Clare Curran takes Dunedin South

39 comments on “Clare Curran takes Dunedin South ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Santi 1

   2 February 2008 at 4:54 pm

   DBP has fallen from grace ahfter his antics and incompetent ministerial performance.

   What would the failed southern socialist do now? Will he toe the party line? You bet. Money is at stake and as much his “Labour principles” (an axymoron) tell him otherwise he’ll stay the course.

   Ah, the beauty of being a professional politician.
2. Concerned from Tawa 2

   2 February 2008 at 4:55 pm

   Oh dam! I was so looking forward to Benson-Pope entertaining us all for a while yet. South Dunedin, ugh when I lived there it needed a natural disaster.
3. Whaleoil 3

   2 February 2008 at 5:40 pm

   What a spectacular slap in the face for the EPMU. Their hard-working and earnest President simply not good enough to trump a party apparatchik.

   What a hollow party run by as the one MSM commentator now calls her a Hollow Woman.

   Captcha State Slam
4. Wayne 4

   2 February 2008 at 5:46 pm

   SlaterWhale – you don’t understand how party democracy works do you?
5. Whaleoil 5

   2 February 2008 at 5:49 pm

   You can’t call how Labour selects a candidate democratic….surely you jest?
6. Robinsod 6

   2 February 2008 at 6:03 pm

   Hey Whale, how you doing?
7. Santi 7

   2 February 2008 at 6:42 pm

   “you don’t understand how party democracy works do you?”

   According to NewstalkZB: A committee of seven Labour Party officials chose Ms Curran ahead of other candidates: besides Mr Benson-Pope – president of the Engineers’ Union Don Pryde, and PSA man Keith McFadyen.

   So, democracy means seven apparatchiks in a room selecting the candidate they are told to.

   No without reason Labour calls itself a socialist democratic party. Rubbish!
8. Whaleoil 8

   2 February 2008 at 6:49 pm

   Pretty good actually Mike, how about yourself?
9. Robinsod 9

   2 February 2008 at 6:55 pm

   Now Santi let me educate you my little man. The way these things work is there are seven votes:

   One is the floor vote – that’s the vote cast by all of the members who have turned up from within the electorate.

   One is assigned to a delegate from the floor how is voted on by the floor on the day.

   Three are from the LEC. These are voted on by the LEC and one of them has to be a woman.

   Two are from the Party HQ.

   The LEC is comprised of any member that wants to be involved in the running of the party on a day to day basis ie fundraising, writing remits, campaigning for the local MP etc.

   Generally the party will follow the vote of the LEC as these are the usually the activists who have had the most do do with the candidates and with the electorate – they are also the ones who will do the campaigning.

   I’m not sure why this system is used or how it evolved. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me?
10. Robinsod 10

    2 February 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Very good Cameron. How’s your health?
11. Whaleoil 11

    2 February 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Great so again, where is the democracy in that?

    If 400 people turn up they get one vote plus one more for the delegate!!

    In your own words three “activists” get a vote each and then two flunkies from Wellington get a vote each.

    So the power rests in the “activists” and the Party HQ not with the members…..no wonder Labour wants state funding then they can get rid of the pesky members altogether.
12. Monty 12

    2 February 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Goos riddence t Benson-Poop – even by Labours own low standards, Benson-Poop was not worthy and it is pleasingto see that he has effectivly been sacked rather than resigning.

    He is a miserable SoB who has brought misery to countless pupils. He is a liar (and although that is nothing special in the Labour Party) who is getting his just desserts.

    No one will miss him in the Labour Party nor in Parliament in general. His bullying and condecesnding attitude to people who have a different view demonstrated that is is a low life coward. (What more would we expect from this ex-union offcial)

    I hope he has a long and miserable period of unemployment. Certainly no organisation would ever consider employing him.

    There that feels better –
13. Whaleoil 13

    2 February 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Health is great right now. Moving forward. Why the sudden concern for my health?
14. Santi 14

    2 February 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Lame explanation, Michael Porton.

    Where the hell is the democratic part of the process you outlined?

    Two from Party HQ? Two minions told to vote against “fallen-from-grace” DBP, for sure.

    Not that I care who the Dunedin Labour candidate is, but to try to pass that process as “democratic” is political contraband.

    Being an obedient Labour man yourself you are always ready to defend (even the indefensible).
15. Robinsod 15

    2 February 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Santi – I’m not a “labour man”. I just thought I’d explain to you how it all works. I’m sure if the system was entirely predicated on member votes then every candidate in the country would be selected by union members. I hadn’t realised you were so keen on getting more unionists into parliament. Good for you.

    I’m always concerned for you Cameron, I would hate to see us going into such a big year with you feeling poorly so make sure you keep fit and active and most of all keep up the good work!
16. Psycho Milt 16

    2 February 2008 at 7:59 pm

    Santi, here’s the thing: no-one gives a rat’s ass whether you think some particular way of voting is democratic or not. It’s their party, and that’s how they decided to organise it. Your opinions on that organisation, as a (presumably) non-member, count for a very small fraction of jack shit. If it grates on you that much, join Labour and campaign for a rewrite of the selection rules. And much good luck to you trying to sell the membership on the idea that the activists who actually put the work in should count for no more than some git who just turns up on the night – that’ll go down a treat.
17. AncientGeek 17

    2 February 2008 at 8:08 pm

    Can’t see any particular reason for it to be really democratic. It is more like selecting a person to fill a job position. So suitability of the person to carry out the position is probably more important than popularity.

    I’m pretty sure that the same type of procedure happens in all of the parties, except probably the greens.

    It is remarkably similar to the types of procedures that are done by corporates and officer cadet selection in the armed forces (with the exception of a floor vote). Probably for much the same reasons – if you’re going to invest effort in someone, then you rely on informed judgment by the people who are going to have to make the effort.
18. AncientGeek 18

    2 February 2008 at 8:12 pm

    I must admit I’ve never seen one of these selections. Seen a couple at local bodies who follow the same kind of procedures.

    I’ve run across Clare once. Impressed me as being pretty down to earth, smart, and hard working. She’ll be a good candidate.
19. AncientGeek 19

    2 February 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Santi: you’re so wrong….

    So, democracy means seven apparatchiks in a room selecting the candidate they are told to.

    You obviously haven’t met many activists for any party. I’m not talking here about people that merely like to talk. I call those talkback – maybe I should start describing them as Whale’s.

    Activists are people that actually volunteer and use their time and effort for no return apart from the satisfaction of doing it. They’re known for having rather strong wills and a keen appreciation for not wasting their time.

    Any three activists in a room will probably have three separate takes on every topic, and a ‘discussion’ to figure out what their common mutably acceptable view point is.

    Activists happen on everything from school committees to political committee’s. They’re the cornerstone of any society because they do the things that have to happen, but where there is no profit.
20. Chemist Peter 20

    2 February 2008 at 10:56 pm

    IrishBill says: what a dull, illiterate and offensive comment. Deleted.
21. burt 21

    2 February 2008 at 11:53 pm

    What Monty said.
22. Michele Cabiling 22

    3 February 2008 at 12:27 am

    IrishBIll says: Some people never learn. Deleted
23. Chemist Peter 23

    3 February 2008 at 8:45 am

    It was the truth though.
24. Phil 24

    3 February 2008 at 9:57 am

    Getting back on topic, I think their choice of Curran as candidate is a little bit short sighted. Surely her involvement in the political appointment “scandal” at MinEnvironment is still a bit too fresh in peoples minds?

    The perception may be that she was given the cadidacy bsaed on the fact Labour HQ “owes her something” after that fiasco.
25. sid 25

    3 February 2008 at 10:09 am

    Is Clare a radical feminist?

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
26. AncientGeek 26

    3 February 2008 at 10:47 am

    Phil: we’re talking electorate level politics here. Down at door knock, public meetings, etc. We’re also talking about Dunedin (spent 3 years there at one stage). It isn’t talkback radioland – they take their vote seriously. They will make up their own mind.

    The voters of dunedin south will go and have a look at their candidates. Clare impressed me the first time I heard her talk as being extremely sensible and very smart. I don’t impress easily.
27. AncientGeek 27

    3 February 2008 at 10:55 am

    sid:

    Is Clare a radical feminist?

    Perhaps you would define for us what are the characteristics of a radical feminist? Then I could have an attempt to answer your question.

    If that is too hard, then define what type of woman isn’t…

    I believe that there are still people who believe that giving woman an education is a waste of time and to advocate it is radical feminism. Is that your opinion?
28. sid 28

    3 February 2008 at 2:18 pm

    AC, I believe a radical feminist is a woman who believes in chanting ” half the couple, twice the parent.’

    Labour has twice refused to ratify the UN declaration on the family, which states nations are to treat mothers and fathers as equal parents.

    They are a radical feminist government and I presume this woman adheres to this insipid agenda?

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
29. Michele Cabiling 29

    3 February 2008 at 2:34 pm

    The original women’s suffrage movement contained as many men as women, and was dedicated to equal legal rights and equal opportunities for women. No fair-minded person could possibly object to what could be correctly described as “equity feminism.”

    In the late 1950s, Marxist-Leninism birthed “second wave” or “gender” feminism in order to create dialectical conflict between men and women, and to undermine the formative family as the basic building block of civil society.

    See article on link below for evidence:

    http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html

    Modern feminism is predicated upon Engels’ statement in “Origins of the State, the Family and Private Property: “Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, women and children the proletariat.”

    For Marxist-Leninists, the family is therefore the despised institution within which children are socialised into accepting the hierarchical system of capitalists class relations.

    Modern feminists see man as the enemy class in a war of gender attrition. And like Marxist-Lenist economics, gender relations are a zero sum game in which more for one gender is less for another.

    Trashing the institutions of civil society open the door to an expanded role for the state in picking up the pieces, which is exactly what Marxist-Leninists seek to bring about.

    If Clare Curran is an equity feminist (unlikely for a recent product of our education system and given her union background) she is to be applauded. If she is a gender feminist, she is simply a hater and a wrecker.
30. AncientGeek 30

    3 February 2008 at 2:52 pm

    AC, I believe a radical feminist is a woman who believes in chanting ” half the couple, twice the parent.’

    I think I can safely say that Clare Curran is extremely unlikely to do that in my opinion. So she isn’t a radical feminist by your definition.

    //====

    On the Doha declaration. I believe that the objection by New Zealand, Canada and a number of EU governments was on the basis that the declaration did not go far enough in a number of areas. In particular it had a very narrow focus on a ‘traditional’ nuclear family. That isn’t all that common anymore in the western cultures, and for that matter in most cultures apart from early industrial. Looks like Bush trying to impose his ideas about what a family is.

    That would have caused problems with the law in NZ related to extended families favored by the Maori and Polynesian cultures, and law related to artificial insemination and other fertility technologies. Also with the number of family breakups, people getting into new relationships with new partners, etc I would imagine problems all the way through our legal system.

    Ummm looks like it isn’t of that great note – I could only find two googles on it in NZ.

    Maxim institute

    The New Zealand objection to the Declaration grew out of our government’s concern with “family diversity.’ New Zealand’s delegate at the UN, Don Mackay, said that “many family forms do exist&. New Zealand regretted that the text and the Doha Declaration only promoted one model of family, at the expense of others.'[7]

    Some Western European representatives along with those from Canada and New Zealand were concerned the Declaration did not attend to all variations on the family and the rights of women and children. Amendments proposed by the European Union and Canada, and supported by New Zealand, were not taken up.

    and a united MP Larry Balcock press release who seems to think it has to do with same sex parent families – can’t think of any law that would interfere with? Balcock incidentially directly contradicts your statement ?nations are to treat mothers and fathers as equal parents” when he says:-

    It is hard to accept Mr McKay’s criticism that “the document contains no reference to the rights of women and children’ when Article 2 goes on to say “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance

    However I don’t place too much credence in Larry Balcock’s statement as most of it sounds like he is trying to spin big time. Maxim is a thinktank that I never place any credence in – good place to find minority issues though.
31. AncientGeek 31

    3 February 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Actually the more I look at that declaration, the fewer the countries that I think could ratify it in view of their social structures.

    I wonder how many have actually ratified it ?
32. AncientGeek 32

    3 February 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Actually so far I can’t see any government’s that have ratified it, by bringing it into their own laws. But it was only in 2004. It usually takes about a decade before the picture becomes clear.
33. Michele Cabiling 33

    3 February 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Since it came from radical Marxist-Leninists any country who did ratify it would be crazt.
34. sid 34

    3 February 2008 at 3:16 pm

    AC,The vast majority of the UN nations(149)did ratify the 2004 agreement.

    We are “out of step” with the rest of the world when it comes to our stinking thinking policy regarding mum,dad and the kids.

    Gender feminists are the hateful and vindictive side of the women’s movement.They have powerful financial backers all around the globe.
35. AncientGeek 35

    3 February 2008 at 3:20 pm

    ‘chele – it looks like the current US government was highly enthusiastic about it (see the maxim link), as were the islamic cultures that you are so keen on.

    I think your contradictions are showing. Better cover up fast..
36. sid 36

    3 February 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Minority issues are why the NZ government has twice deliberately refused to back equal parenting?

    Will they get a third roll of the bowling ball, that will, all but strike out the traditional family in New Zealand?
37. AncientGeek 37

    3 February 2008 at 4:11 pm

    sid: I take a different stance to you on what is a ratification. A lot voted for it at Doha, yes. But ratification is not the realm of diplomats – it is the realm of the legislators.

    Ratification is when the countries bring a declaration into their legislation as being a recognized principle of law. Then the local courts may use it in their judgments where it conflicts with local laws. I can’t see any evidence that any country has done that yet.

    Thats what Balcock was attempting to do, and it failed. Balcock was also clear that the Doha declaration was not about equal parenting (which frankly I think is a biological impossibility), it was about protecting the role of the ‘traditional’ family.

    The version of the traditional family that the declaration is trying to protect is not all that common. Certainly it is rare amongst my Maori friends, and uncommon in my own extended family. In fact any family that has been here for a century or more seems to orientate more closely to the Whānau arrangements than the family style that came from the european industrial family model.
38. sid 38

    3 February 2008 at 5:18 pm

    The radical feminist policy scriptwriters have obliterated whatever AC, however undermining traditional family values like respect, family loyalties and love for mum and dad has been disastrous for NZ. Low self-esteem levels in our male youth are largely the result of callous/bias gender policy, which is designed to put boys in the no brainier category and portray men as mere bumbling idiots. It is little wonder that youth offending is spiralling out of control. A dangerous kiwi society is the result of over three decades of bizarre feminist social policy and pc nanny state engineering.

    Reap what you have sown kiwi’s!

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
39. Draco TB 39

    4 February 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Oh yes, the ‘traditional’ nuclear family – the family organisation that is mostly myth.

    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056440/nuclear-family
    http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/564

    Which has, mostly, been brought about by legislation . Can anyone say ‘social engineering’?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS