So, we’re talking about this now

126 comments on “So, we’re talking about this now ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   5 July 2013 at 8:40 am

   Ha! Good one, Zetetic! I was just trying to do a count of National MPs.

   Have I got it right? 15 women MPs out of a 59 MP caucus? People in glass houses……

   And the National Party top team is full of male bully-boys. The traditionally perceived as masculine portfolios are held by men (finance etc).

   The females they appoint as ministers tend to be fall-persons to take the heat in controversial portfolios (Social Development, Education, etc) and/or by women with a mix of traditionally “feminine” presentation coupled with some qualities traditionally perceived as “masculine” and necessary for political success (eg Collins): aggressive, insensitive, domineering.
   • Jimmie 1.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:54 am

     So John Key has branched out from child eating to women hating?

     Nice one Karol. Nothing to do with the perceived abilities or otherwise of each minister – nah Key only picks on gender.

     And surely this must make the NZ voter fairly biast against women too as the last time I looked Key and the Nats had a whole lot of public support.
     • felix 1.1.1

       5 July 2013 at 9:57 am

       If National are really selecting on ability, then National must believe men are more able than women.

       That’s the bit you lot continue to refuse to address.
     • tracey 1.1.2

       5 July 2013 at 10:04 am

       Yes Jimmie it is likely that a large percentage of NZers have a biased view about women. Even if they don’t know it is biased. I don’t say that to be patronising but people cant know what they dont know. The glass ceiling is real. I know hundreds (yes BM a true number) of women who have hit the glass ceiling. It’s VERY hard to prove gender bias in an interview or selection process for instance. However people are natural gossips, and things get told socially, in the boardrooms and so on. Doesn’t it strike you as even slightly odd that 50%of a population might only make up 15% of a political party?

       Gaddafi has alot of support, Presidents in the time of slavery had alot of popular support. Messages are manipulated and massaged. Politicians (except Labour these days) massage their message to make us view issues in a particular way. Without further information it is hard to believe anything different to that message.

       For example there is a political strategy whereby a party or Govt decides it wants to do something. It settles that policy idea and the end goal. It then employs strategies including polls and surveys to structure the answers (yes answers, not questions), in such a way that their policy (once released) will appear to be meeting a real concern of the public (and which they have just created through their survey/polling/ press releases/blog posts/ radio spots)…

       THEN the policy is released to media fanfare and to approval by a public who until recently didnt really know there was a problem or one as big as this…but now it’s great there is a solution.
   • Rogue Trooper 1.2

     5 July 2013 at 10:41 am

     good analysis of “the females they appoint as ministers” karol; Nats crave their dominatrix.
2. BM 2

   5 July 2013 at 8:42 am

   There are 16 female mps within National

   50% of those women are ministers, not too bad.
   • felix 2.1

     5 July 2013 at 8:52 am

     16 out of 59 “not bad”?

     Jesus.
   • mickysavage 2.2

     5 July 2013 at 8:53 am

     So if there were 8 female National MPs and 6 of them were in cabinet the result would be outstanding?
     • BM 2.2.1

       5 July 2013 at 8:56 am

       Actually, I’d be a bit concerned that favoritism was going on and the best person for the job wasn’t getting selected.
       • tracey 2.2.1.1

         5 July 2013 at 9:03 am

         You should be concerned about that now…
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.2.1.1.1

           5 July 2013 at 10:18 am

           +1.

           Sixteen out of fifty nine. No favouritism to see here. Move along 🙄
   • karol 2.3

     5 July 2013 at 8:54 am

     50% of those women are ministers,

     Doesn’t say a lot about the capability of the majority of Nat male MPs.
     • BM 2.3.1

       5 July 2013 at 8:59 am

       Why’s that?, I’m sure those women selected to be ministers got there on their skills not because of gender.

       Best person for the job and all that.
       • tracey 2.3.1.1

         5 July 2013 at 9:04 am

         What is your evidence for believing that?
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.3.1.1.1

           5 July 2013 at 9:50 am

           Anne Tolley. Hekia Parata. Paula Bennett.

           Top flight material those three.
           • Rogue Trooper 2.3.1.1.1.1

             5 July 2013 at 10:43 am

             -Top, Flight of the Con cords.
     • tracey 2.3.2

       5 July 2013 at 9:04 am

       Karol – touche
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.4

     5 July 2013 at 8:58 am

     Sixteen out of fifty nine. That’s not “structural”, it’s incompetence, a joke: the inevitable consequence of small minds and their tiny little ideas.

     For example, when the National Party selects candidates, female nominees’ partners are up for the Peter Davis treatment from the group of thugs in the corner. The Party condones it, and here you are.
     • BM 2.4.1

       5 July 2013 at 9:02 am

       Peter Davis?, didn’t realize Helen Clarks husband was involved with National.

       And been a complete sexist prick too !!!!, Helen would be wild.
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.4.1.1

         5 July 2013 at 9:03 am

         Very witty, I see what you did there. Nice one. Well played 🙄
3. Winston Smith 3

   5 July 2013 at 9:04 am

   lol

   “Look everybody, see how bad National is!”

   Yeah that’ll work 🙂
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:09 am

     Yeah, in fact. I don’t pay much attention to the sheep that enable John Key, but to learn that only sixteen out of fifty nine of them are women is on the one hand a testament to female good fortune and on the other made me do a bit of a double-take.

     I knew you lot were fucked but I hadn’t realised it was quite that bad. Like Zet says, Gilmore? Bennett? Of course there were no better candidates than them. Of course.
     • tracey 3.1.1

       5 July 2013 at 9:12 am

       and look at the portfolios they got… poisoned chalices most of them. Wilkinson was thrown to the wolves when Brownlee should still have had the Pike River portfolio… she’s a woman she will do the right thing, we just can’t count on Gerry to do the right thing…
     • Winston Smith 3.1.2

       5 July 2013 at 9:14 am

       I knew you lot were fucked but I hadn’t realised it was quite that bad

       – Yeah thats why Nationals rankings are up and Labours are heading south 🙂
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.2.1

         5 July 2013 at 9:18 am

         2011 election result: 47%. Polls at the time said ~50%. Polls now saying ~45%.

         That’s a nice shiny new definition of “up” you have there, do you think it’ll catch on?
         • McFlock 3.1.2.1.1

           5 July 2013 at 1:09 pm

           Well, when he looks at the world back to front, upside down, with one eye, through a blue-tinted monocle… one must forgive winston the occasional navigational error.

           Either that or he’s simply continuing his former career of rewriting history 🙂
4. AmaKiwi 4

   5 July 2013 at 9:06 am

   “National’s using Labour proposed gender balance proposals to take the media’s eye of the GCSB.”

   National is making idiots of Labour . . . . . . again.

   Who the f*ck is in charge of this sorry excuse for a political party?

   Shut down this gender conversation ASAP.
   • BM 4.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:14 am

     I don’t think they can.
     Labour is a bit like the EU, every one’s pushing their own agenda and going their own way.

     Not a lot of cohesion at the moment.
     • AmaKiwi 4.1.1

       5 July 2013 at 9:42 am

       That’s what public relations people are for. Do we have any?
     • tracey 4.1.2

       5 July 2013 at 9:53 am

       You are right, National is playing out their night of the long knives quieter and behind closed doors. Not sure how their doors stay shut and Labour’s dont…
   • Rogue Trooper 4.2

     5 July 2013 at 10:47 am

     it has been a little disconcerting that Shearer has not come out with his position unequivocally, yet. Unlike Damien O’Connor…
5. fender 5

   5 July 2013 at 9:06 am

   The hysterical reaction of these National fuckwits is further evidence that they are not mature enough to discuss an issue like this, let alone mature enough to run a country.
   • tracey 5.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:09 am

     It’s interesting that they even care… Was it leaked by a Labour man or woman who doesn’t like the policy and is scared that it will pass (via democratic vote) so wants to scuttle it?
   • felix 5.2

     5 July 2013 at 9:13 am

     +1 fender

     ps note that not a single one of them has even addressed the issue – all they’re commenting on is ‘how it plays’.
   • Winston Smith 5.3

     5 July 2013 at 9:15 am

     lol
   • AmaKiwi 5.4

     5 July 2013 at 9:40 am

     Stop pretending people are intelligent beings. Think like an animal. If you want to distract the predator you make a huge hysterical commotion.

     National has saved up this diversion for a moment when THEY are in deep sh*t. Dotcom called Key a liar and Dotcom is believable. The spy agencies are refusing to appear before the committee to defend their own bill. The Law Society condemns the bill. Illegal spying is the headline story worldwide. National’s solution? Create a diversion.

     National is making fools of Labour. Make this gender conversation go away ASAP.
   • infused 5.5

     5 July 2013 at 1:13 pm

     It’s not National supporters. Listen to any talk back channel.
     • McFlock 5.5.1

       5 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

       lol
       Shit, even before web2.0 talkback radio was the equivalent of a sewer.
6. tracey 6

   5 July 2013 at 9:08 am

   Yesterday Joyce pointed out the change in the value of a spending dollar between 2006 and today… but not in relation to any of their policies, in defence of government spending

   “in 2006 he managed to spend more than $250,000 in three months – which equates to around $300,000 today”

   Is he saying that a dollar earned today has about 15-20% less spending power than in 2006? That’s quite an admission when you consider the percentage raise in the minimum wage under their two terms… Might be worth focusing on… but hey what Labour does or doesn’t choose to do in the way it selects its candidates is a much more important national issue. Interesting that it has been framed as a man banning rather than a woman promotion plan. I understand it’s not even in place yet…
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:14 am

     Doesn’t sound like you understand much.

     How is Labour meant to discuss policy without sharing the agenda for the meeting? Now that agenda is a matter of vapid media speculation I look forward to the same scrutiny being applied to the way National makes policy.

     Waiting….
   • Rogue Trooper 6.2

     5 July 2013 at 10:51 am

     National are financial wizards (rumplestiltskins ) and according to Cosgrove in the house yesterday, attempting to spin $6B of asset sales proceeds into $85B of expenditure. 😎
7. tinfoilhat 7

   5 July 2013 at 9:10 am

   OMG is this how banal NZ politics has become.
   • Winston Smith 7.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:16 am

     Yeah and Labour made it an issue *insert rolling eyes emoticon here*
     • tinfoilhat 7.1.1

       5 July 2013 at 9:20 am

       I should be happy as being a supporter of the Green party it’s looking more and more likely we’ll be the senior partner in any coalition government, but it does fill me with trepidation that our potential coalition partners are an inept bunch or morons.
     • felix 7.1.2

       5 July 2013 at 9:21 am

       That’s weird, yesterday you were heaping praise on Simon Lusk for the “scoop”.

       Did you forget which of your handles you were using?
       • Winston Smith 7.1.2.1

         5 July 2013 at 10:19 am

         Link please
         • felix 7.1.2.1.1

           5 July 2013 at 10:31 am

           http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04072013/#comment-657699

           Short memories, these made-up trool handles.
           • Winston Smith 7.1.2.1.1.1

             5 July 2013 at 11:54 am

             Thats funny, the link doesn’t mention Simon Lusk so you’re either lying or mistaken.
             • McFlock …

               5 July 2013 at 1:32 pm

               because slater writes everything there…
               • felix …

                 5 July 2013 at 1:41 pm

                 Who’s Slater?

                 Is he that fat bloke who posts the videos on Simon Lusk’s blog?
                 • McFlock …

                   5 July 2013 at 1:54 pm

                   yes, that’s the one. He’s also an occasional editor of the Truth.
                   • Winston Smith …

                     5 July 2013 at 3:14 pm

                     He came up with man-ban which seems to have made its way into the MSM 🙂

                     But don’t worry I’m no one outside the beltway has even heard of Labours proposal 🙂
                   • McFlock …

                     5 July 2013 at 3:20 pm

                     Well, I’m sure slater laughed when lusk gave him the line. It rhymes and everything.
                   • felix …

                     5 July 2013 at 3:43 pm

                     I doubt many people outside the beltway care that much about the internal workings of the Labour party, if that’s what you mean.

                     I’m interested though, and you claim to be. So how about you give us your opinion of the worthiness of this proposal, without reference to what your magic 8-ball tells you “the voter” thinks.

                     You’ve been bleating about it for a couple of days non stop now, with nary a mention of the value of gender equity or anything else except “how it will play”.

                     Frankly it’s of no interest how you think it plays. Do you have any thoughts on gender equity in representation or not?
8. jcuknz 8

   5 July 2013 at 9:17 am

   Zetetic ..It really is a pity you do not sub your contribution before posting it.
   The issue just shows how hopeless Labour is that they are wasting time even considering it.
9. felix 9

   5 July 2013 at 9:34 am

   National’s Jo Goodhew was on the radio this morning saying that women who want to be National candidates have to “beat off men” to get the job.

   I think we all know about Bennett, but I didn’t realise the practice was so widespread. I certainly wasn’t expecting to hear it openly acknowledged by the minister-for-a-portfolio-her-party-doesn’t-actually-think-is-necessary.
   • tracey 9.1

     5 July 2013 at 9:56 am

     Good for her. I think some folks, including on this site, don’t have a clue how hard it is for someone like Goodhew to say that publicly. By this afternoon there will be a Press release, putting her comment in context, by herself of course.

     For those who say the glass ceiling is a myth, I say you don’t live int he real world. I move in circles of law and education, amongst others and the places with the most brittle glass ceilings are public bodies like the DBH and the Councils. Coincidence?
   • weka 9.2

     5 July 2013 at 10:34 am

     You’re very naughty felix.
     • felix 9.2.1

       5 July 2013 at 11:23 am

       i’m a bad little bear
   • Rogue Trooper 9.3

     5 July 2013 at 10:52 am

     “beat men off” 😉 (insert F anagram).
10. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10

    5 July 2013 at 9:44 am

    National’s using Labour proposed gender balance proposals to take the media’s eye of the GCSB

    Fuck, they’re evil geniuses. How did they get Labour to propose the policy?
    • felix 10.1

      5 July 2013 at 9:48 am

      Yeah, that’s totally what that means 🙄
    • richard 10.2

      5 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

      It’s all part of Labour’s cunning plan to ensure that it doesn’t win the next election.

      So far, it looks like the plan is coming together nicely.

      The plan started with picking an nincompoop for a leader. Follow up work has involved shooting itself in the foot every time there’s a suspicion it might be making some gains in popularity or the government is on the backfoot.

      This has been a classic example of foot shooting. Labour knew exactly how the media would react to what is a perfectly laudable and legitimate idea. They made sure they got the media reaction they required in the manner the idea was announced.

      Result: Labour looks like just the kind of idiots no-one would want to run a country and National goes back on the front foot (or at least not so much on the back foot)

      Well done, you contemptable morons!

      Furious debate amongst Labour strategists right now about the end game for losing the election. Choices revolve around keeping the nincompoop on or replacing him with someone totally reviled by the populace. Unfortunately, they can’t seem to get Mike Moore to make a come-back to politics.
    • lprent 10.3

      5 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

      “Labour” doesn’t. These are proposed policy remits put up from branches and LEC’s… I’m not sure what phase of the cycle this is, but it has to get through regional conferences and the policy committee who will usually amend and or merge them based on existing policy and other remits (but who won’t kill them otherwise). It is a long tortuous path..

      But more importantly unless they conflict with existing policy they can go all the way through from the branch that proposes them to conference unless they are voted down at regional conference(s).

      Perhaps you should take some time to understand the concept of policy remits rather than looking more gormless than normal.
11. quartz 11

    5 July 2013 at 10:06 am

    This strikes me as a bit like the parties’ electricity policies. Labour realises you occasionally have to intervene for a fair outcome. National likes to leave it to the market with the not-quite-coincidental result that rich white men prosper disproportionately.
    • AmaKiwi 11.1

      5 July 2013 at 10:12 am

      National believes in the law of the jungle: only the strongest survive and they will make whatever rules are needed to steal as much as they can from everyone else.

      It’s called Neo-liberal economics.
12. Roy 12

    5 July 2013 at 10:42 am

    When I consider the horrible attacks women in politics, particularly on the left side of centre, have to endure regarding their appearance, sex appeal, sexuality, childlessness or qualities as a mother, none of which are considered grounds to attack male politicians, it amazes me that women go into politics at all.
    • Rogue Trooper 12.1

      5 July 2013 at 10:55 am

      Power is an aphrodisiac to the frigid.
      • Roy 12.1.1

        6 July 2013 at 2:09 pm

        QED
13. Wayne (a different one) 13

    5 July 2013 at 11:07 am

    Who do Labour actually represent?

    Unions, gays, lesbians, feminists and school teachers?

    Forget the rest, particularly the “Hard Working Middle Class Man” – they purport so vermently to support – really in touch with middle NZ, hardly!

    Another “own goal”, “shot in the foot” – a real vote catcher – not!!!!
    • felix 13.1

      5 July 2013 at 11:26 am

      “Kiwis” is the word you’re looking for there Wayne.

      And yep, some kiwis are gay, and some teach your kids, and some are (omg) women.

      Horrible, I know.
    • Sable 13.2

      5 July 2013 at 11:44 am

      Who do National represent. Bigots, boorish middle class men and women who earn 100K and think they are suddenly part of the upper crust. Really just beggars at a rich mans table.
    • weka 13.3

      5 July 2013 at 12:17 pm

      last time I looked, hard working middle class men had women in their lives. Are you saying that those men don’t give a shit about women and want to vote only for the things that suit them personally? I’m not sure how many of Labour voters fit that description*, but it is precisely because of those attitudes that we don’t have gender equity in parliament and why we need to create structures to ensure that we do.

      *and I’d like to see some coherent, intelligent analysis on this, rather than stereotypes of Labour voters.
    • tracey 13.4

      5 July 2013 at 1:48 pm

      nice myth and meme buying Wayne, hope you didn’t part with much of your hard earned to buy it.

      Remind me, what percentage of the population is this group you called “Hard Working Middle Class Man”. My bet is no more than 25%.
    • tracey 13.5

      5 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

      Oh you mean like Damien O’Connor? Someone to represent white middle class bigots… white boys who hate the notion of sharing?
    • Puddleglum 13.6

      5 July 2013 at 6:14 pm

      “Who do Labour actually represent?

      Unions, gays, lesbians, feminists and school teachers?”

      I think they should represent all of those and more (e.g., Maori, Pasifika, the disabled). But, they should have a particular focus on the interests of members of all those groups who are also ‘working class’ (including the so-called ‘underclass’), for want of a better word. I say that simply because it is a ‘Labour’ Party.

      Middle class people should of course be welcome if they particularly support, and have a pre-eminent concern for the interests of the most economically disadvantaged in society.

      In fact, I think quite a strong case could be made for Labour actively recruiting and advancing within the party and into Parliament lower socio-economic people without a formal tertiary education (if it doesn’t already happen). Being lower class involves a worldview and set of concerns and interests that middle class people are largely unable fully to understand or appreciate. There is a huge cultural divide between lower class and middle class ways of life and often quite divergent economic interests.
      • Anne 13.6.1

        5 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

        I think quite a strong case could be made for Labour actively recruiting and advancing within the party and into Parliament lower socio-economic people without a formal tertiary education (if it doesn’t already happen)

        It used to happen Puddleglum but not anymore.

        I’ve told this story before but will tell it again:

        A few years ago someone I know was keen to stand as a candidate for Labour. She approached a long standing MP (now retired from politics) and asked her how to go about it. The first question asked of her was “do you have a degree”. She said “yes”. The MP responded with “oh that’s alright then because if you don’t have a degree your chances are almost zilch”.

        And that explains why Labour has lost the votes of so many ordinary working people. They don’t see anyone there who represents them anymore.
      • karol 13.6.2

        5 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

        Yep. I also agree with that, Puddleglum. And some of the old guard should stand down, and help with setting up a pre-selection and/or mentoring programme for possible candidates from diverse low income backgrounds.
    • QoT 13.7

      5 July 2013 at 9:35 pm

      I don’t want to startle you, Wayne, but some of those Hard Working Middle Class Men you love so much are probably gay, unionised teachers.
      • felix 13.7.1

        6 July 2013 at 9:50 am

        What’s that sound? It’s like brains exploding or something.
14. vto 14

    5 July 2013 at 11:08 am

    Sheesh Labour, talk about blundering on and not thinking. Your Coatsworth president seems very easy ozy when it comes to the effect this sort of issue will have on the populace.

    Coatsworth seems to think the voters will understand what she means when she say “.. blah blah blah, it is only up for debate within the caucus and the party and other parties do it in the UK. I don’t think it will stay on the front page on the news… blah blah blah”.

    Now she is supposed to be the expert, but I would have thought that all that the voters will hear is “Labour want to restrict men from standing as MPs” and that by making the front page just one single day is more than enough to have an effect.

    What a dippy thing to do. I reckon you have just spooked a significant number of potential swing voters.

    The Nats will be laughing. How can you be so useless?
15. Tiger Mountain 15

    5 July 2013 at 11:12 am

    If Labour’s current strategists were gifted a brain it would be lonely.

    The “Man Ban” despite the rationale and intent, and inner party process and schedule, will likely catch on with dickhead kiwis that do vote as surely as curly light bulbs or S59 “banning child beating” did previously.
    • vto 15.1

      5 July 2013 at 11:15 am

      Exactly. Sometimes the left just does brainless things when it comes to hard out politics – it is quite extraordinary…….
      • Sable 15.1.1

        5 July 2013 at 11:42 am

        Yes what are bunch those lefties are. Lets look at the right shall we-lying to the public about spying on them and then rather than apologising and holding the guilty to account blithely changing the law to let it continue. Or how about calling those who don’t like being spied on “unpatriotic” when the spying is in collusion with and in some cases no doubt at the behest of foreign powers, the very definition of unpatriotic and treasonous. Keys is the Benedict Arnold of New Zealand politics. Difference is at least Arnold didn’t hide his treachery and defected.
16. Descendant Of Sssmith 16

    5 July 2013 at 11:19 am

    Spooked no one. Mountain out of a molehill.

    Even stuff seems fairly reasonable about it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8880664/Shearer-against-man-ban

    The right wing labelling is the real problem and even that is just smoke and mirrors.

    It’s bad enough the right treat people as unintelligent with their over reaction, somehow it feels worse when the left do it
    • felix 16.1

      5 July 2013 at 11:30 am

      Agreed.

      It’s only a big deal to extremists bigots and reactionaries. Which is why Farrar and Lusk are working overtime stroking them to arousal.
    • Sable 16.2

      5 July 2013 at 11:36 am

      That’s because the right are elitist scum who do think they are better than the rest of humanity. Just look at the hard on Keys has for a Knighthood.
17. dcd 17

    5 July 2013 at 11:32 am

    At this point it’s becoming clear that Labour want to lose. I’m without question left wing and even I don’t want to see such a bunch of morons running the country. National are terrible but Labour are at this point worse. Thankfully the greens exist.
18. Sable 18

    5 July 2013 at 11:34 am

    The women in National, cruel, gimlet eyes Collins and cold hearted ,working class sell out, Bennett are every bit as revolting as their male counterparts. It the “quality” of the person that matters and in this case the “product” is defective.
    • Winston Smith 18.1

      5 July 2013 at 11:57 am

      “The women in National, cruel, gimlet eyes Collins”

      – Don’t you mean bedroom eyes?
19. amirite 19

    5 July 2013 at 11:49 am

    When will Labour realise that for some unknown reason, whatever new policy they propose and whatever they do, good or bad, is being scrutinised by the media and the public twice as hard than any of the disgusting National policies? Their focus right now should be on the plight of the beneficiaries, the unemployed, the poor, the poorly paid and poorly protected workers, the rising living costs, the economy that currently benefits the rich, the policies that benefit women so they can better participate in politics and be mothers at the same time, and not some nebulous ‘quota’ of women MPs the party is supposed to have.
    Oh and BTW before you start to throw stones, I’m a woman and a Labour voter.
    • Descendant Of Sssmith 19.1

      5 July 2013 at 11:54 am

      No need to throw stones.

      There’s just no reason that to talk about those other things they need to not talk about this.
20. Nate 20

    5 July 2013 at 11:51 am

    It really doesn’t matter what National’s position is on poltical gender-equality… it’s Labour the country are laughing about!
21. Brett Dale 21

    5 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Not allowing someone to run because of their gender is wrong.
    • weka 21.1

      5 July 2013 at 12:33 pm

      How come we structurally prevent more women from becoming MPs? Is that wrong too? How would you fix that?
      • Brett Dale 21.1.1

        5 July 2013 at 1:54 pm

        weka:

        There is no structural from preventing woman from running. To exclude a gender from
        running, is well sick, even Shearer understand this.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.1.1

          5 July 2013 at 4:17 pm

          Oh, so there’s nothing structural that prevents women from running. eh? What is it then? Philosophical? Ephemeral? Any-old-crap-that-occurs-to-a-vacuous-parrotable?
        • weka 21.1.1.2

          5 July 2013 at 5:01 pm

          “There is no structural from preventing woman from running”

          There are multiple factors that prevent more women from being selected to run. Do you know what they are?
          • Brett Dale 21.1.1.2.1

            5 July 2013 at 6:48 pm

            weka:

            They have to wait till they take cookies out the oven?

            Please this anit the 1950’s or even the 70’s.

            There is no written law to say a woman cant run if she wants to.

            Maybe people who take “The Dynamics of interbeing and Monological
            imperatives in DICK and JANE”: A study in psychic transreational
            Gender Modes” (thanks Bill) at university may think woman cant
            run, but they can.
            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.1.1.2.1.1

              5 July 2013 at 6:52 pm

              There’s no written law, so why don’t they run, genius? Sixteen out of fifty nine…
              • Brett Dale …

                5 July 2013 at 6:56 pm

                Again, there is no written law, you dont stop men from running
                to get more woman to run, thats insane.
                (and probably illegal)
                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                  5 July 2013 at 7:07 pm

                  Probably illegal? Didn’t you have your dull face rubbed in the answer to that witless garbage yesterday? Why, yes, you did.

                  So, you’re clueless about that too. No substantive response, just more of your vacuous and entirely worthless “opinion”. I use the inverted commas because genuine opinions require thought.
                  • QoT …

                    5 July 2013 at 9:37 pm

                    To be fair, OAK, Brett did do that thing he always does, which is clog up a thread with un-googled waffle, then mysteriously fail to return to it as soon as someone posts evidence of how fucking wrong he is. I think he thinks this means he doesn’t have to be accountable for his own statements.
                • weka …

                  5 July 2013 at 7:09 pm

                  Brett, no-one has said anything about written law. Do you understand what structural issues are, the ones that exist without legislation?
22. Molly 22

    5 July 2013 at 12:39 pm

    If I was a political strategist for National…

    1. I would have full-time researchers reading other party (including Labour) policies and meeting agendas, and giving them red-herring ratings of 1 to 10 regardless of how relevant they are.
    2. For each of these I would provide “spin approaches” and Key word selectors about how the PM and the National caucus should respond to media questions eg. “man-ban”, “devil-beast” etc.
    3. I would, of course, have all media contacts sorted into categories so that the media releases – or phone calls could be directed to those that will pick up and run with the story. There is more traction in passing on a spin on female percentages, to an oblivious-to-nuance male reporter – for instance.

    Since I’m frightening myself with how easily I’m coming up with numbers 4,5 & 6… I’ll stop.

    However, my point is – whenever National or the PM, get into trouble – it is very easy for them to redirect.

    Stories about spying and the GCSB going on a bit too long?, pull out that one we have just recently done about Labour’s discussion on female representation.

    Aucklander’s overwhelmingly in favour of the CRL? Bugger, better bring out that U-turn policy that will provide a sop to their sense of democratic choice without actually providing the CRL. I like that one because it has an asset-sale expectation attached to it. (Still pissed off with Len Brown for winning, when they could have had John Banks).

    That’ll do it. Will bring out the both the howls of protest and laughter, and redirect attention away from what is important.
    • tracey 22.1

      5 July 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Goodness Molly I suspect you are the Nat Party strategist. 😉 No guesswork required, I am sure that is what they do.

      It’s okay though, Shearer, while walking past someone on ACC painting their roof has quickly dismissed it as something he doesn’t support. Wayne, I think he may be one of those “hard working middle class men” you claim Labour has none of or don’t care about. Sounds like that’s the exact group he pitched both comments at. Happy meme/myth farming.
    • Winston Smith 22.2

      5 July 2013 at 3:50 pm

      Very good points
23. weka 23

    5 July 2013 at 12:41 pm

    From NRT

    For all-woman shortlists

    The Labour Party is proposing to introduce all-woman shortlists in some electorates:
    The Labour Party is set to introduce a new rule under which electorates will be able to prevent men from seeking selection as a candidate by restricting it to women only.

    A copy of the draft rules were leaked to blogger Whaleoil and include a provision: “An LEC [Labour Electorate Committee] may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate.”

    This seems perfectly reasonable. Labour is publicly committed to gender equality, but its actual performance lags behind that commitment. It consistently fails to select women in winnable electorates: only 8 of Labour’s 22 electorate MPs are women. While the list provides scope for correcting this imbalance, doing so in 2011 would have required a list whose lower spots were made up almost entirely of women.

    All-woman shortlists are a way of making up for that failure. By reducing the imbalance in the electorates at source, they will be able to pursue a balanced list – and hopefully gain a balanced caucus. The practice is consistent with the Human Rights Act and in common use overseas. It will bring about substantive rather than merely formal equality.

    How political parties select their candidates is, provided they adhere to the Human Rights act, up to them. Those who oppose progressive selection policies to bring about equality have a simple solution: don’t vote for such parties. Those of us who support equality will be doing the same to those parties like National which continue to practice sexism.

    (Their use of an alternating list, interleaving male and female candidates, is one of the reasons I support the Greens).

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/for-all-woman-shortlists.html

    A big problem with the current debate is that it’s focussed on generalities and polarised opinions based on inaccurate supposition without looking at the facts. It would be more useful to have some analysis about the actual proposed rule change and how it might play out in the real world. That would circumvent the extremely idiotic dichotomy being promoted by the right – that giving women preference automatically excludes choosing the best person for the job.

    I’d like to know how the proposed rule change was developed within Labour, why those people thought it was a good idea and how they see it might work.

    This also from Moroney – although I think in the article she failed to address some of the criticisms, this alternate idea is also worth considering.

    Moroney said she had an alternative selection process where the strongest candidate in each electorate was chosen regardless of gender but if it was a close race between a man and woman the woman would be preferred “because that’s where we lack representation”.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8880664/Shearer-against-man-ban

    It would be soooo much better to be having a debate about the representation of women in parliament and how we might achieve that.
24. Winston Smith 24

    5 July 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Don’t worry, kiwiblog has helpfully worked out how Labour can select their MPs to be fair and balanced:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/07/who_is_pushing_labours_man_ban.html

    Its very well laid 🙂
25. Nate 25

    5 July 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Well summed up by Mike Hosking:

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/shows/breakfast/highlights/mikes-editorial-5jul2013
    • fender 25.1

      5 July 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Thanks Kate, Mike will take you to skycity for dinner.
    • karol 25.2

      5 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

      *sigh* It’s amazing how so many people, especially some white males, go into hysteria mode when the issue of continuing gender inequality is raised.

      I look forward to the time when people have sufficiently got this off their chests and are willing to debate the issues based on evidence and reason.

      The Labour Party have raised quotas as a possible way to correct the imbalance. There is plenty of evidence of the impact of such quotas in other countries, because they have been tried in quite a few places. There are pros and cons to be weighed up.

      There are other ways of dealing with gender inequalities, and other gender issues to be considered, such as gender stereotyping in politics and how it particularly plays out in the most powerful positions. This has significance for the whole way politics play out.
      • ABS 25.2.1

        5 July 2013 at 2:20 pm

        Until then we’ll just carry on laughing our asses off at Labour and its desperate attempts to seem electable. Great policy announcement 90% of people hate it, must have come from Fenton or Moroney. Even Moira can’t explain how its not sexist. Lucky for Labour voters they can always vote for the Luddites,
        • Winston Smith 25.2.1.1

          5 July 2013 at 3:18 pm

          No no you have it all wrong *sigh* let me explain, see the issue is not that the proposal is barking mad its just the people of NZ don’t understand what Labour are trying to do (much like other ideas that got shot down) if they understood then Labour would be re-elected in a landslide of epic proportions

          So basically its because the people of NZ don’t understand

          Hope that helps 🙂
      • infused 25.2.2

        5 July 2013 at 3:18 pm

        It’s funny how you lot are blindly missing the point.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 25.2.2.1

          5 July 2013 at 3:22 pm

          What point? That as part of a discussion you have to discuss options? Or that when discussing potentially controversial options it’s best to front-foot them rather than let Whale flop them out?
          • infused 25.2.2.1.1

            5 July 2013 at 3:46 pm

            I really couldn’t care less OAK. Just pointing out the obvious, that the whole country seems to be able to see, but some how Labour and this blog can’t.
            • McFlock 25.2.2.1.1.1

              5 July 2013 at 3:56 pm

              And yet you haven’t bothered to enunciate exactly what you think that “the point” or “the obvious” is.

              I suggest that you have no point, and your only objective is to sow discord.
26. Georgy 26

    5 July 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Labour should be focusing on getting women into roles in the party’s structure so they can develop the reportoire of skills and knowledge needed to go on “up” the hierachy rather than implement a quota system which potentially means people get voted in as MP because they are a women as opposed to being ‘qualified’. Everybody, irrespective of gender, needs to develop the reportoire of skills and knowledge through experience, not through artificially gerrymandering the system.
    • dumrse 26.1

      5 July 2013 at 7:42 pm

      Geeeeze, its taking a long time to find somebody who is talking sense. 100% agreement here.
    • stargazer 26.2

      7 July 2013 at 5:21 pm

      georgy, that’s already happening. you can go back to the rules which were passed at last year’s conference & are being implemented this year, requiring greater gender balance for LECS etc. and guess what, quotas are for getting qualified women selected.
27. Georgecom 27

    5 July 2013 at 6:24 pm

    Of this list, Gilmore, Clarkson, Garrett, Worth, Dunne, David fucken Bennett, in fairness to David Bennett, I think it has to be pointed out that he hasn’t been forced to resign from Parliament or from a Ministerial position, or had his party collapse.
    • georgecom 27.1

      5 July 2013 at 6:38 pm

      Also, its needs to be pointed out that Bennett did not require a public directive from Bon Brash to “stop talking about his testicles”.
28. Gruntie 28

    5 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

    What scoop has Campbell Live got t at 7pm – Shearer resigning ??? Someone must be!!
29. Gruntie 29

    5 July 2013 at 6:53 pm

    What scoop has Campbell Live got at 7pm – Shearer resigning ?Someone must be
30. dumrse 30

    5 July 2013 at 7:40 pm

    Labour, the pain you get when you try to give birth to policy. Fucking priceless.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS