Red Alert

This is the future of the National and ACT party

Posted by on November 26th, 2009


*Click on the image above for a full sized version

This is the future of the National and ACT party:  ACT lead researcher Andrew Falloon and the Minister for Energy’s Political Advisor Christopher Bishop.

I’m waiting for them to break out the ‘Dig Baby Dig’ T-Shirts.

57 Responses to “This is the future of the National and ACT party”

  1. Gooner says:

    Spud – I guess it’s akin to saying who would blog anonymously on the internet!!

    Might have dug a hole for myself there.

  2. Robespierre says:

    Good on Charles Chauvel for exposing this. Facebook is very public, like a postcard you send in the mail. I understand Falloon did not have any privacy settings on his Facebook page so it was up for grabs.

    IMO people who work for political parties and MPs have to be intensly loyal – often they have been hand-picked for this reason. As with employees everywhere, there must be a contractual clause about not bringing the organisation/party into disrepute whether during work hours or outside them. I have had this clause in my employment contracts for years.

    Staffers working for political parties are privy to confidential information and it has to stay this way – it’s called trust and loyalty. ACT staffer Falloon made a poor call, given that ACT is a support party to the National Govt.

    Gerry Brownlee has given hints that parts of the conservation estate are to be reopened for mining – how do we know that Abel Tasmam National Park is not one of them. We don’t but Andrew Falloon might.

    Your criticisms of Chauvel are misguided. He has put in hours of work trying to get a decent ETS for NZ, one that doesn’t favour big polluters whether brown or white. He worked hard to get the partial defence of provocation repealed. He is dedicated and loyal. Remember that.

  3. Nathan Mills says:

    Oh please, noone has said even once that Chauvel isn’t dedicated and loyal. On this post though, he made a bad call. It was pointless, and I think the absence of any attempt to justify it kinda proves that.
    “I just got back to my office after working to repeal – successfully – the provocation defence. That matters a lot more to me than any of this, I have to say.” is a blatant subject change.
    As for loyalty to a party, that’s just insane. If everyone in your organisation is forced to spout the party line, it’s a recipe for failure. Who’s going to pick up mistakes from an objective POV before it’s released to the public? Dissent can be very healthy for any group. Blind allegience and forced agreement isn’t.

  4. Robespierre says:

    @Nathan Mills. People in organisations often disagree and hammer out that disagreement in private. This often gets better end results. From my own personal experience, if I as a senior manager on the executive team of a private company were to go public with my dissent,even in joke form, I would get the sack.

    Being loyal to your employer when you occupy positions of trust is paramount, even if you disagree some times.

    No problem with staffers joking about this kind of thing in conversation. Posting it on Facebook , that’s the error.

  5. Nathan Mills says:

    And that would be absolutely true, if Andrew Falloon was employed by the National Party or Brownlee. He’s not.

  6. Geoff says:

    Just don’t panic. Brownlee won’t be ripping anything up. The public will not stand for it. Remember this is not a majority govt and their coalition partners are both compromised.