Candidates College

National’s Candidate College, Ctd

For those who want honest answers to the questions posed?yesterday:

1. What do I get if I run for a red seat?

Nothing. You will spend a lot of your own time and money on?running. National will ignore you unless you get off message?when someone horrible will scream at you.

2. Will running in a red seat improve my list position?future elections?

No. National treats red seat candidates as a bit?handicapped, and running in a red seat and losing confirms?the view within the party you aren?t really worth taking?seriously.

3. Will running in a red seat improve my chances of winning?a blue seat nomination in the future?

No. As above, National think people running in red seats are?a bit handicapped and this will count against you in blue?seat nomination.

4. Will running in a red seat mean National will help my?career outside of politics?

No. Once the election is over National will completely?forget who you are until they desperately start scrabbling?around looking for some mug to take one for the team at the?next election. Note the comments about being a bit?handicapped, that?s how you wil be viewed if you run for a?red seat.

5. What chance do I have of getting in on the list?

None at all. The National caucus will almost certainly be?smaller after 2014 and you will be surprised at how crucial?to the future of the world having the current caucus all?ranked highly will be. Newbies who cant complain too much to?the media or cause too many problems will be ranked at the?bottom. You should not rely on the list to get into?parliament as a new candidate.

6. Will new candidates be ranked ahead of existing MPs?

No. The existing caucus will kick up a fuss if they are not?ranked ahead of newbies and the National Party doesn?t?like fuss.

7. Will the party help me secure a blue seat nomination?

No. The party has no influence on blue seat nominations as?governed by the constitution. Local delegates decide and?they don?t like carpet baggers or those who have lost red?seats. If you want a blue seat nomination do the hard yards?in that electorate even if it means not running for a cycle.

Candidates college members should ask these questions and?ask for examples of where people have benefited in running?in a red seat. Any actual examples of preferment on future?lists, for blue seat nominations or National helping with?careers will be published on this blog because it doesn?t?believe there are any, and it objects to aspiring?politicians being lied to.

National’s Candidates College, Ctd

Candidates College attendees should ask the President and?the General Manager the following questions:

  1. What do I get if I run for a red seat?
  2. Will running in a red seat improve my list position?future elections?
  3. Will running in a red seat improve my chances of winning?a blue seat nomination in the future?
  4. Will running in a red seat mean National will help my?career outside of politics?
  5. What chance do I have of getting in on the list?
  6. Will new candidates be ranked ahead of existing MPs?
  7. Will the party help me secure a blue seat nomination?

Candidates should ask the five candidates who were?unsuccessful in 2011 these questions too. Those people are?Claudette Hauiti, Leonie Hapeta, Jonathan Fletcher, Paul?Foster-Bell, and Jo Hayes. These people have lived through a?red seat campaign, so will tell you the truth about what?National will do for you if you take one for the team.

National’s Candidates College

The National Party have finally got off their collective?arses and are holding a candidates college meeting in the?next few days. I have had the agenda since it was first sent?out and it is dull and boring, a bit like the party wing?leadership.

Candidates College attendees should be very careful running?for National in the next cycle. They will not get in on the?list, and they will not enhance their political career by?running in a red seat that they lose. National will not help?their careers, will not help them gain blue seat selection?in the future, and running in a red seat will count against?a candidate.

Candidates should think through whether they are running for?office because they want to run for office, or because they?want to sit around a cabinet table making decisions. If you?run in a red seat you will not have any influence on policy,?and will likely never have any influence on policy. If you?just like campaigning and don?t mind a fisting from the?voting public and your own party then, by all means, run for National in a red?seat.

If you want to sit around cabinet pick and choose your?seats, and win selection only in a blue seat.

Goodfellow and the new McCarthyism

National President Peter Goodfellow has succeeded in introducing into National one of the worst traits of American political thinking – McCarthyism.

Those unfortunate enough to sign up for Candidate’s Fodder, excuse me, Candidates College, have been subjected to a small inquisition.

One would think that pertinent questions asked of future candidates should be ones which disqualify people from holding political office like “Are you subject to any name suppression orders?” or “Have you been charged with any crimes, particularly those involving physical violence?”, “Are any of your?companies?currently facing charges in any jurisdiction worldwide?”. Surely those same questions should be applied to those who wish to seek office at Regional or Board level…after all they seek to represent the party…albeit outside of parliament.

Instead, the supposedly broadchurch National Party is seeking to exclude people based on political affiliation and/or friendships.

“Are you, or have you ever been affiliated to Simon Lusk?” or “What are your connections to Whaleoil?”, for example.

It’s all very McCarthyist as per the Drunken Tailgunner’s campaign to smoke out imaginary communists from the US State Department.

While ferreting out ?future-focused fiscal conservatives who take advice from others than Goodfellow and his stooges might be seen as important, delegates at their conference should ask the questions:

  • Do we want homogenous candidates who slavishly follow the orders of the party president?
  • Do we want a caucus of economic centrists who live for the moment instead of thinking three, five or ten years down the line?
  • Should National descend into factional exclusion or should they accept that broadchurch parties need to tend to base as well as the centre?
  • Is it really so wise to exclude people who are superior campaigners in favour of those who like to stand on street corners and pester motorists with signs?

Or will delegates merely clap enthusiastically for the media, having paid hundreds of dollars to fill up seats in an auditorium?

National?s Useless Candidates College

As readers will know I am not a big fan of National?s?Candidate College, mainly because most of the members tell?me it is a series of people just lecturing about how great?they are, rather than teaching much practical. To my mind a candidates college should prepare people for the robust nature of selections, and then for the campaign trail rather than spend endless hour explaining what it is like being a MP. there are changes mooted but I would bet the Candidates College meets just once this year…on the morning of Conference.

The problem for National is they have consistently failed to?pass on institutional knowledge. People attending the?candidates college could expect to get a realistic appraisal?of their chances of being an MP, but this simply doesn?t?happen. The Party has a perverse incentive to get as many?people in selection as possible, so lets just about everyone?through, even if they have no chance of making it into?parliament.

What is worse is the National Party does not tell members?that there is absolutely no benefit in running in a red seat?or trying to get in on the list. In 2014 the tide will be?going ?out and unless you get a safe blue seat you will not?be going to parliament.

Running in a red seat gives you no chance of a better list?position in the future, or a better chance of winning?selection in a blue seat. National will not help red seat
candidates advance their careers, unlikely Labour, and will?be highly likely to ignore candidates until they begin a?desperate search for suckers to run at the next election.

If you do choose to run in a red seat it will cost you an?arm and a leg in lost wages and National will tax you?through their ?Victory Fund? because they are useless at
fundraising. You will not have any influence on policy, and?if you don?t say the closely scripted lines force fed to?you someone from Wellington will ring up and scream at you.

Those who don?t believe me should ask previous red seat?candidates if this is the truth or not. With the current?useless president don?t expect anything to change any time?soon.

Why doesn’t National have a summer school?

This weekend is Labour?s summer school where they probably indoctrinate impressionable young people that the warped left wing world view actually can work. Somewhere. At some point in the future. They probably also teach how to bugger drunks draped over swiss balls and get away with it too, but that is probably not mentioned much in public.

Fair play to Labour. They had their worst result since 1928 last year, have a party broke and that selects useless, nasty and damaging candidates on the list ahead of good ones like Stuart Nash and Kelvin Davis, but they still run a summer school.

Why National doesn?t run a summer school is a total mystery, much like the rest of Peter Goodfellow’s tenure as President. He seemed to think it was a party time sinecure, not a full time job. It is hard to think of a single successful initiative within National that can be attributed to Peter?s leadership.

Nope, I thought about it, there isn’t a single one. The accolades for the election strategy and success can be rightly awarded to Steven Joyce and Jo de Joux. John Key can take credit for keeping everything under control with his MPs and?remaining?personally popular which papered over the yawning chasms in the party machine. Even fundraising was largely conducted by people other than the President, though he is busy trying claim credit for that in between going to war with bloggers who are actually on the same team.

In point of fact the only news that featured Peter Goodfellow was bad news. Compare that with Judy Kirk, who worked tirelessly in the background picking up cheques and putting in place?initiatives?like the Candidates College . Unfortunately most of Judy’s legacy has been squandered by an indolent president.

So a big credit to Labour, that?despite?all the hurdles that they face, they are focussing on training and the future by having a Summer School.