On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a conflict of interest.
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:This is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public >comes into it.
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the >world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does >not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have >done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with >it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good for >the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought >along.
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
On 19 Jun 2023 03:40:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:This is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public >>comes into it.
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >>conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the >>world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does >>not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have >>done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >>somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with >>it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good for >>the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought >>along.
While what you say is correct, in his original post John Bowes said
something else - that being a professionally qualified MP in any
particular field meant that portfolios in that field could not be held
by said MP because it gave rise to a conflict of interest. I cited a >historic example and queried how there could be a conflict of interest
from it.
On 19 Jun 2023 03:40:10 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:This is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public >comes into it.
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the
world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does >not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have >done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with >it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good forWhile what you say is correct, in his original post John Bowes said something else - that being a professionally qualified MP in any
the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought >along.
particular field meant that portfolios in that field could not be held
by said MP because it gave rise to a conflict of interest. I cited a historic example and queried how there could be a conflict of interest
from it.
--Remember a cabinet minister doesn't need to have any knowledge of their portfolios because they have a department with a bunch of qualified folk to keep them up to speed. In fact I'd go so far as to say if a minister was qualified their knowledge could
Crash McBash
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 15:47:59 +1200, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Please give cites prior to 2017 of these examples Rich.
wrote:
On 19 Jun 2023 03:40:10 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:This is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered >>> accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a >>> conflict of interest.
comes into it.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >>conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the
world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does
not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have
done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >>somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with
it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good for
the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought >>along.
While what you say is correct, in his original post John Bowes said >something else - that being a professionally qualified MP in any >particular field meant that portfolios in that field could not be heldCertainly it is quite common for a Minister of Agriculture to either
by said MP because it gave rise to a conflict of interest. I cited a >historic example and queried how there could be a conflict of interest >from it.
have been involved in farming or represent a rural electorate, it is
common for the Attorney-General or Minister of Justice to have legal qualifications; all Ministers of Education have been to school, but
some have been teachers before becoming an MP. It would be helpful if
John could give a few examples of what concerns him.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a conflict of interest.
--I learnt that when Muldoon was PM. An uncle of mine Bert Walker had been a post master. When I questioned him about why he wasn't post master general he told me it wouldn't happen. After another why from me he explained it was to prevent conflicts of
Crash McBash
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 15:47:59 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 19 Jun 2023 03:40:10 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:This is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public >>>comes into it.
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered >>>> accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a >>>> conflict of interest.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >>>conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the >>>world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does >>>not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have >>>done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >>>somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with >>>it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good for >>>the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought >>>along.
While what you say is correct, in his original post John Bowes said >>something else - that being a professionally qualified MP in any
particular field meant that portfolios in that field could not be held
by said MP because it gave rise to a conflict of interest. I cited a >>historic example and queried how there could be a conflict of interest
from it.
Certainly it is quite common for a Minister of Agriculture to either
have been involved in farming or represent a rural electorate, it is
common for the Attorney-General or Minister of Justice to have legal >qualifications;
all Ministers of Education have been to school, but
some have been teachers before becoming an MP. It would be helpful if
John could give a few examples of what concerns him.
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 3:48:00?PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
On 19 Jun 2023 03:40:10 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Remember a cabinet minister doesn't need to have any knowledge of their portfolios because they have a department with a bunch of qualified folk to keep them up to speed.
On 2023-06-19, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:While what you say is correct, in his original post John Bowes said
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John BowesThis is one of those tricky ones. Perception of the situation by the public >> >comes into it.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
If you have an honest Minister then probably hard to argue that there is a >> >conflict of interest. However in the last 5 years the Governments around the
world have distoryed a great of the trust the public had in them. That does >> >not address the question as to why Labour are acting as they are. They have >> >done some other suprising things (co-governance as an example ) which are >> >somewhat questionable at least.
Having slammed these in the peoples face, so to speak, and gotten away with >> >it they have got into the habit of doing what they are sure will be good for
the country, and to hell with wether or not the people are being brought
along.
something else - that being a professionally qualified MP in any
particular field meant that portfolios in that field could not be held
by said MP because it gave rise to a conflict of interest. I cited a
historic example and queried how there could be a conflict of interest
from it.
--
Crash McBash
In fact I'd go so far as to say if a minister was qualified their knowledge could skew their acceptance of the advice given.
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 3:23:12?PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:interest in the promotion of members of the post office.
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John BowesI learnt that when Muldoon was PM. An uncle of mine Bert Walker had been a post master. When I questioned him about why he wasn't post master general he told me it wouldn't happen. After another why from me he explained it was to prevent conflicts of
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
--
Crash McBash
I'd suggest Minister of Finance is probably a position where a minister was unable to promote his croy's ;)
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 22:21:57 -0700 (PDT), John Bowesinterest in the promotion of members of the post office.
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 3:23:12?PM UTC+12, Crash wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), John BowesI learnt that when Muldoon was PM. An uncle of mine Bert Walker had been a post master. When I questioned him about why he wasn't post master general he told me it wouldn't happen. After another why from me he explained it was to prevent conflicts of
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Many years ago any minister f the Crown who had worked in an industry or government department could be sure they weren't going to get a portfolio covering their old employment area. Why? To make sure there was no conflict of interest.John - can you give some context for this? RD Muldoon was a chartered
Now can one of you clever people in this ng tell me why Labour is no longer doing this?
accountant and eventually Minister of Finance. I am sure that many
ministers have been professionally qualified in their ministerial
portfolios and I struggle to understand why this would be considered a
conflict of interest.
--
Crash McBash
Yes it is. We had the conversation in 1969. I wasn't aware he ever became Postmaster General after that.I'd suggest Minister of Finance is probably a position where a minister was unable to promote his croy's ;)Was it this Bert Walker, John? https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/our-communities/204474/Ex-MP-Bert-Walker-dies
"Walker was postmaster-general and held the tourism and broadcasting portfolios from 1969 to 1972." and
"Before becoming an MP, Walker was a farmer and an accountant. He
served in the air force during World War 2."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 113:24:34 |
| Calls: | 6,854 |
| Files: | 12,355 |
| Messages: | 5,416,586 |