Red Alert

Nat Board has a no Lusk policy

Posted by on May 8th, 2012

Every now and again infighting gets so bad in the Nats that some gems are delivered to me. In this case it is a set of their Board and Board committee minutes.

You can view these documents from the Audit Committee here, the Communications Committee here, and the Board here.

The Audit committee outs McCully and his organisation as being slow to pay their levy. And Hunua too though less relevant when it comes to National Party leaks.

The most interesting section relates to their unofficial trainer Simon Lusk. See some of his previous history including his involvement in Nat pre selections and the failed anti MMP campaign here.

Candidates College
Michael reported that he has had a discussion with those MPs that have had an involvement with Simon Lusk. He has let them know that it is not appropriate for any MPs to engage with any alternative Candidates’ School that is not sanctioned by the Party. He said that this has been understood by all.

He noted that these discussions had given rise to further discussion about the Party’s Candidates College and the gap in content that it potentially has.

He reported that Simon Lusk is running a further meeting purportedly aimed at educating local body aspirants. This has led some in Caucus to ask where the Party is positioned with local Body politics particularly in Auckland. Some Caucus members feel that they should be involved in this training programme. Michael believes however that they should remain distant and will have that discussion with those MPs.

Update on Simon Lusk
Michael reported a disturbing discussion that he has had with Simon Lusk that highlighted his motivations and a very negative agenda for the Party.
It was agreed that light needs to be shed on these issues with key influencers within the Party.
It was further agreed that his agenda represents a serious risk to the Party and this issue will be followed up with a further meeting between the President and the Whip.

There is a bit further into the minutes that relates to a Hutt South strategy. I’m honoured.

23 Responses to “Nat Board has a no Lusk policy”

  1. Mark says:

    Labour. Focussing on the issues that matter.

  2. Tim G. says:

    I worry that Cameron Slater has become a model for your blogging style… do you think that such information reflects poorly on the Nats? I’m not sure it does…

  3. mickysavage says:

    Gee I bet there is a real witch hunt going on within the National Party right now trying to find the leaker. This is very interesting. Obviously things are not happy in the National Party …

  4. Daniel says:

    Minute 3 under the heading “Caucus Report” states, third bullet point:

    “The New MPs are settling in very well. All have been through an informal training process with the Whip and Junior Whip.”

    I would hate to think what this may involve, with Louise Upston having a say in running the show.

  5. Gydon says:

    “Michael reported a disturbing discussion that he has had with Simon Lusk that highlighted his motivations and a very negative agenda for the Party.”

    That little comment is very rousing. Everyone would love to know more. Everyone knows enough about Mr Jordan Williams to know who and what he is. Described by many as nasty, untrustworthy and as a narcissist. But who is Simon Lusk, Trevor?

    Try a search on this site to get an idea Trevor

  6. Sean says:

    Hang about

    Radio NZ Reports that John Key claims he is “..unaware of any criticism of Mr Lusk at board level, although he says people hold a range of views.”

    Yet the Board minutes clearly indicates that there is solid concern by the board of Lusk’s ‘…very negative agenda for the (National) party.’

    Either John Key pays no attention to the National Party Board, or he has memory problem similar to that of John Banks.

  7. Pete George says:

    Yeah, well, I thought Labour had a no “gotcha” policy so there you go, one all.

    I wonder what would happen if as much time, resources and attention was paid to representative democracy and running the country.

  8. Whaleoil says:

    Except of course Sean, you might have missed that Key isn’t named as an attendee in the minutes…duh.

  9. Anne says:

    Oh, the glorious irony. And there they were – the Nats – trying to claim there was a serious, factional leadership split in the Labour Party.

    I love it. :)

  10. mickysavage says:

    Petey George so keen to rail agains “gocha politics”, so insistent that there was nothing happening, but so silly because in front of his nose National’s civil war was occurring and he did not have a clue about it …

  11. Whaleoil says:

    Keep believing there is a civil war, go right ahead and focus on that…loving watching you all being distracted.

  12. Pete George says:

    Calm down takingthegreg. I’ve never insisted “there was nothing happening”, there’s obviously going to be differences and issues within a large party – even within medium sized parties as you know.

    I guess this is the prelude to some great revelations – will that be dripped out?

    Do you think this is a productive use of an MPs time? So far it looks like political patheticism. If one or two people could step back and see what they are doing, and how it is viewd by many people – voters – they would be a bit embarrassed.

    You’re right about one thing, my aversion to “gotcha” wastes of time. But I suppose the important representative and party rebuilding work is left to senior MPs.

  13. mickysavage says:

    Hehe Petey

    You have to be joking. For readers of this blog can I suggest they search the standard’s comments and Petey’s railing against “gocha politics” and the number of times he has said that there was nothing to see.

    The leaking of papers from National’s ruling Board is a major, major, major story. There is a great deal of dissent in National Party Land …

  14. gn35 says:

    Deleted. Banned. Clare

  15. OneTrack says:

    What is most important to the people of New Zealand? It’s obviously not the economy or asset sales – it’s obviously Simon Lusk or maybe John Banks. More nasty party? How is that working out for you? But Russell and Metiria are so happy with your approach – keep it up.

  16. Pete George says:

    I’ll keep railing against gotcha politics Greg. And I don’t expect you to ever get it. But I think a lot more people than you realise do get it, and they’ve had a gutsful of it.

    And you’ll keep blaming lack of support on anything but your own stupidity. And I wouldn’t mind betting that will have more effect on this term than a bit of snooping into something that’s hardly shocking.

    Most attempts at scandal mongering blow over pretty quickly.

    Entrenched obsessions with negatives last a lot longer.

  17. Evan says:

    So who are all these National MPs who have been attracted to this alternative ticket of candidates?

    They must be the dumbest of the lot. You’d never want to be beholden to Simon Lusk, it would be as bad as being beholden to Jordan Williams or Cameron Slater. Or Michelle Boag. Or John Key.

  18. Jack Ramaka says:

    I really struggle with the quality of people we have in Parliament these days, it’s more like reality TV.

    We have politicans running off to the Police and threating legal action when anything derogatory is said meanwhile they have portrayed this type of behaviour themselves in the past.

    Unfortunately most politicans are in politics to satisfy their own ego’s and celebrity status which is afforded to them by a media which idolises these people.

    Lets get back to the basics and build an economy which is going to take NZ forward rather than break down what our forebears have built over the last 170 years since the signing of the TOW.

  19. Pete George says:

    Jack – I agree. In fact most MPs work hard and with good intent, but that isn’t usually newsworthy. It’s just a few MPs who are attention seekers and attemtped subversives (and some react stupidly but not without provocation).

    It’s time for those who pay their wages to hold them more accountable.

    I don’t recall any candidate or party campaigning on a policy of being negative, destructive MPs, so they can’t claim any mandate for what can amount to disgraceful behaviour.

    MPs are in parliament to represent the people and the country, first and foremost. Those MPs who resort to trying to destroy fellow MPs should be embarrassed – some are probably beyond normal feelings of decency so we need to keep reminding them of what and who parliament is for.

  20. ghostwhowalksnz says:

    Pete, integrity is a central facet to the voters and who they vote for.

    If there is a ‘dark force’ working in the background of the National MPs and future candidates then surely we should know about it.

    Waiting for National to implode could take forever , its good politics to poke sticks at them to keep them on their toes.

  21. Pete George says:

    ghostwhowalksnz – there will be internal battles, maneuvering, jostling for influence etc in every party. We will never know most of what goes on.

    I would suggest that MPs would better spend their time attending to problems closer to home, in their own parties, and working positively there.

    It seems nuts to see party fighting like a demolition derby, where they don’t care about their own wreck as long as they dent the opposition a bit.

    I don’t think it’s the job of MPs to be trying to inflict damage on others, black deeds are usually not any improvement on the so called black deeds of others, they just add to the dark light many see our politics in.

    And some parties wonder why less people can be bothered voting.

  22. ghostwhowalksnz says:

    And your party is going into the Future that way Pete ?
    For goodness sake you have never had one good idea on Red Alert, and yet you want to be the local “hall monitor” for the naughty school kids.

  23. Sean says:

    “Except of course Sean, you might have missed that Key isn’t named as an attendee in the minutes…duh.”

    Well Whaleoil (I’m going to guess you are Cameron Slater, and not Simon Lusk today), John Key was a noted absence sure, but that’s because he is noted for giving an apology.

    So for you to be right, you are suggesting that John Key, who is expected to go to these Board meetings, doesn’t keep himself informed about the agenda.

    Also, given Michael Woodhouse was reporting back to the Board on what he had done about the Simon Lusk candidate’s college. He clearly states he had discussions with a faction of National Party MPs in contact with Lusk. Now, given what I know about how Boards operate, Board members would have known that Woodhouse was going to have these discussions before he reported back, probably at the last Board meeting.

    So that means if John Key is telling the truth, he would not only have ignored this set of minutes, but also at least the minutes of the meeting directly before this, and also one of his own MPs, who was operating on a genuine concern. Either that, or he wasn’t telling the truth, or he has the memory of John Banks.

    Still, I don’t know why do you care Cameron. You resigned from the National Party in 2010, for what reads like very factional reasons.