Male, Pale and Stale

Written By: - Date published: 4:14 pm, July 28th, 2014 - 121 comments
Categories: MMP, national - Tags:

The National Party list is as it ever was – far too many white men with old-hat ideas.

Apparently it’s that they’re “so democratic” that more than half the population can’t get good representation. Methinks there’s a flaw in their democracy.

When their apologisers run out the merit argument you need only ask whether white men are so much more able that they deserve over-representation…

So they’ll stay with 3 times as many men as women, and a faulty white balance that doesn’t reflect modern Aotearoa.

And they’ll continue to represent the old boys’ network they always have.

Your choice New Zealand.

121 comments on “Male, Pale and Stale ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ennui 1
    28 July 2014 at 4:32 pm

    I just don’t know why all you females and darkies don’t just “aspire”…or maybe you do…to something MUCH better than imitating a bunch of pale male self interested suits (and their pale female suit equivalents).

  2. Tamati 2
    28 July 2014 at 5:11 pm

    It’s certainly male, but I don’t see how you can call it stale or pale. In comparison to Labour, National have much more new blood in winnable positions and Maori, Asian and Pacific MPs are well represented.

    • Hami Shearlie 2.1
      28 July 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Wonder how they persuaded so many to leave? $300.000 each ring any bells?? And obviously with a gagging order tacked on to the agreement? The rumours are everywhere!

      • Tamati 2.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 5:23 pm

        I don’t know ay, wouldn’t surprise me! Perhaps Tony Ryall will write a tell all book sometime soon.

  3. silverbullet 3
    28 July 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Maybe most people are more concerned about whether their MP or Party of choice has the best policies rather than how female or white or old or tall or able bodied they are?

    • Clemgeopin 3.1
      28 July 2014 at 7:08 pm

      Out of a population of 4.5 million people, can’t this useless National party outfit find a talented balanced representation to at least approximately reflect the population? Lame excuses are just plain pathetic lies!

      • cricklewood 3.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 8:12 pm

        Why should they? Id say they have selected a list to appeal to their core demographic…

      • Tamati 3.1.2
        28 July 2014 at 9:49 pm

        The house of representative is there to reflect our views, not our demographics.

        • Saarbo 3.1.2.1
          28 July 2014 at 10:28 pm

          Both would be better.

          • silverbullet 3.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2014 at 11:52 pm

            Why? Demographics is irrelevant.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1
              29 July 2014 at 12:12 am

              Since intergenerational inequity is growing and society is rapidly aging, understanding demographics properly is very important IMO. The only reason you would say otherwise is if you weren’t interested in making reality based decisions.

              • silverbullet …
                29 July 2014 at 12:35 am

                You are avoiding the point – its not about understanding demographics but whether rigging parliament to reflect demographic percentages produces better representation.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  29 July 2014 at 12:50 am

                  Sure it does – the Greens are by far the most serious intellectual force in parliament and they are not hampered in any way, in fact they find that careful representation defuses what could otherwise prove difficult internal issues before they arise.

                  But in real terms, appealing as rhyming associations like ‘pale, male, and stale’ may be, they do not adequately capture the chief problems with the Key government: that they are as crooked as a three dollar bill, and dumber than dirt. No honest or intelligent person could support them for a moment.

    • Dialey 3.2
      29 July 2014 at 1:39 pm

      I guess you are in the over-represented group, silver bullet. If you were female, your opinion might be different. It’s the house of representatives and over 50% of the population are female according to the last census, therefore severely under-represented in parliament

  4. Bill 4
    28 July 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Paraphrasing my own comment from ‘Open Mike’….

    In a society where women are forever getting systemic grease slathered on ladder rungs, fewer of them are going to attain a position that would fit with being selected for the party that best reflects said patriarchal society (male, pale and stale).

    And on that front, I don’t think affording compensatory traction (positive discrimination or whatever) is any solution. Eventually, if we want an end to all this nonsense, people are going to have to either pull or push all the ladders over, or better, focus desire/ambition elsewhere and leave the whole patriarchal edifice to rot while being mindful not to recreate its essential features in other forms.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1
      28 July 2014 at 8:57 pm

      It’s a tempting proposition, Bill. The problem is that you’re essentially saying “Hey, ladies (and everyone else), just stop demanding equality and put up with being treated as second-class humans until we’ve overturned the whole system.”

      Revolution ain’t happening any time soon and I’m not going to sit on my hands waiting for it.

      • Hanswurst 4.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 9:20 pm

        I think it’s important to do both. One very important (and difficult) thing, however, is to anull the Right’s portrayal of the struggle against institutional discrimination as a multitude of different groups holding their hands out for special treatment. It’s not about “the Maori”, “the women”, “the gays” etc. all wanting something extra; it’s about a single group continuing to consolidate the values and customs that pereptuate its privilege, and thus minimising the possibility of other views shaping policy and determining the allocation of resources. Unlike some posting around here, I don’t think that the solution is for individual groups to keep quiet and leave advocacy for all and sundry to a unified “Left” leadership (even assuming that such a thing exists in NZ). In fact, I think that would make things a lot worse. What I would favour is a parallel campaign of visible activism highlighting the entrenched privilege of white, patriarchal society, and stating over and over that it is (broadly speaking) a single issue having a negative impact on the representation of other groups.

        • Bill 4.1.1.1
          28 July 2014 at 9:28 pm

          I agree that it’s not a choice between ‘this’ or ‘that’ but has to be seen in terms of ‘this’ and ‘that’. Walking and chewing gum. Not so difficult.

      • Bill 4.1.2
        28 July 2014 at 9:24 pm

        Nah Stephanie, that’s not what I’m saying, either essentially or otherwise. What I’m saying is that we’ll never have equality when we use systems predicated on bases of inequality. That the inequalities can be lessened – effects ameliorated – is a given. But only using mechanisms within current social or political configurations to lessen or ameliorate inequality, laudable and desirable as that is, does not and can not ever deliver a solution.

        Or maybe as a shonky analogy. We can make the cage as big as we can (and we should do that). But only doing that and not seeking to also undermine the integrity of the bars themselves suggests we are somehow happy to be caged and somehow repelled by thoughts of freedom, no?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1
          28 July 2014 at 10:00 pm

          Nah Stephanie, that’s not what I’m saying, either essentially or otherwise. What I’m saying is that we’ll never have equality when we use systems predicated on bases of inequality.

          Also, National don’t give a damn because they’ve shown time and again that NZers male and female will vote them in for 3 terms at a time.

  5. Hagar 5
    28 July 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Concentrate on the big stuff, who cares who the gnats put up. This is why Labour is not going anywhere. focus on what really matters, policy policy policy.

    • karol 5.1
      28 July 2014 at 6:16 pm

      It’s a pity the Nats don’t have more woman-friendly policies; limited paid parental leave; continuous bashing of mothers on benefits; women, Maori and Pacific people over-represented on the lowest wages, and nothing to implement a living wage… et, etc, etc.

      • silverbullet 5.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 6:38 pm

        The problem is once upon a time you only needed one average income to achieve the kiwi dream. Now even 2 income house holds are struggling to get by especially in Auckland – crazy land prices. Gone are the days of dad working and mum keeping a well organised household.

        Why are there so many single mothers? Why should the tax payer keep handing over money to the State to act as a surrogate father?

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1
          28 July 2014 at 7:14 pm

          Why are there so many single mothers?

          There isn’t.

          Why should the tax payer keep handing over money to the State to act as a surrogate father?

          Two things:

          1. We no longer enforce the Church’s rather delusional nuclear family BS and, most importantly,
          2. We want and need our children to grow up healthy and well educated
          • silverbullet 5.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2014 at 7:48 pm

            Who are you trying to kid?

            “New Zealand has the third-highest rate of children living in single-parent homes, an OECD study says.

            This means nearly one in four Kiwi children are growing up in single-parent homes as more marriages break up and single women choose to enter motherhood on their own. ”

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4945358/One-child-in-four-in-single-parent-home

            The best arrangement for kids to thrive is dad and mum providing a stable environment for them.

            The tax payer and state should not be used as a replacement for a father in a child’s life.

            Why are you claiming the nuclear family is exclusively a Church thing? Is that why you come across as so hostile towards it? It has been an excellent social institution.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2014 at 7:53 pm

              Oh fuck off

              This arrangement was predictably encouraged by Rogernomics, Ruthanasia and neoliberalism, which made it impossible for a family to survive on one income.

              If you care so much about stable families, you would be advocating for full employment, and a massive increase in low end wages.

              • silverbullet …
                28 July 2014 at 8:14 pm

                I don’t think full employment is ever going to come back, maybe in hot spots where there are boom and bust cycles eg Western Australia resources industry. And with surplus labour it is hard to get wage increases.

                How much of a wage increase is needed for a family to get by on one income in Auckland? Nothing near realistically possible.

                It is at least as important to encourage marriages so that they last and that children are born within one . Since when did being Left mean we had to oppose that?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2014 at 8:22 pm

                  So you’re not willing to advocate for any of the real economic circumstances and changes which would help families stay together, instead pushing for some kind of ceremonial event instead?

                  What are you, stupid?

              • john …
                28 July 2014 at 8:27 pm

                There were 17,000 people needed the DPB in 1975 (the year after it came in).

                In the first five years the number that needed it went up 115%, to 37,000.

                Within 15 years of it being introduced, the number claiming it had gone up 588% to 100,000.

                And it’s sat around that horrific level ever since.

                We have one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates on the planet.

                And a rate of 40% of ALL children are not even planned for.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 July 2014 at 9:31 pm

                  Another idiot perpetrating the myths about welfare:

                  5. Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers – many of them teenagers – who have extra children so that they can get more money

                  In fact, only 3.1 % of those on the DPB are under 20 years of age – and that figure has barely flickered since 2005, when the figure was 2.9 %. Put another way, 97% of the people on the DPB are NOT the ‘very young women’ of Key’s lurid imagination. There are in fact, significantly more people on the DPB over 55 years of age (5.6%) than there are ‘very young women’ receiving this benefit.

                  • john …
                    28 July 2014 at 10:47 pm

                    Your attempt to mislead can easily be busted. Many women on the DPB are in their 20s because they are on their third or fourth kid, often to different no-hoper dads, and they started on the DPB as a teenager.

                    “Controversial new data suggests that MORE THAN HALF of all sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) first became beneficiaries as teenagers.”

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10664607

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2014 at 11:02 pm

                      Did you read the article, John? What does “a range of apparently contradictory figures” mean, John?

                      It means you will have to find another wagon to hitch your hatred of poor people to. Titfords like you are all the same.

                    • Tracey …
                      29 July 2014 at 8:33 am

                      John

                      You should sack Nick Smith

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2014 at 10:05 pm

                  There were 17,000 people needed the DPB in 1975 (the year after it came in).

                  In the first five years the number that needed it went up 115%, to 37,000.

                  Within 15 years of it being introduced, the number claiming it had gone up 588% to 100,000.

                  )

                  That’s Rogernomics and neoliberalism for you, you shit head.

                  • john …
                    28 July 2014 at 10:37 pm

                    Rather than just opening your mouth and vomiting idiotic abuse, you should explain why there was a 335% increase BEFORE Rogernomics.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2014 at 10:52 pm

                      Probably because shit heads making up data points as they go along and who thought like you were running things.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      28 July 2014 at 10:53 pm

                      It makes people lazy! It does! I seen it! The National Party makes people lazy too, that’s why unemployment is always higher under National.

                      They made an extra eighty thousand people lazy over the last six years. Eighty thousand! That’s heaps! Go National!

                    • john …
                      28 July 2014 at 11:11 pm

                      Colonial Viper says “Probably because shit heads making up data points as they go along and who thought like you were running things.”

                      Translation = “I can’t explain it. I’m just anti everything right and will say anything off the top of my head whether it has any factual basis or not”.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2014 at 11:23 pm

                      So you have a source for your data points then, Johnny? Come share with us mate. Let’s find the answers to your queries together.

                    • john …
                      28 July 2014 at 11:42 pm

                      It’s from a Ministry of Social Development report that lists benefit numbers back to 1940.

                      For the DPB, introduced 1974, numbers are
                      1975 – 17,231
                      1980 – 37,040
                      1985 – 56,548
                      1990 – 94,823
                      1995 – 104,027
                      2000 – 108,939
                      2005 – 106,330

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      It’s from a Ministry of Social Development report that lists benefit numbers back to 1940.

                      🙄

                      Which report?
                      Just so we can see if there’s a completely unintentional typo or oversight, perchance.

                    • john …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:09 am

                      MSD says “The trend in Domestic Purposes Benefit numbers closely matches he
                      rise in single parent families. ”

                      So why the rise from around 10,000 on the DPB in the first year to an explosion of 100,000 just 15 years later?

                      Is the DPB itself responsible for the massive rise in one parent families?

                      The DPB stats are from a MSD table I have on my computer but here is a link that has graphs that will back those numbers up. See DPB graph on figure 6
                      http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/00PLSocRP00141/977146ac6bc6d8ebcbcc264628090ec9c2f73fe6

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:18 am

                      Rogernomics and Ruthanasia are responsible for the most massive increases (50,000+ additional)

                      Already told you. Neoliberalism is the evil.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:29 am

                      lol
                      you mean the straight line increase in number that steepened in the late 1980s?

                    • john …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:45 am

                      So Douglas and Richardson were responsible for all those extra pregnancies in solo parents – hilarious.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:54 am

                      well, I think there was a change to divorce/separation processes too.
                      But the increase went out of control at 1988-95, so yeah. Rogergnomes could well share the blame.

                      Not an absolute by any means, because longitudinal states can’t prove causation. But there is a correlation that has socioeconomic plausibility. Probably want a look at divorce rates around that period, too. And the suicide rate. But it’s late and I’m off to bed.

                      No doubt you’ll be making shit up tomorrow, too.

                    • john …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:24 am

                      It had already gone up from 17,000 to 75,000 by 1988. (340% increase over 14 years) compared to 104,000 by 1995 (38% increase over 7 years).

                      So the biggest increases were by far in the first years of the DPB.

                      It probably has the advantage of letting women escape bad marriages.

                      And the disadvantage of being a career choice for many.

                      Hence we have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world.

                      There is one factor that is more aligned to child abuse – more than any of the other main factors – more than male partner in the house who isn’t the biological father, drug abuse, poverty, and alcohol abuse – and that factor is young mothers.

                      And surprise surprise. We have nearly the worlds highest rate for teenage pregnancy, and we have one of the highest rates for child abuse.

                      Because as soon as you have a young mother on the DPB, there is a very high chance of all the other risk factors – poverty, new partner who isn’t the father, and drug and alcohol abuse.

                      With over half of the 100,000 or so (mainly) mothers on the DPB having started on it as teenagers, that’s a hell off a lot of children in poverty and being abused because of our high teenage pregnancy rate.

                      But is there a single political party with a policy to do something about the teenage pregnancy rate?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:30 am

                      Why don’t you take a break and get your mind off the business of young teenage wombs for a few hours mate.

                    • Awww …
                      29 July 2014 at 7:54 am

                      lol ^

                      Clearly John is one of the stale pales. There was a lot of domestic abuse around so women (and some men) had enough self love to leave.

                      Assuming these figures are correct cough then obviously it is due to the spread of information allowing more people to become aware of their ability to remove themselves and their children from abusive home lives.

                    • Tracey …
                      29 July 2014 at 8:34 am

                      John

                      Does the report discuss the payment of maintenance by the missing parent in all those cases and the efforts by the Governments of the day to enforce such payments so the state didnt have to take care of (mostly) men’s abandoned children?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2014 at 9:23 pm

              Why are you claiming the nuclear family is exclusively a Church thing?

              Well, that comes from some reading I did a few years back that showed that the nuclear family was a result of encouragement from the Church and they were encouraged by the capitalists because it suited the capitalists to break up the strong extended family unit and have people competing for wages. That said, there are many interpretations of the history of the family:

              http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nuclear_family.aspx
              http://genealogyreligion.net/tag/nuclear-family

              Is that why you come across as so hostile towards it?

              I come across as hostile to it because I happened to have been raised in one.

              It has been an excellent social institution.

              It’s great if you want to fracture society.

              • silverbullet …
                28 July 2014 at 11:13 pm

                So you had an unhappy home life – get over it and stop projecting it onto the rest of us.

                Foolish to claim its all a Capitalist Religious conspiracy to keep everyone oppressed.

                Nuclear families are great. Most people want to live in their own home not have three generations under one roof or the in-laws living with them.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 July 2014 at 12:20 am

                  So what do you suggest to bring the cost of housing down to a more affordable 5x the median wage?

                  Or are you not actually interested in affordable housing, but simply say you are?

                  • silverbullet …
                    29 July 2014 at 12:42 am

                    Auckland is driving house prices higher, most of the provinces are flat. There are lots of forces involved – tax incentives, bank practices, population growth, land restrictions, Auckland geography.

                    Should Auckland keep growing exponentially, even at 2% means a doubling of population within half a life time – that is putting a lot of pressure on infrastructure and the environment. Auckland can’t keep growing exponentially forever.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:47 am

                      You said that most people want their own home for their own immediate family. I agree.

                      So I ask you once again, not to elaborate on all the various complex factors here and there, but what you would do to get house prices back to a more affordable 5x the median wage ~$210,000.

                  • john …
                    29 July 2014 at 12:53 am

                    5x median wage? You can get them much cheaper than that

                    How about 3.5x?

                    http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-749620624.htm

                    • silverbullet …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:07 am

                      I think the Demographia index is the best measurement – this from a NZ Herald article beginning of this year:

                      “The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey out today showed prices up $54,900 annually and median household incomes falling by $4700.

                      Last year, the survey pegged Aucklanders as having a median household income of $75,200 and a median house price of $506,800, giving the city a total median multiple of 6.7 (house prices divided by incomes) when anything more than 3 is regarded as unaffordable.

                      But now Auckland’s median house prices are $561,700 and median household incomes $70,500, the city has been pegged as having a median multiple of 8. The survey concluded Auckland had slipped further in its ranking as one of the world’s most severely unaffordable places to live.

                      Last year, Auckland was the world’s 313th most unaffordable place out of 337 cities but now it is the world’s 347th most unaffordable out of 360 cities.”

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11188916

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:15 am

                      silverbullet – no ideas on how to bring house prices down to an affordable 5x eh?

                      John – great example – now find another 50,000 like it for Kiwi families.

                    • john …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:36 am

                      Why do people go to Auckland with such ridiculous house prices?

                      Many places with much lower house prices ALSO have much lower unemployment rates than Auckland.

                      If more people went to places with better job prospects and lower house prices than Auckland, that would help Auckland’s problem.

                      It’s only one of many things we need to do, but it’s probably the most serious issue the country faces because it causes poverty, and a lack of funding for the productive sector, which causes lower job growth etc etc.

                    • Tracey …
                      29 July 2014 at 8:35 am

                      The jobs are in Auckland, but you want them to live elsewhere cos the houses are cheaper?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  29 July 2014 at 6:50 am

                  So you had an unhappy home life – get over it and stop projecting it onto the rest of us.

                  IMO, the nuclear family is responsible for the huge amount of abuse we have in NZ.

                  Nuclear families are great. Most people want to live in their own home not have three generations under one roof or the in-laws living with them.

                  If most people want to live in a nuclear family why are they disappearing so rapidly?

        • RedBaronCV 5.1.1.2
          28 July 2014 at 8:41 pm

          Why are the fathers skipping out on the need to provide financial support and why is the system aiding them? $800 per year – FFS it costs more to rego and warrant a car. The DPB is a lifestyle benefit for males so good luck with removing it.

          “This means nearly one in four Kiwi children are growing up in single-parent homes as more marriages break up and single women choose to enter motherhood on their own”

          and in the process protecting the children from violence no doubt. Violence does lead towards marriage breakdown – so you think women and kids should stay and be beaten up?

          • silverbullet 5.1.1.2.1
            28 July 2014 at 11:15 pm

            It isn’t domestic violence that is the cause of most marriage break ups it is the fact there is way less commitment and social pressure to make it work.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2.1.1
              28 July 2014 at 11:27 pm

              So what’s the proportion attributable to each? And, citations please.

              • silverbullet …
                28 July 2014 at 11:45 pm

                First your friend can provide citations for their claim that 25% of NZ kids are in solo parent homes due to the mother’s efforts to protect the children from violence

                After all that is a VERY startling claim to make and obviously RedBaron has the stats to back that up as he said himself he had no doubt about it.

                Otherwise it is reasonable to assume that most marriages that are falling apart are doing so for more prosaic reasons.

                After all we are all well aware of the loosening of marriage and divorce laws making it all so much easier.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 July 2014 at 12:09 am

                  I’ll ask my friend later. I’m asking you now. Deliver the data, say its just your opinion, or fuck off. Plenty of choices there. Pick one.

                  After all we are all well aware of the loosening of marriage and divorce laws making it all so much easier.

                  What country are you from? Please state the Acts of Parliament/amendments you are referring to.

                  • silverbullet …
                    29 July 2014 at 12:26 am

                    The burden of proof is on your friend, but I doubt he can produce anything.

                    It is reasonable to believe that the majority of divorces are not the result of mothers with kids fleeing a violent husband unless evidence can be produced to prove otherwise.

                    Divorce laws in the West were loosened during the 60s and 70s with “no fault” , if you believe I am lying produce the evidence.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 12:49 am

                      Hey dickwad, NZ is not ruled by “divorce laws in the West” wherever the fuck that mystery place you come from might be.

                      What NZ Acts of Parliament are you referring to as having been “loosened”.

                      Or are you making shit up (again).

                    • silverbullet …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:13 am

                      To Colonial Viper above ( for some reason the reply link is not showing up on your latest posts ) –

                      Divorce has been made much easier in NZ thanks to ‘no fault’ style law changes that swept Western countries during the 60s and 70s. If you think I am lying, prove it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2014 at 1:33 am

                      What Act of the NZ Parliament? Are you proposing reversing that Act as a whole or just certain amendments to it?

                      Or do you not even know what NZ laws you are referring to so you have to keep talking about some weird place called “The West” (whose laws NZ does not obey btw).

                      You’re really not used to dealing with properly heathen real socialists are you? You better take a break and get your supervisor to take over your shift tomorrow, you’re pretty shite at this.

            • Tracey 5.1.1.2.1.2
              29 July 2014 at 8:36 am

              Better to be like the “old days” where mum and dad stay together for the kids and dad has affairs? And everyone pretends the kids are better off for it?

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.2
        28 July 2014 at 7:22 pm
        • 1
    • Rupert 5.2
      28 July 2014 at 7:22 pm

      ”This is why Labour is not going anywhere.”
      No, it’s why Labour is going down the drain.


      [lprent: Please read the policy and recall that robust debate requires some signs of intelligence. If I wanted a simple sloganeering astroturfing spambot to piss comments of this site, I’d simply write a real graffiti artist. It would probably exceed your observable level of intelligence by several orders of magnitude – and I still wouldn’t have had to exert much effort.

      Adding you back into automoderation until I see signs of some intelligence. ]

      • Rupert 5.2.1
        29 July 2014 at 9:52 am

        ”Adding you back into automoderation until I see signs of some intelligence”
        It will be a long time before you find any signs of intelligence at ”The Standard” , arsehole. I’ve never seen such a collection of daft dreamers and raving drug addicts. Phillip Ure spewing his cretinous nonsense everywhere is about as good as it gets. Your site is a joke.

        [Wow way to get your comment published – MS]

        [lprent: I guess I touched a nerve, and he promptly went into troll jerk-off mode with a number of comments. Rather enjoyed seeing a retro fool that would have looked like a dinosaur in 2008.

        The classic comment where he equated this site with the NZLP (needed to read the about), proceeded to state the usual troll mantra about being a past Labour supporter (roughly as credible as the advertising message of “me luv you long time”), and then topped it off with some personal abuse.

        Or the other one where he demonstrated his witless lack of understanding of why he looked like a poorly written program to a moderator.

        Weirdly amusing in a sad kind of a way. Anyway, clearly not ready for commenting on our site. He simply didn’t get the point and obviously has issues with being a guest in other peoples spaces.

        Banning permanently for reasons of sociopathic stupidity. ]

    • The Pink Postman 5.3
      29 July 2014 at 4:20 pm

      I agree Hargar .Leave the nats list to Herald .We need to get our policy out and out every day .We need to just eep repeating just how good our policies are. Health, Housing , Tax reform all good but the great unwashed out there have no idea what our policies are .I blame the media but we should be used to that ,We must use every chance we have to praise our policies . Every time our MPs are in public they must preach ,preach preach policy. Take a page out of the Nats they never miss a chance to tell us how good their policy or How bad Labour is.

  6. Clemgeopin 6
    28 July 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Male, Pale and Stale:

    Examples:

    MALE=Key #1 on the list
    PALE=English #2 on the list
    VERY STALE=Carter, Brownlee, Joyce, Collins, Parata, Finlayson, Bennett, Coleman, McCully, Tolley, Smith, Groser #3 to $14 on the list.

    What a pathetic bunch of useless listless wit nits! So called, ‘Senior leaders’! Bye…bye!

    • john 6.1
      28 July 2014 at 8:40 pm

      That compares to –
      Goff – failed white male leader.
      Shearer – failed white male leader
      Cunliffe – failing white male leader
      Parker – failed attempt at being white male leader
      Robertson – aspiring to be a failed white male leader.

      And the top listed female, Annette King, is already well past retiring age, so the stale component is covered as well.

      • Clemgeopin 6.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 9:51 pm

        Oi, Annette king is young enough and very smart. If you think she is stale, then you are silly as. Carter is like her old old grandpa in comparison!

    • Tamati 6.2
      28 July 2014 at 9:45 pm

      You can hardly call the National list stale. The Nats could easily have 12-14 new MPs at the next election. On current polling Labour will lucky to have more than one! (Nash and Sepuloni will probably win their seats, although they are ex -MPs.)

      What party were you calling stale?

  7. Rupert 7
    28 July 2014 at 7:18 pm

    From the Herald:
    National’s top 60
    10 of Maori descent (17 per cent)
    2 Pacific Islanders (3 per cent)
    4 Asians (7 per cent)
    which presumably leaves 73% Europeans.
    This is similar to the proportion in the general population.
    If Labour is going to run a campaign based on slamming National for being too ”pale” then it really has finally lost the plot completely.

    • Clemgeopin 7.1
      28 July 2014 at 7:30 pm

      What representation do women get? Does THAT reflect the population proportion, huh? Do tell!
      Then ask your mom, sister, granma, auntie, wife and daughter if THEY are happy with the representation and respect that National is giving them!

      • Rupert 7.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 7:32 pm

        I did not mention women. The article mentions PALE , which was what my comment was about.

        • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1.1
          28 July 2014 at 8:10 pm

          “I did not mention women. The article mentions PALE , which was what my comment was about.”

          Which article would that be, Rupert? Perhaps it’s the Herald piece entitled “Men dominate National’s Top 60”, from which you get the stats? Or do you mean the Standard post entitled Male, Pale and Stale?

          Funny thing, both mention gender in their headings, but neither quotes Labour as mentioning ‘pale’ let alone running a campaign on it. Perhaps you’re making shit up?

    • Te Reo Putake 7.2
      28 July 2014 at 7:39 pm

      All good, Rupert, unless you’re PI, Asian or a woman. ps, the European proportion is ten percent higher than is actually reflected in the kiwi population, so male, pale and stale it is.

      • Rupert 7.2.1
        28 July 2014 at 7:48 pm

        There are numerous ethnic groups and religious groups in NZ. Good luck finding representatives for each group and representatives which the groups themselves approve of.
        re your ”ps”…the Maori representation in National is also higher than that in the population so male, pale, stale and Maori it is

        • Te Reo Putake 7.2.1.1
          28 July 2014 at 7:59 pm

          Yep, they’ve got one more person on the list who claims maori heritage than would equal the average in NZ. Big deal. Asian, PI and women are grossly under represented. It doesn’t take ‘good luck’ to get these things right, it just takes commitment.

          • Rupert 7.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2014 at 8:09 pm

            And what about all the other ethnic groups in NZ? Just because an Indian and a Korean are both called ”Asians” doesn’t mean that some random ”Asian” such as a Pakistani speaks for them. If this is the Labour party in 2014 quibbling over the number of whites on National’s list then they deserve to lose. And losing big time looks to be exactly where they are headed .

            • Te Reo Putake 7.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2014 at 8:12 pm

              Show me where Labour are doing any such thing, Rupert. Last time I heard, the NZ Herald don’t get their orders from the NZLP and it’s their article you quote.

              • Rupert …
                28 July 2014 at 8:26 pm

                ”Show me where Labour are doing any such thing, Rupert. Last time I heard, the NZ Herald don’t get their orders from the NZLP and it’s their article you quote.”
                Sorry, I have a bad habit of taking articles here as being the voice of the Labour party.

                • Bunji …
                  28 July 2014 at 11:08 pm

                  And you shouldn’t as it’s likely to get you a ban. This is not a Labour party site.

                  Read the About before you comment.

            • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2014 at 8:15 pm

              Imagine the fun trying to convince an Indian that a Pakistani speaks for them in Parliament (or vice versa), or that a Korean/Chinese/Japanese speaks for any different combo of Korean/Chinese/Japanese.

              • Rupert …
                28 July 2014 at 8:22 pm

                The Indian ”community” did in fact complain to Labour that the Indian(s) on Labour’s list did not speak for them, I believe.

              • Tamati …
                28 July 2014 at 9:59 pm

                I imagine it may be an issue for older migrants, but probably not the first or second generation. Even with a countries you may get disagreement, India is a massive country with ethnically and religiously diverse population. Apparently North and South India are about as culturally similar as New York and Texas.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2014 at 10:59 pm

                  I imagine it may be an issue for older migrants, but probably not the first or second generation.

                  Possibly, but we also know from a purely NZ context that tribal and cultural rivalries can carry on for a long time.

          • Rupert 7.2.1.1.2
            28 July 2014 at 8:38 pm

            ”Yep, they’ve got one more person on the list who claims maori heritage than would equal the average in NZ. Big deal. Asian, PI…are grossly under represented. ”
            I can’t be bothered doing the sums but its likely that if you turned the percentages into actual numbers , your ”grossly under represented” would turn out to be an overstatement which could be dismissed with exactly the same ”big deal” you used to dismiss the Maori over-representation.

            • Te Reo Putake 7.2.1.1.2.1
              28 July 2014 at 9:23 pm

              Nope. Perhaps you should actually look this stuff up, before you stuff up.

              • Rupert …
                28 July 2014 at 10:33 pm

                The exact data is irrelevant to my case so I won’t. The point is that it is impossible to have representatives of of every ethnic group in proportion to their size in the population. There are too many ethnic groups here these days. Even ”Indian” does not cover all Indians. And having an ”Asian” category is a total joke. The whole thing becomes about as plausible as Noah’s Ark and his two of every kind.

          • Clemgeopin 7.2.1.1.3
            28 July 2014 at 8:39 pm

            and ‘Common Sense’ as that wise wily old man Winston says.

  8. Jrobin 8
    28 July 2014 at 8:35 pm

    This list should do the trick. Women swing voters will be further persuaded not to vote for Teamkey. Arrogant, sexist, monetarist, what’s not to like? Especially as their women MPs model themselves on Margaret Thatcher.

  9. Richard McGrath 9
    28 July 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Male, pale and stale… you mean like numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 22, 24 and 26 on the Labour Party list – and that’s not counting Chris Hipkins.

    • The Al1en 9.1
      28 July 2014 at 8:47 pm

      I don’t think your numbers make the point in the way you intended.
      Just going up to 26, that would make 11 men, with women represented at more than 50% with 15.

      4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        28 July 2014 at 9:53 pm

        How do these Righties who can’t do basic counting even survive in politics.

        • felix 9.1.1.1
          29 July 2014 at 8:31 am

          In fairness, Richard;s party is roundly rejected in politics.

        • Richard McGrath 9.1.1.2
          29 July 2014 at 7:11 pm

          Of course I can count – your conclusion is absurd. I was merely pointing out that 42% of the first 26 people on the Labour list are male, pale and stale. Pot, kettle, etc.

          • lprent 9.1.1.2.1
            30 July 2014 at 1:48 am

            I was merely pointing out that 42% of the first 26 people on the Labour list are male, pale and stale.

            Evidentially you have some kind of numerical problem. You appear to have managed to miss the concept of the relative scale of numbers appears to have.

            But really bearing in mind your delusional economic and political beliefs that amount to multiplying all activity with imaginary scaling factors from the effects of “freedom” (usually in practice the freedom to oppress others), that is hardly surprising.

  10. silverbullet 10
    28 July 2014 at 11:29 pm

    The reality is National is more popular than Labour, so obviously a lot of women don’t think there needs to be a gender quota in order to get representation, same with other ‘oppressed classes’, Maori can always vote for the Maori Party or iMana if they like. Maybe a WomeNZ Party? Would probably only splinter the Left vote further.

  11. infused 11
    28 July 2014 at 11:46 pm

    Love these posts.

    I really do.

  12. Clemgeopin 12
    28 July 2014 at 11:48 pm

    Male, Pale and Stale?

    It should be:
    Male, Pale, Stale and for sale!

  13. Awww 13
    29 July 2014 at 8:05 am

    Mana compares favorably. Nothing stale about them : )

  14. Puckish Rogue 14
    29 July 2014 at 10:19 am

    Love it when the left call National stale yet won’t run a slide rule over Labours ranks 🙂

  15. Populuxe1 15
    29 July 2014 at 2:41 pm

    National has more Maori in its top 10 than the Greens do, which is somewhat ironic if you are going to make that an issue.

  16. Tracey 16
    29 July 2014 at 3:38 pm

    who with nats organisation decide the list?