web analytics

Diverse hypocrites

Written By: - Date published: 7:22 am, September 7th, 2011 - 69 comments
Categories: accountability, democratic participation, dpf, national - Tags: , ,

National is the party of middle aged white guys.  There’s been plenty of commentary on how clearly their party list reflects this, including this excellent piece by guest poster Dean here at The Standard.

Unable to defend National’s list on these terms, chief Nat spinster David Farrar is trying to convince us that we shouldn’t care:

Party lists: how important is diversity?

…The National Party finalised its party list at the weekend, and the Greens, ACT and Labour published their lists some time ago. Parties often use the list as a way to ensure some diversity.

A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. They have looked only at the party list, and not at what electorates a party will win. For what counts is not what number someone is at on a party list, but whether that ranking will get them into Parliament. For example, 20 is a great rating on National’s list but a lousy one for the Greens. …

How important is diversity for readers? Is it very important to you or not at all important? Or only important if you feel a party has no diversity at all?

Some commentators who really should know better think that’s an interesting piece, so I guess it’s worth pointing out the obvious. Accusing critics of National’s list of “the same fatal mistake” is pretty naked hypocrisy from Farrar given the number of times he has himself done such analyses of Labour’s list and Labour’s diversity.  And now when National is exposed as the blandest of the bland, suddenly the diversity of the list doesn’t really matter eh?  Mmmmm – “flexible” on referenda, “flexible” on the EFA, “flexible” on list diversity, “flexible” in his beliefs, what a truly “flexible” chap this DPF is.

“Flexibility” aside, National is the party of middle aged white guys.  And yes we should care, because their interests do not represent the interests of all of New Zealand, and they never will.

69 comments on “Diverse hypocrites”

  1. Middle aged well to do white guys with their scared middle aged white wives (and mistresses of course) that’s who’s voting for this horrible ban of bullies and male chauvinists!

  2. Sanctuary 2

    “…Some commentators who really should know better think that’s an interesting piece…”

    The thing to always bear in mind about Bryce Edwards is he is a academic leftie who loathes Labour more than he hates National. In other words, your classic badly burned ex-Alliance supporter. Hope that once burned briefly, albeit fiercely, in his Marxist breast has been extinguished and replaced by a large dose of disillusioned bitterness. Once you understand that and use it to filter what he says he makes a lot interesting points.

  3. alex 3

    Out of all the parties, it is obvious that the Greens give most representation to women, with Labour coming a close 2nd. National doesn’t even come close. Perhaps this reflects a policy gap though, the Greens want to lift children out of poverty, Labour has always fought for struggling families and single mums and National wants to cut spending on vital social services, cuts which in Britain have been shown to disproportionately affect women.

    • Out of all the parties, it is obvious that the Greens give most representation to women, with Labour coming a close 2nd.

      Don’t get too obsessd with paper diversity. Having diversity in opposition is not as effective as having less but in government.

      It’s possible for men to represent the interests of women – I’m a member of NARK which I manage to represent alongside mostly women. If I was an MP I would repreent women’s interests at least as strongly as I represented men’s interests.

      • mickysavage 3.1.1

        Oh Pete you are such a SNAG.
         
        And your actions are not motivated in the slightest by the thought of gaining political support.

        • Pete George 3.1.1.1

          I have been connected to NARK longer than I have been committed to what I’m doing in politics. Working for a better society is what drives me, politics is just one means of achieving something. Dedicated party ideologues may not understand that.

          • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1.1

            “I have been connected to NARK longer than I have been committed to what I’m doing in politics”
             
            So you’ve been in NARK at least a fortnight then?

      • rosy 3.1.2

        NARK is representing children’s interests, is it not? Shouldn’t that matter equally to men and women?

        How about before saying you’ll represent women’s interests you say what those interests (that are different those of men) are?

        • Pete George 3.1.2.1

          You’re right Rosy, most things done by government are not gender specific, they apply to all genders and ages.

          NARK represents children’s interests, yes, but they are closely associated with parent’s interests. And violence is inflicted more by men against women and children so there is a definite gender bias there.

  4. vto 4

    Maybe they should just be open and up front about it. Be proud of who they are and represent – those horrible white middle classes (my god, imagine being on of them). And not pretend they represent a wider group in NZ.

    After all, other parties do that, confine themselves to just one race or type, and don’t even pretend at diversity.

    • I’m not sure that National does represent the “white middle classes”. I think it pitches its campaign rhetoric to that group but its main policy planks essentially serve (i.e., ‘represent’) the interests of a fairly small proportion of the population, especially those involved in major business and banking concerns.

      Those policies get dressed up to look like they represent the “white middle classes” – possibly – but the necessary and sufficient condition for them being major National Party policies is that they advance the interests of that small group of New Zealanders (and sometimes those outside New Zealand).

      I’m thinking here of policies such as privatisation of assets, ‘competition’ in ACC accounts, privatisation of aspects of education, privatisation of infrastructure development, etc..

      I think you’d have to provide a reasonably stretched argument to claim that such policies serve the interests of the “white middle classes” and an even more stretched argument to say that National would still propound them if, assuming that they in fact did serve the interests of the “white middle classes”, they went against the interests of the small group just mentioned.

  5. Tangled up in blue 5

    naked hypocrisy from Farrar given the number of times he has himself done such analyses of Labour’s list and Labour’s diversity. And now when National is exposed as the blandest of the bland, suddenly the diversity of the list doesn’t really matter eh?

    I don’t know how anyone with even a minor sense of dignity can take that dishonest clown seriously.

  6. National claims to be a ‘broad church’, ‘centrist’ party that appeals to all.

    Well, either they don’t have many women wanting to be involved in their political machine or they don’t select those women who do want to be involved on a ‘randomly’ equal basis as they select men.

    Whatever the claims about the ability of men or women to represent the interests of women or men, they should cancel each other out. That would still leave an unexplained discrepancy in the proportions of men and women on their list/electorate selections (and ethnic minorities).

    The simplest explanation for this distorted representation is that, in fact, the National party does not represent a ‘broad church’ of interests. 

    • Tom Gould 6.1

      The only folks who seem to be obsessing over a percentage point or two in the list gender balance numbers are a narrow bunch running the Labour and Green parties. The rest of the country seems to have more important things on their minds. Perhaps in this instance arch-tory DPF actually has a point?

      • Julie Fairey 6.1.1

        We are talking about FIFTEEN percentage points. Labour’s clearly and deliberately aiming for 40% representation for women in their caucus, and increasing their proportion when opportunities arise, Greens have a clear process to promote representation for women, which is paying off, and National can only manage 25% (less than current National caucus), even on an increased caucus and with 5 safe National seats without incumbent MPs to select. That’s shameful.

    • freedom 6.2

      using ‘ broad church’ to describe the interests they pander to,
      only highlights how much of society they ignore by doing so.

  7. Afewknowthetruth 7

    Pete George

    Well you really have put your foot in it this time.

    You go on about how wonderful you are because you belong to an organisation that supposedly protects the rights of children.

    So my question to you are these:

    What are you doing to ensure that children living in NZ today don’t starve to death a few years hence because the industrial food has collapsed? (as it most certainly will, due to the peaking of the oil supply in 2005-2006 and its subsequent decline -bearing in mind that all industrially produced food is totally dependent on oil).

    What are you doing, as this person who supposedly cares so much about kids, to prevent the Earth becoming largely uninhabitable due to runaway emissions? (as will most certainly happen due to the abject failure of governments to act on the matter because all governments are controlled by fossil fuel behemoths)

    I think I can already answer those questions: you are denying that peak oil and severe/abrupt climate change are even issues to be dealt with. In other words hypocrisy rules, as is the case with all people like you.

    But please prove me wrong if I am.

    In the meantime, I’d say you are full if shit, which is the theme of this item.

    ‘Working for a better society is what drives me’

    Don’t worry about working for a better society, Pete. We wonl’t have a society a few years from now [due to petro-collapse] or a planet to live on a few decades from now [due to acidification of the ocaens and abrupt climate change] if the corporations and right wing politicians you favour so much have their way. ‘Dedicated party ideologues may not understand that.’

  8. queenstfarmer 8

    Where is the hypocrisy? I don’t see Farrar saying anything in what you’ve quoted that is different to what (you say) he said before:

    Paragraph 1 simply states a fact
    Paragraph 2 simply makes an accurate point – 20 on greens list isn’t as great as 20 on nats.
    Paragraph 3 simply asks some questions

    Where in the article does he say anything like your assertion that “suddenly the diversity of the list doesn’t really matter eh?

    • Luxated 8.1

      Read more, comment less.

      Accusing critics of National’s list of “the same fatal mistake” is pretty naked hypocrisy from Farrar given the number of times he has himself done such analyses of Labour’s list and Labour’s diversity.

      Straight from the very post you are commenting on.

      Also Farrar is incorrect to state:

      A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. They have looked only at the party list, and not at what electorates a party will win.

      Because Julie from THM wrote this piece several days before Farrar published his piece.

      • queenstfarmer 8.1.1

        Read that, comment stands. All of the Farrar posts linked to above expressly mention the party vote requirement.

        Because Julie from THM wrote this piece several days before Farrar published his piece

        Good for Julie. However this doesn’t mean Farrar is incorrect as you state. All he said as “A number of blogs have done their own analysis…“. He’s not claiming to refer to every blog on the internet.

        So I suggest you read more, comment more wisely.

        • Julie Fairey 8.1.1.1

          I felt it was very dishonest of David not to mention that there was an analysis, on a blog he links to in the very few he links on his front-page blogroll, that did exactly as he said no one was doing except him, and clearly showed the lack of diversity in the projected National caucus (not just the List).

          I’ve been around political blogging for three elections now, and I did this analysis last election too, for all the party lists plus the electorates for National and Maori last time (and I’ve included Labour’s electorates this time too) and David is well aware of that. He could have acknowledged it, he chose not to, and in fact he chose to give the impression that he was the only person who did the calculations the correct way.

          I don’t imagine David reads every post at THM. Probably he just dips in and out, like I do with Kiwiblog. But he copied an entire blog post from THM and posted it up at Kiwiblog on Sept 5th at 2.54pm. (I should note he didn’t ask beforehand, although he did link, so I suppose we should just be grateful for the traffic and that Luddite Journo’s excellent post on the comedian sex abuse case were getting a wider audience). My (first) post on analysing the National list and electorates went up on Sept 4th around noon, only an hour and a half after Luddite Journo’s post which was copied. I don’t think it’s credible for Farrar to claim he was unaware of an analysis doing precisely what he said no one had, especially as it got linked from lots of places before his Stuff piece went up.

          We can disagree about the diversity stuff, that’s fine, but to lie about it really disappointed me. He has repeatedly misrepresented the projected caucus numbers for National and omitted to compare future representation (probably 25%) even with current representation (28%).

          Now I suspect David will get v steamed up about saying he lied. Unparliamentary language and all that. But he did, and he should be called on it. I have made a (milder) comment to this effect on the post at Kiwiblog about the Stuff piece, so I’m not entirely a chicken 😉

          • queenstfarmer 8.1.1.1.1

            … that did exactly as he said no one was doing except him… I don’t think it’s credible for Farrar to claim he was unaware of an analysis doing precisely what he said no one had

            But he didn’t say that. Exactly as I quoted above he said, “A number of blogs have done their own analysis …”

            How can you construe that any other way? He was simply pointing out a common flaw in “a number of” other analyses. He was not even implying that he was the only one who did it his way.

            • Julie Fairey 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Which would work except David wrote that “they have all made the same fatal mistake.”

              I’ve pointed out that it’s not credible for David to claim he didn’t know about my analysis. So then the question is why didn’t he acknowledge it? I can only assume because he didn’t want people to see it. And it’s then dishonest to claim that no one else has taken into account the electorate seats (that “all” again) when someone did.

              David gave the impression that he was the only one who had yet done a diversity (in my case gender) analysis of the National caucus correctly, therefore people could just dismiss out of hand all the other analyses (which clearly showed a decrease in women for National) and rely on his, because all those other ones were fatally flawed.

              That wasn’t true.

              And anyway National actually selected even less women to new safe electorate seats (20%) than the percentage of women ranked on their list, only giving a safe National candidacy to ONE woman in the five spots available. So the electorate seats don’t save them from a hideously skewed male-dominated caucus anyway.

              • Pascal's bookie

                Your bang to rights here Julie, qf’s partial quote is as dishonest as Farrar’s post.

                If I was to say that:

                A number of NZers support the National Party and they are all idiots

                I would be saying that all NZers that support the National Party are idiots, and people who support the National Party for other reasons would be right to feel aggrieved about it.

                Farrar quite clearly said that all the blogs that addressed this made the same error. There is no other way to construe it.

              • queenstfarmer

                Julie, David wrote:

                A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake.

                Now you are obviously a very good writer, with a very good command of the English language. So tell me, who do you think “they” refers to in the above sentence?

                • McFlock

                  I’ll bite: those blogs that have analysed party lists?

                  • queenstfarmer

                    Wrong. A number of blogs, not all. Believe it or not, saying “a number of blogs” is not the same as saying “all blogs on the internet”.

                    • The Voice of Reason

                      Nope, Farrar is referring to those blogs that did write list analyses, in the first part of the sentence. A defined group, in toto. And in the second part, he says they all got it wrong. If he meant otherwise he would said “some of them have all made”, not “they have all made”.
                       
                       

                    • Pascal's bookie

                      Believe it or not, saying “a number of blogs” is not the same as saying “all blogs on the internet”

                      Correct, he was talking aboout a subset of the set “all blogs on the internet”.

                      The particular subset ‘the blogs analysed the lists’.

                      There were a number of blogs in this subset, and they all, according to Farrar, made the same mistake.

                      You want him to have said:

                      “Some of the blogs that analysed the list made the following error.”

                      But that’s not what he said.

                    • Luxated

                      Brush up on your set theory and reading comprehension qsf.

                      A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists…

                      Set A: ‘blogs’

                      There are several million (probably) of these on the internet of which THM is one.

                      Set B: ‘blogs (that) have done their own analysis of the different party lists’

                      The subject is just a refinement of the subject of set A, Γ B ⊆ A.

                      Set size perhaps a dozen, again THM is a part of this set. All ‘a number’ refers to is the size of set B.

                      Where you are (most likely deliberately) failing is that you are conflating set A and set B. IMPORTANT: All ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks.

                      The subject of the sentence is clearly set B and Farrar states that all the members of the subject (set B, remember?) failed to include electorates in their calculations. BUT Julie did exactly that making THM ∈ B and not THM ∈ (A\B), ∴ Farrar was wrong as are you.

                    • queenstfarmer

                      Perhaps that’s what you wanted him to say. Perhaps that’s what he meant. And if he had read a post that made the same analysis as he said, perhaps he should have mentioned it. Perhaps he will clarify that. I’m just happy to go by his actual words.

                    • Luxated

                      Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn, what has been said is the issue as that is all we can actually verify. Farrar can claim he meant your point of view at some point in the future if he wants or he can claim he meant to call for a llama uprising but it still isn’t relevant.

                      Secondly an analogy.

                      Imagine someone sitting on a park bench between two paths, one in front of the bench, one behind. The bench is angled and designed such that the path behind it is not at all visible to someone seated on the bench.

                      The person on the bench makes the following statement:

                      A number of ducks walked past me at the same time and all of them quacked.

                      You’ll notice that this statement is equivalent to Farrar’s, ‘A number of blogs’ becomes ‘A number of ducks’, ‘have done their own analysis of the different party lists’ becomes ‘walked past me at the same time’ and ‘but they all made the same fatal mistake’ becomes ‘and all of them quacked’.

                      Consider two cases, the first a number of ducks walks in front of the bench, the second when a number of ducks walks in front of the bench while at the same time a different (or the same, it doesn’t matter) number of ducks walks behind.

                      In both cases the statement does not claim that any ducks that did not walk past the bench quacked or did not quack, on this I believe we are agreed.

                      The statement is incorrect in the first case if even a single duck in the group of ducks that walk past does not quack. If five out of six ducks quack you can’t arbitrarily separate the one that didn’t out and still claim they all did. If you wanted to do that you would have to explicit say ‘all but one’ or words to that effect.

                      In the second case the same conditions still apply but lets add an extra condition, all the ducks that walked in front of the bench quacked all the ducks that walked behind it didn’t. This is analogous to blog posts Farrar read and those he didn’t. So the the perspective of the person sitting on the bench it might appear that the statement was correct however as another group of ducks also walked past at the same time and did not quack then the statement is incorrect, the perspective of the observer doesn’t change the veracity of the statement except perhaps if the ducks in question were quantum. The way to make the statement correct would be to say “I saw a number of ducks that walked past me at the same time and all of them quacked.” but that is a fundamentally different statement.

                      I think that is all that needs to be said on the matter. All this talk of ducks has left me with one final word though, QUACK!

                    • McFlock

                      “Wrong. A number of blogs, not all. ”
                      So your position is that rather than disingenuosly being obtuse about the contents of the THM list analysis, Farrar was in fact disingenuosly choosing only those blogs that did not include diversity in their list analyses? It makes the “all” a bit redundant, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

                       
                      Farrar was, to use an analogy, claiming to be the smartest man on the planet, but restricting the definition of “man” to “every male human dumber than me, plus me”. Glad you cleared that up for me. I might have thought he was a self-inflated lying prick otherwise.

                    • queenstfarmer

                      Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn

                      If that’s your starting point, then there’s no reasoning with you on that very subject, is there?

                      Re whether he was being disingenuous in this instance, I have no idea. However there is no basis to think he was.

                    • McFlock

                      Straw-man conflation, much?

                    • McFlock

                      Of course, if he was accidentally excluding those blogs which did in fact already solve the issue he was seeking to analyse, it just makes him an incompetent buffoon (given that he’d already linked to the blog which solved his “issue”).

                      Liar or buffoon seem to be the most likely options.

                    • queenstfarmer

                      Straw-man conflation, much?

                      Sorry, I didn’t make clear that I was quoting luxated @ 10.32pm.

                    • Luxated

                      Firstly, what Farrar meant or not doesn’t matter a damn

                      If that’s your starting point, then there’s no reasoning with you on that very subject, is there?

                      Err, qsf we are debating what was said. If you go into court, publish a scientific paper or an article in a newspaper and state “The sky is red” it doesn’t matter whether you meant to say “The sky is blue” or not you made a statement that was not correct and as such you need to retract and correct that statement.

                      Or is it too much to ask Farrar to be held to the same standard as proper journalists when writing in a very public medium?

                      Let me reiterate, what is said is important because it is a matter of public record, what Farrar intended to say is not, although I do believe his intent was exactly as written.

                      Do you understand now, or do I have to use smaller words?

        • tc 8.1.1.2

          Looking forward to your comments in the ‘Nats clueless on privatisation consequences’ post ….now’s good.

          • queenstfarmer 8.1.1.2.1

            I skimmed it but it doesn’t seem to add anything new. I don’t know if Parata has much of clue.

            • Puddleglum 8.1.1.2.1.1

              I skimmed it but it doesn’t seem to add anything new.

              True, we’ve all known for a long time now that the National Party’s position on privatisation of state assets is contradictory and internally incoherent.

              That post simply notes that it has been put up in huge flashing lights on top of a hill (well, in Parliament) – just where it should be.

              • queenstfarmer

                How is the party’s position contradictory? To my knowledge, their policy on partial privatisation is very well documented, regardless of whether you agree with it. They said nothing would happen during the first term, and they would seek a mandate for anything in a second term.

                Contrast that with say Labour’s position, which was all for unmandated asset sales (Phil Goff was involved in fully selling off far more than anything National will partially do), now is currently against it, and who knows what it will be down the track.

      • Julie Fairey 8.1.2

        And thank you Luxated for noticing 🙂 Women’s voices aren’t just marginalised in parliamentary politics it seems!

        • Pete George 8.1.2.1

          Julie, have you (or anyone) ever had a good look at why women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers? Or do you think they disadvantaged in the selction process?

          Becoming an MP is really putting yourself out there, and women may be more reluctant ro put themselves forward for close scrutiny and comments on appearance, hair, how they dress etc. The political spotlight can be quite ruthless. Good willing candidates are hard to find, good willing women candidates may be simply harder to find.

          • Julie Fairey 8.1.2.1.1

            Oh I agree Pete. There are a range of barriers to women becoming MPs, but when you boil pretty much all of them down it comes back, sooner or later, to sexism.

            Why are women more concerned than men about criticism of their appearance? Because women are more judged on their bodies, and are considered more “decorative” than men.

            In terms of the selection process itself, I think there probably is a bias as well. In my own political history I have been told various things along the lines of “you can’t do that, you’re just a girl” or “you shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” or “a woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that, it’s just wrong” (the latter about Helen Clark actually, and from another woman).

            There was a study done about five years ago, iirc, about how Boards of Trustees pick primary principals, and whether there is a gender bias. At the time the gender split was roughly 75% male principals, but 75% female teachers. Not too dissimilar from the National caucus! And the study found a clear bias towards picking men over women, for a variety of reasons, all of which came back to pervasive sexist attitudes that we all struggle to shift in ourselves and in others.

            I’m not arguing that we can all be perfect non-sexist sunbeams all the time. We are a product of the environment we were raised and live in. I personally struggle to put either of my sons in pink clothes, for example. But I think we at least have the ability to notice when gender balance is way out of whack and start asking why.

            • Pete George 8.1.2.1.1.1

              I have been told various things along the lines of “you can’t do that, you’re just a girl” or “you shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” or “a woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that, it’s just wrong

              I’m not sure how much is sexism and how much is resistance to changing the staus quo. I’ve been told various things about what I’m trying to do not on the basis of my sex but on the basis that it’s different to what has been done previously.

              There seems to be a natural and strong resistance from media and political pundits to give any coverage or consideration to anything different to their idea of how things shouls be done. Women often have different ways of ealing with things, so it may be resistance to change more than sexism.

              The “old boys club” is not just sexist, it excludes anyone judged to be not one of their status quo.

              • I’m sitting here boggling at your ability to strip the sexism out of the kind of comments I mentioned.

                “You can’t do that, you’re just a girl” – maybe maybe could be ageist rather than (just) sexist.

                “You shouldn’t stand, you’ve got young children” – when does anyone ever say that to a man? Seriously, Phil Goff had three children while he was an MP, Simon Bridges had very young kids when he went in, yet I have NEVER heard anyone say anything of the kind about a male politician. And when this criticism was levelled at me my partner (a man) was standing in the same election, for the same position, on the same ticket, and also put on his campaign material that he had two young kids, and there was not a whisper.

                “A woman shouldn’t be in a leadership role like that…” about Helen Clark. At the time this comment was made Clark had been PM for at least two terms. And before that there had been a female PM too (Shipley). So the status quo, at that time, was a woman in that leadership role.

                • I didn’t mean to imply there is no sexism, I know there is sexism – from some men – but that it can be more than just sexism and barriers other than sexism are put up too.

                  Some people are resistant to change to how they perceive things should be, that sometimes manifests as sexism.

                  • Resistance to change can definitely operate in a manner that is commensurate with sexism, I think that’s a fair point. When the change that is being resisted is seeking to address sexism then the resistance becomes sexist I reckon. Interesting discussion, thanks.

          • McFlock 8.1.2.1.2

            Pete, why did you frame one possibility as fact (“women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers”) but another as opinion to be discussed (“Or do you think they disadvantaged in the selction process?”)?
                
            I’m not usually into language deconstruction, but found that quite interesting.

            • Pete George 8.1.2.1.2.1

              What I said was “why women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers?” The “why” word and the ? make a difference, it was a question, not a statement of fact.

              My presumption is that if more women put themselves forward then greater proportions of women may be selected. I know of competent men who won’t put themselves forward for selection because they don’t like our culture of politics.

              I know one women who was encouraged recently to put herself forward, she dipped her toes into Wellington and decided it wasn’t for her.

              • McFlock

                The question was “why”, the statement of fact was “women don’t put themselves forward to stand in greater numbers”.   
                  
                  
                Given you’re talking aggregate numbers, what figures are you referring to?
                You know of men and women who haven’t put themselves forward. Great. What ratios of applicants to selected candidates are you referring to? Is National party membership c75% male, thus being 
                gender neutral in their candidate selection (assuming equal percentages of members by gender wish to become candidates)? If so, what are your sources? Are women less likely to be politically active? Where’s your source for that?
                   
                  
                Or was that assertion just as much of an opinion as whether candidate selection is biased?

        • Luxated 8.1.2.2

          You’re welcome Julie.

          At least with parliament we can do something about it in the immediate future! With any luck we’ll have a more proportional house after the election although I’m not going to hold my breath.

          Society as a whole on the other hand might take a bit longer. From my perspective we’ve largely removed most of the overt sexism in society although there are still some holdouts. The problem is that that leaves the subconscious judgements which can then plausibly deny, at least to themselves.

  9. I think I can already answer those questions: you are denying that peak oil and severe/abrupt climate change are even issues to be dealt with. In other words hypocrisy rules, as is the case with all people like you.

    You seem to have made a humongous guess based on nothing.

    I’ve never denied peak oil and climate change. On Kiwiblog I’ve debated strongly against the “see nothing, do nothing” brigade until I realised it’s pointless, they either have their heads in cement or have a mission. I’ve also debated on the need to deal with our reliance on oil.

    Who put their foot in it?

    right wing politicians you favour so much

    Which ones? That sounds like another assumption based on nothing. If you want to label me I’m much closer to a centre lefty who despairs at how inept the centre left is doing here right now.

    • Afewknwothetruth 9.1

      My mistake.

      Not having visited Kiwiblog I based my perception on what I have read on TS over the months.

      Are you now saying that the two most crucial issues to be dealt with immediately are Peak Oil and Abrupt Climate Change? -issues that don’t even feature in either of the major party’s manifestoes!

    • tc 9.2

      never mind this PG how about some of your wisdom on the ‘Nats clueless on privatisation consequences’ post.

  10. Brett 10

    Who the fuck cares.
    Apart from the old ducks who post here, most women have moved on from this 50/50 bullshit.
    Gender and race is irrelevant, it’s more about the best available person for the job.

    • Puddleglum 10.1

      Who the fuck cares.”

      Apparently, David Farrar. See my comment below.

    • Colonial Viper 10.2

      Gender and race is irrelevant, it’s more about the best available person for the job.

      Quite right. In the National Party the best available person for the job is generally white, male and over 45.

  11. just saying 11

    And you’d be just as happy if any other special interest minority, other than rich, old, het, white men, dominated all positions of power, and would feel just as represented by, say, 70 percent young polynesian women.?

    Yeah right.

    And rich, old, het, white men are overwhelmingly the best available people to lead us, (no discrimination there)?

    Again yeah right.

    Gender and race are only “irrelevant” if your’s are running the show.

  12. It’s interesting to note that, in his commentary on the Labour Party list of 2008 and his analysis of who may or may not make it into parliament, David Farrar seemed quite concerned about diversity:

     “So what will Labour’s Caucus look like? Well on the current public polling scenario giving them 45 MPs, it would be:

    Only 8 MPs or 18% from the South Island
    38% female, which isn’t bad at all
    49% would be aged in their 50s though
    They would have only six Maori MPs – the same number as National! They would be Horomia, Mahuta, Jones, Ririnui, Mackey, and Davis
    Four Pacific Island MPs – Laban, Sio, Chauvel and Sepuloni
    Three Asian MPs – Choudary, Prasad, and Huo

    So, it would seem that diversity does (or at least did) matter to Farrar. To that extent, he seems to be out of step with some on the right (and left) who seem to think that diversity doesn’t/shouldn’t matter. 

    But, I don’t get why he focuses on the composition of a caucus that, on the basis of polls, would make it into parliament. Percentages for parties go up and down and, more importantly, it’s diversity at the ‘top’ that matters most. If National had a 50/50 gender split that wouldn’t look quite so impressive if the top 30 were all male and the bottom 30 all female

    Surely, a better way of ‘testing’ diversity in a political party’s candidates would be to look at, say, each group of ten (1-10, 11-20, 21-30) and give them some weighting so that, for example, if there was a marked imbalance in the top ten (or twenty) that would count against diversity more than a marked imbalance from 21-30 (or 21-40). That approach would flush out possible tokenism and also would be a measure of diversity as it relates to power within a party, which, surely, is the point?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Minister must protect MSD staff
      The Minister of Social Development should immediately implement safer work practices to ensure tragedies such as the Ashburton killings don’t happen again, says Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni.   ...
    6 hours ago
  • A vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National
    Comments made by the Māori Party leadership in the wake of John Key’s surprise resignation make one thing clear: a vote for them is a vote for a fourth term National Government, and the increasing inequality and poverty for Māori ...
    9 hours ago
  • Collins and English split over police funding
    The bloodletting has already begun with splits and divisions emerging after the Police Minister knifed the Finance Minister via the media, says Labour Police spokesman Stuart Nash. ...
    10 hours ago
  • Next Prime Minister must tackle foreign speculators
    The public rightly puts much of the blame for the housing bubble at the feet of foreign speculators, and the next Prime Minister must listen to their concerns, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    11 hours ago
  • NZ student performance slips in international study – again
    The continuing fall in Kiwi kids’ performance in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study shows the damage being inflicted by National’s cuts to education and one-size-fits-all approach, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. “For years, National has ...
    11 hours ago
  • CYF reforms dangerous backward step
    Child protection has taken a massive step backwards today with the Government passing a Bill that will give significant powers to unspecified ‘professionals’ or contract holders, says Labour’s Acting Children’s spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni. ...
    1 day ago
  • Improve workplaces, and address domestic violence
    Last week the Productivity Commission put out a report about how to grow “weak labour productivity”. These views are being criticised as being straight out of the 1980s. What is a real problem is that we have a problem of ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie
    1 day ago
  • Palm oil industry implicated in human rights abuses
    The Green Party has campaigned for several years for mandatory palm oil labeling to give consumers choice. Most consumers do not want to support a palm oil industry that is destroying tropical rainforests and contributing to dangerous climate change emissions. ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers
    1 day ago
  • Syphilis on the rise in NZ
    Cases of syphilis are increasing in Auckland. You read that right, syphilis!  RNZ reported today that rates of syphilis have increased by 71 percent (between 2013-2015). We have known about the increase in syphilis figures for a while, but nothing ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter
    2 days ago
  • We need to work smarter not longer
    The charade of this Government’s sound economic management is unraveling. Misleading GDP figures, pumped up by property speculation and high immigration, have given the impression that all is well, masking our continued productivity decline compared to OECD countries. In fact, ...
    GreensBy Barry Coates
    2 days ago
  • Statement on John Key’s resignation
    Labour Party Leader Andrew Little has acknowledged John Key’s contribution to Government.  “John Key has served New Zealand generously and with dedication. Although we may have had our policy differences over the years, I respect the Prime Minister’s decision to ...
    2 days ago
  • Positive plan secures victory
    The victory of Labour’s newest MP, Michael Wood, in Mt Roskill is the result of a well-organised campaign run with honesty and integrity, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “I congratulate Michael Wood on his great victory. He will be a ...
    4 days ago
  • Wave of support for Kiwibuild continues to grow
    Apartment builder Ockham Residential has become the latest voice to call for the government to build affordable homes for Kiwi families to buy, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “Helen O'Sullivan of Ockham has now joined prominent businesspeople like EMA ...
    5 days ago
  • Cuba Si Yankee No – Fidel Castro and the Revolution
    The death of Fidel Castro is a huge historical moment for the older generation who grew up with the toppling of Batista, the Bay of Pigs debacle, the death of Che Guevara and the US blockade against Cuba. For younger ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty
    5 days ago
  • Government slashes observer coverage, fails snapper fishery
    The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has more than halved the number of fisheries observers in the East Coast North Island snapper trawl fishery (SNA1). This reduction in observer days, combined with major failures in an unproven and controversial video ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage
    5 days ago
  • ‘Exemplar’ Māori Land Court under siege
    TheMāori Land Court, hailed as an “exemplar” by the Ministry of Justice chief executive and Secretary, Andrew Bridgman is under siege by the Government through Māori land reforms and a Ministry restructure, says Labour’s Ikaroa-Rāwhiti MP Meka Whaitiri. ...
    5 days ago
  • He Poroporoaki ki a Te Awanuiārangi Black
    Kua hinga he whatukura o Tauranga Moana. Kua hinga rangatira o te iwi Māori. Ka tangi tonu ana te ngākau nā tāna wehe kei tua o te ārai. E rere haere ana ngā mihi aroha o mātou o Te Rōpū ...
    GreensBy Marama Davidson
    6 days ago
  • CYF reforms ignoring whānau based solution
    When approximately 60 per cent of children in state care are Māori processes need to change in favour of whānau, hapū and iwi solutions, said Labour’s Whānau Ora spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta.  “Widespread concern about Government reforms of Child Youth and ...
    6 days ago
  • Hip and knees surgery takes a tumble
    The statistics for hip and knee electives under this Government make depressing reading, says Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King.  “Under the last Labour Government we achieved a 91 per cent growth in hip and knee elective surgery. Sadly under this ...
    6 days ago
  • Parata’s spin can’t hide cuts to early childhood education
    No amount of spin from Hekia Parata can hide the fact that per-child funding for early childhood education has been steadily decreasing under the National government, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “In the 2009/10 year early childhood services received ...
    6 days ago
  • Nats will jump at chance to vote for KiwiBuild Bill
    National will welcome the chance to vote for a real solution to the housing crisis after their many, many failed attempts, says Labour MP for Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis. Kelvin Davis’s Housing Corporation (Affordable Housing Development) Amendment Bill was ...
    6 days ago
  • Million dollar houses put homeownership out of reach of middle New Zealand
    35% of New Zealanders now live in places where the average house costs over a million dollars, and it’s killing the Kiwi dream of owning your own place, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. Latest QV stats show that Queenstown ...
    6 days ago
  • Opportunity for political parties to back Kiwi-made and Kiwi jobs
    The First Reading in Parliament today of his Our Work, Our Future Bill is a chance for political parties to ensure the government buys Kiwi-made more often and backs Kiwi jobs, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. The reading ...
    6 days ago
  • Solid Energy must open the drift
    Solid Energy is showing no moral spine and should not have any legal right to block re-entry into the Pike River drift, says Damien O’Connor MP for West Coast-Tasman.  “Todays failed meeting with  representatives from the state owned company is ...
    1 week ago
  • 20,000 at risk students “missing”
    A briefing to the Minister of Education reveals 20,000 at-risk students can’t be found, undermining claims by Hekia Parata that a new funding model would ensure additional funding reached students identified as at-risk, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. ...
    1 week ago
  • Crime continues to rise
    Overall crime is up five per cent and the Government just doesn’t seem to care, says Labour’s Police Spokesperson Stuart Nash. ...
    1 week ago
  • Treasury fritters $10 million on failed state house sell off
    The Treasury has wasted $10 million in two years on the National Government's flawed state house sell off programme, including nearly $5.5 million on consultants, says Labour Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. "New Zealand needs more state housing than ever, with ...
    1 week ago
  • National slow to learn new trade lessons post TPPA
    Yesterday, the Minister for Trade misused economic data in order to try to make the case for more so-called ‘trade agreements’ like the TPPA which are actually deregulatory straitjackets in disguise. In welcoming a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ...
    GreensBy Barry Coates
    1 week ago
  • Skilled migrant wages plummeting under National
    Wages have plummeted for people with skilled migrant visas working in low-skilled occupations, driving down wages for workers in a number of industries, says Labour’s Immigration Spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. “Documents acquired by Labour under the Official Information Act reveal that ...
    1 week ago
  • Child abuse apology needed
    The Government's failure to act on recommendations from Judge Henwood, based on years of work by the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS) will further undermine any faith victims may have put into the process, says Labour’s Children’s Spokesperson Jacinda ...
    1 week ago
  • Reserve Bank again highlights National’s housing failure
    National’s failure to deal with the housing crisis in New Zealand is once again being exposed by the Reserve Bank today, in a scathing assessment of the Government’s response, says Labour Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson “Governor Wheeler is clearly worried ...
    1 week ago
  • Palm Oil Labelling: Possible Progress?
    On Friday, the Minister for Food Safety, along with her Australian colleagues finally looked at the issue of mandatory labelling of palm oil. We’ve been calling for mandatory labelling for years and we were hoping that the Ministers would agree ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers
    1 week ago
  • National: Fails to achieve
    The ineffectiveness of the National Government’s approach to schooling has been highlighted by the latest Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) report released overnight, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. ...
    1 week ago
  • Faster into Homes – a new pathway for first home buyers
    This week Parliament will select another members’ bill from the cookie tin (I kid you not, it really is a cookie tin) and I’ve just launched a new bill I’m hoping will get pulled – to help people get into ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    1 week ago
  • Selling off our state housing stock isn’t working for NZers
    I want to end homelessness and ensure that everyone has a warm, safe, dry home. This National Government has let down New Zealanders, especially the thousands of New Zealanders who are struggling with something so basic and important as housing. ...
    GreensBy Marama Davidson
    1 week ago
  • Government needs to ensure fair deal on EQC assessments
    Kiwis affected by earthquakes might not get a fair deal if the Government pushes ahead with secret plans to let private insurers take over the assessment of claims, says Labour’s Canterbury spokesperson Megan Woods. “Under questioning from Labour the Government ...
    1 week ago
  • Key’s priorities the real ‘load of nonsense’
    The Prime Minister’s fixation with tax cuts, despite a failure to pay down any debt and growing pressure on public services is the real ‘load of nonsense’, says Labour Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.  “We’re getting mixed messages from National. John ...
    1 week ago
  • Free Speech and Hate Speech
    Last week we were very concerned to hear that an Auckland imam, Dr Anwar Sahib, had been preaching divisive and derogatory messages about Jewish people and women during his sermons. It was a disturbing incident coming at the end of ...
    GreensBy James Shaw
    1 week ago
  • Young Kiwis struggling under record mortgage debt
    The Government needs to step in and start building affordable homes for first homebuyers now more than ever, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    1 week ago
  • Tairāwhiti says No Stat Oil!
    Tairāwhiti says yes to a clean environment for our mokopuna today and for generations to come. Tairāwhiti are have a responsibility to uphold their mana motuhake over their land and their peoples and are calling on the Government to honour ...
    GreensBy Marama Davidson
    1 week ago
  • Swimmable Rivers tour – Ōkahukura/Lucas Creek
    When Environment Minister Nick Smith said in Parliament that some waterways – like Auckland’s Lucas Creek – are not worth saving because no-one wants to swim in them, he forgot to ask the locals we met last week who have put ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty
    1 week ago
  • Wellington business relief package needs flexibility
    The Government’s Wellington business support package is welcome news but needs to be implemented so that all affected businesses get the help they need, says Labour MP for Wellington Central Grant Robertson. “Wellington businesses will be pleased that the Government ...
    1 week ago
  • EQC’s staff cuts show disregard for quake victims
    The Earthquake Commission’s stubborn insistence on slashing its workforce and its operational funding by nearly half shows callous disregard for victims of the Kaikoura earthquake and the thousands of Cantabrians still waiting to resolve claims, says Labour’s Canterbury spokesperson Megan ...
    1 week ago
  • Maori Land Court job losses must be delayed
    Māori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell must request that pending job losses at the Māori Land Court are put on hold until the Māori land reform process is resolved and the risk of losing centuries of collective institutional knowledge is ...
    1 week ago
  • Financial support needed for urgent earthquake strengthening
    The Government must provide urgent support to residents for important earthquake strengthening work so that it happens quickly, says Grant Robertson, Wellington Central MP.  "I support the call from Wellington Mayor Justin Lester to bring forward work to strengthen the ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour welcomes equal pay
    Labour has long appreciated the value of women’s work and welcomes the Government’s decision to address pay equity for women, say’s Labour’s associate Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Sue Moroney. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Surgeons’ letter a damning indictment
    A letter from Waikato Hospital’s orthopaedic surgeons claiming that hospital managers are stopping them from making follow-up checks on patients is a damning indictment of the health system, says Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King.  “It’s terrifying that one woman’s elective ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Out of touch Nats continue state house sell-off
    The Government should be focused on building houses for families to buy and more state houses for families in need, not flogging them off, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “National’s state house sell-off does nothing to help people ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Joyce drags feet while Capital businesses suffer
     Wellington businesses affected by the earthquake are continuing to struggle while the Government drags its feet on getting a business assistance package up and running, says Grant Robertson, Wellington Central MP.  “Steven Joyce needs to front up with an assistance ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Health and Safety Act fails to reduce work fatalities
    After the Pike River tragedy, New Zealanders realised that workplace health and safety culture needed to change. Last Saturday marked the 6th anniversary of the tragedy that killed 29 miners at the Pike River mine on the West Coast of ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche
    2 weeks ago