged by John Key. People didn’t care. He hadn’t made a mark on Parliament in the years he was there. Jackie Blue did well with herceptin for women, but seems to have gone invisible since then. Are they an attack dog, perhaps an effective debater who makes logical useful points that other MPs want to listen to? Or are they just a drone who can’t string two sentences together even when some hard working researcher gives them everything they need to say?

  • Anonymous

    These are all KPIs for how the individual has contributed to his/her party. What we, the people, need are KPIs which measure politician’s contribution to the country. Who cares whether Polly X increases his/her PV for Labour, if Labour is intend on destroying wealth and economic growth? If we progress to a written constitution (and now is not the time, as it will tend to reinforce the rights of citizens to receive funding from the rest of the country; rather, we need to get a lot closer to bankruptcy so a constitution focuses on controlling the mutual desire of politicians to spend other people’s money and of too many voters to take more and more of it) then the type of KPIs I wrote of yesterday are what we need if we are to save this country.

    • Guest

      Jeff, you must have missed item number 10. That’s clearly about how people make a difference to the country. Arguably 6 and 8 are too.

  • Anonymous

    Guest, perhaps. If No 10 were the number of laws the member had helped to take off the statute book (so people can get on with wealth creation without the stultifying effect of the nanny state), then I could agree. But 10 is presently phrased to suggest more acts of parliament is a good thing. 6 might matter within the beltway. Re 8, our present system rewards politicians who campaign by putting off the difficult issues, not dealing with them. For example, John Key’s pledge not to touch superannuation. Labour survive by telling people other people should give them more, without any consideration of the impact of such transfers on either the giver or the receiver. The huge lie of the welfare state as presently constituted. The suggested KPI system encourages lies rather than the truth.

  • Paulus

    Being in Tauranga electorate the Maori/Irish woman from Phil Goff’s Department was very low profile in the electorate. You only noticed when her placard was the only placard left after the others had been vandalised, and she still stuffed it. Am sure she will get her parliamentary day job back in the next session, if she has not already.

  • Ploughman

    Forgotten KPIs: Number of electorate clinics held.  Number of petitioners seen.  Outcomes of any help offered petitioners.  
    Am I old fashioned in thinking that MPs can help people having difficulties?  The old fashioned clinic was a casualty of the daft MMP system we have now. 

    And to those wanting smaller government be careful about weakening essential government services.  NGO staff are not as well trained or controlled as government employees, so if you weaken, say, CYF, then the gap will be filled by NGOs whose staff are not as well trained (if at all) and whose purpose is other than social welfare.  Church-based NGOs are particularly dangerous to social well-being.