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.