National’s using Labour proposed gender balance proposals to take the media’s eye of the GCSB. It’s all in the game. The recent ‘women in this together’ stuff from the gallery predictably turned out to be subservient to having a good mock of something they haven’t heard of before.
Course, there’s no conflict between merit and representation here. Unless you believe white men just happen to make the best politicians (Gilmore, Clarkson, Garrett, Worth, Dunne, David fucken Bennett…), the reasons for female under-representation are structural and should be addressed structurally.
Don’t get me wrong, I think female-only nominations aren’t needed. The solution in NZ is the lists.
In fact, the solution for Labour is to win more bloody seats (or order their list better). If they has won, say, 51 seats in 2011, 24 of them would now be held by women. The current over-representation of males in Labour’s caucus is largely due to the fact that old timers made up a large part of the survivors in 2011 and the old timers are disproportionately male.
But what about the seeming inability of Key to appoint women ministers? You know, something that’s actually happening, rather than a party’s proposed rule change?
Just 1 of the top 5 ministers is female. Just 3 of the top 10 are.
In fact, just 6 of the 20-strong cabinet are women, and just 2 of the 8 ministers outside cabinet.
All up, John Key has appointed just 8 women ministers to 20 male ministers. Does John Key think that the men in his caucus are just that much better then the women?
Now, that’s something that’s worth talking about.