Why Gareth Morgan’s sexist personality matters

Written By: - Date published: 11:12 am, August 21st, 2017 - 123 comments
Categories: sexism, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

I wish it didn’t matter, but here we are.

On the day that Labour launched their election campaign, with all sorts of important changes happening in NZ politics including the performance of Labour’s new leader, the shift to more green politics, the huge crowds that the event attracted, and Labour’s remarkable recovery in the polls, this is what Gareth Morgan had to say yesterday,

In case it’s not clear, in Morgan’s tweet Labour are the pig and Jacinda Ardern is merely lipstick. Pigs are pretty intelligent so I don’t consider this an insult to Labour as such, which leaves us with the sexist bits.

Maybe Morgan wants to say that Labour don’t have good policy and that having a charismatic leader doesn’t make up for that. Which would make sense if Ardern were not competent on so many levels that she’s just reset the whole election. I have Labour policy criticisms of my own, but Ardern being useless isn’t one of them, not even close. Even if she were, I’d still know how to address that without promoting sexist culture, and I’d value that because at the most basic level women matter.

The insult is not simply suggesting that an intelligent, media savvy, policy wonk leader like Ardern is merely a figurehead with no substance in herself or her party, it’s that the comment happened in the context of a society where women are routinely dismissed as lesser because they are women.

This kind of sexism corresponds with real life impacts for women from pay equity to rape culture to who even goes into politics in the first place. Not everyone has a fortune behind them to parachute them in. Attitude matters, especially in those who hold power, because what we say, and whether it perpetuates damaging stereotypes, reinforces the actions that are still shaping society.

Today as Morgan doubles down, he would like us to believe he would have used the same insult against Muldoon. I’m sure he would have but we’re not in the 1970s now and using people’s body shape to attack them is also a form of bigotry that is bizarre to have to explain in 2017.

None of this is news to women. For many women the reaction to the insult is instinctive because we live with this sexism on a daily basis. It’s hard to know if Morgan is really that socially incompetent that he doesn’t understand the sexism, or if he just doesn’t care. I’m guessing both, but either way, I don’t want any more dinosaurs in parliament.

Leaving aside the massive irony of Morgan trying to say that personality doesn’t matter when a) he is attacking an opponent’s character and b) his personality seems to be the main reason he gets attention on social media, there are other ironies here.

Probably the most important for me is that Morgan has a strong history of trying to institutionalise his personal anti-welfare values, and while he does seem to be getting on board with the fact that you can’t just toss groups of vulnerable people under a bus for policy expediencies’ sake, his inability to listen to what people are saying to him about important issues is a core part of his personality.

The thing that stands out most consistently for about TOP policy is that Morgan has some good ideas but when you start to scratch the surface you hit all sorts of problems in how the policy has been developed. This wouldn’t happen if the personality was less important and he was able to listen with good intent to what people are saying about his ideas.

It’s also important to understand that the rich white man said these things in the context of an election where the power holders just politically assassinated a Māori woman who pulled herself out of poverty and then used both her vulnerability and her power to call attention to the plight of people that Morgan has only just begun to recognise exist. Double bonus irony points because the system that Morgan is actively gaming for his own political ends was incapable of focussing on the policy that the Greens presented and instead spent weeks going after the figurehead. I must have missed Morgan standing up for policy at that point.

Let’s pretend for a moment that Morgan wasn’t playing macho, sexist politics and instead wanted to just say ‘all that matters is policy’. Someone can link me to TOP’s policies on gender equity or ending sexism but in the meantime here are the things that matter to me in politics in addition to policy. In no particular order because this isn’t a hierarchy it’s a set of relationships,

  • competency to be in government
  • values that match NZ cultures
  • values that hold all people as worthy of human rights
  • people who represent specific NZers
  • ability to work with others well and to build relationships
  • ability to lead
  • strength, ability and strategy to work within a degrading, sexist, racist, macho political culture in ways that don’t perpetuate it
  • strength, ability and strategy to work within a media culture that will use sexism, racism, degradation, and macho and gotcha politics to increase its market share
  • ability to develop policy that serves NZ well and is inclusive of all NZers
  • values, principles and ethics
  • courage
  • compassion
  • social intelligence

In some ways, I wish I’d just stuck up a post saying Gareth Morgan is being a dick, again. Because here we are reacting to the priorities of a 1%er with a massive ego underpinning his personality. And here we are seeing a rich, white man trying to assert his personal values into politics already overladen with white men of privilege.

I’ve avoided writing posts about TOP policy thus far because while I have serious concerns about both some of the policy and the ethos that underpins it, I haven’t wanted to amplify Morgan’s personality driven voice. But policy isn’t all that matters, values matter just as much.  This election is actually about those values and the battle going on right now is over who has power and whether NZ will choose to place people at the centre of politics again.

123 comments on “Why Gareth Morgan’s sexist personality matters ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sabine 1
    21 August 2017 at 11:17 am

    let me put it this way, he is neither a pig – smart and social animals – and no matter of lipstick will make him appealing.

    he is a fucking wanker, wanking about, spraying everyone like a dog who is marking territory.

    This is the year 2017, a women – no matter our preference – who is running for public office is asked about her baby bearing abilities, is told to ‘bake a cake for her boyfriend’ and is now told she is the lipstick on a pig.

    Yei, NZ women, your future is bright and rosy.

    • weka 1.1
      21 August 2017 at 11:35 am

      I had a hard time finding a decent front page photo, but TOP marks fitted the bill perfectly 😉

    • Eco maori 1.2
      22 August 2017 at 6:26 am

      Gomen He is just a straight shooting strait talking KIWI who can see thought all the bull shit that our hole systems are I am going to vote for him all the civilservants that really run the government will be quivering in there boots they can not let anyone in whom cannot be conned by them

  2. Carolyn_nth 2
    21 August 2017 at 11:21 am

    Weka wrote:

    But policy isn’t all that matters, values matter just as much. This election is actually about those values and the battle going on right now is over who has power and whether NZ will choose to place people at the centre of politics again.

    Exactly. And to your excellent list of things that matter, I’d add, something about the way we treat and talk about the least well off in our society, including beneficiaries, and those caught up in in our justice and mental health systems: systems that need re-working to be far less damaging.

    • weka 2.1
      21 August 2017 at 11:40 am

      Yes. TOP’s silence on this speaks to me as loudly as an other party that is failing to address vulnerability and compassion and build that degree of care into their policy and processes.

      • Dspare 2.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 2:29 pm

        The thing that strikes me about TOP policy is how patchy it is. Labour and Green policies form a cohesive whole, but TOP only have very specific isolated proposals. For example,; cannabis, and alcohol reform are two of their 13stated policies on their website, but they have no overarching health policy. Also the empty boxes labelled; “coming soon”, are just a bad look.

        http://www.top.org.nz/policy

        • Anonymous 2.1.1.1
          22 August 2017 at 9:33 pm

          Their overarching policy on health is prevention. That’s it. They’re leaving the government of the day to be in charge of defense, foreign policy and operational health. They’re not trying to be in government.

  3. Xanthe 3
    21 August 2017 at 11:34 am

    You may notice that Labour and Ardern are not riseing to this bait. Clearly they are more savvy than some commentators on this site. Once again moral outrage here will be counterproductive. The sooner this (non) story dies the better!

  4. Brendon Harre 4
    21 August 2017 at 11:38 am

    Gareth is a dick who thinks being intelligent is more important than having a good character. Jacinda is doing well because she is showing herself to have the characteristics and values New Zealanders want in a leader. She is warm, articulate, positive, firm when she needs to be…… so far Jacinda has passed the political character test with flying colours…….. While Gareth has failed his test……

  5. marty mars 5
    21 August 2017 at 11:39 am

    Awesome post – well written comprehensive and on point – thanks for laying it out so well.

    • weka 5.1
      21 August 2017 at 1:02 pm

      thanks marty! It took a bit because there are lots of layers in that one tweet. Glad I got some of it clear.

      • esoteric pineapples 5.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 8:49 pm

        I thought it was good too. I can understand why it took a long time to write. You really had to dig deep. As a writer myself, I know what it takes sometimes to draw what you need to say to the surface. Sometimes it is something that just seems to be a niggly thing and then the more you look into it, you realise that it is a lot bigger than that. When you don’t know exactly what that big thing is, you just have a feeling of unease. What good blogs do is help the reader understand what they are feeling but can’t put their finger on.

  6. Brutus Iscariot 6
    21 August 2017 at 11:53 am

    Key – called snake, slimy, creepy, dishonest, greedy. Shearer – Mumblefuck as per Bomber. Numerous other allusions to deficiency on his behalf. All character attacks, implicit or outright – part of the natural discourse.

    The implication of someone being shallow/lightweight are pretty tame as far as political insults go.

    As for the gender card, read some of the commentary on Collins and Bennett?

    • weka 6.1
      21 August 2017 at 1:04 pm

      “All character attacks, implicit or outright – part of the natural discourse.”

      Except that sexist (and racist) ones carry more weight and have different consequences.

      “As for the gender card, read some of the commentary on Collins and Bennett?”

      I’ll take from that that you personally don’t care if sexism exists. That’s useful to know, thanks.

    • Stuart Munro 6.2
      21 August 2017 at 2:44 pm

      The fact is he didn’t quite hit the mark.

      “Disraeli once described the manner of Bishop Wilberforce as “unctuous, oleaginous, saponaceous.” And the good prelate was ever afterward known as Soapy Sam. For every man there is something in the vocabulary that would stick to him like a second skin. His enemies have only to find it.”
      – Ambrose Bierce

      Makes a bit of a nonsense of Morgan’s professed distaste for personality politics.

    • Lara 6.3
      24 August 2017 at 8:25 am

      Gender card?

      Is that some special card that I can get as a woman? Where do I get this card from? What advantages does it give? Because I don’t have one.

      Also, if I get a gender card, can I also get a special victims card? Because I’m one of those too, and I’ve heard this “victim card” bandied about, and I don’t have mine….

  7. Darth smith 7
    21 August 2017 at 11:55 am

    What a prick he belongs in the gutter

  8. weka 8
    21 August 2017 at 12:08 pm

    As an aside, Morgan just donated another half a million dollars to TOP,

    https://twitter.com/norightturnnz/status/899406038935281664

    • AsleepWhileWalking 8.1
      21 August 2017 at 2:09 pm

      Is there some tax advantage like with charities?

      Because half a mill seems like a lot even for a rich guy. To me that amount reinforces my impression that he is out of touch with most.

      His comments on welfare always and without exception offend me. If God forbid his polices were implemented those who would suffer would be people already at a disadvantage especially disabled.

      He clearly doesn’t understand our welfare system (its not as hard to grasp as he says) nor has he consulted those who do. Without this foundational knowledge all he has are assumptions, and dangerous ones at that. I

  9. weka 9
    21 August 2017 at 12:09 pm

    Stephanie Rodgers nails it,

    Stephanie Rodgers‏ @bootstheory 3h

    Like I’ve been saying for ages, Gareth Morgan’s true baseline for “doing what works” is “doing what Gareth Morgan wants to do”

    It’s easy enough to find evidence to support your preconceptions. Every other political party, and voter, does the exact same thing

    But every other party is usually honest enough to acknowledge their bias, the values that guide them. GM doesn’t have values, he has ego.

    He surrounds himself with people like Sean Plunket who have the same attitude: “what I think is just plain common sense because I said so”

    But it’s an incredibly frail structure which cannot withstand criticism. Which just shows how much it’s about ego, not intellectual rigour.

    https://twitter.com/bootstheory/status/899377188062900224

    • mauī 9.1
      21 August 2017 at 12:28 pm

      Yes we must remove this mad egotist from politics. After all he wants to give $10,000 to families with children under 3 and all young adults, give free childcare to families with under 5s, dramatically improve renters rights.

      • weka 9.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 12:33 pm

        As I said in the post and as you and I have covered many times, many of his ideas are good but when you scratch the surface there are huge problems with his policies and he’s been spectacularly incapable of engaging with people who have been pointing to them.

        For example,

        “After all he wants to give $10,000 to families with children under 3 and all young adults”

        He wants to give $10,000 extra to wage-earning young adults, including those on high incomes, but those on welfare won’t get any increase. See, there’s a big hole in that policy.

        • swordfish 9.1.1.1
          21 August 2017 at 12:45 pm

          The day after 2014 Election – Morgan called for a new Blue-green Party

          But for me, the most frustrating aspect of the election result is the entrenched inability of the Green Party to grasp that the environmental message is something that appeals to middle-of-the-road New Zealanders, not just Lefties.

          Sadly the Green Party’s policies for environmental sustainability have always come with a nasty fishhook – the out-dated edict that social justice can only be achieved by rehashed socialism. This has rendered the Green Party a real melon to mainstream New Zealand – a watermelon to be precise, far too red on the inside for middle New Zealand to stomach. …

          The time is overdue for a Bluegreens political party, one that is happy to work with whoever is the senior party in government, and is focussed properly on improving our environment, society and economy together. Without this there is a large swathe of voters who are not represented adequately in Parliament.

          Can the Green Party assume that role? I doubt it very much, theirs is very much a socialist heritage and they exhibit an ongoing reluctance to get real on the importance of the economy. With their voter support capped at 10% (about the same as the craziest party in parliament, Winston Peter’s conspiracy theorists), the electorate continues to see no hope for the Green Party – the adverse impact on jobs and incomes is unpalatable. …

          That is why today I am calling for a Blue-green party – a party with a true environmental focus rather than a socialist party in drag. Tomorrow we will look at some of the policies such a party could pursue, policies that without a Bluegreen party are being left off the political agenda completely.

          • weka 9.1.1.1.1
            21 August 2017 at 12:57 pm

            Wow, I’d forgotten about that. He starts that piece with this,

            Congratulations to the National Party. To increase your majority in your third term, reflects public confidence in the leadership team and an endorsement that one’s policies are more attuned to the preferences of voters than those offered up by any other party, or any other combination of parties. This much is indisputable.

            http://morganfoundation.org.nz/time-for-a-bluegreen-party/

            All of which puts his attack on JA and Labour yesterday into clearer light.

        • Sabine 9.1.1.2
          21 August 2017 at 1:11 pm

          and what do families without ‘children’ get? oh, yeah, they get to finance it. Right?

          How many children do his children have, and would they be then also be eligible.

          • weka 9.1.1.2.1
            21 August 2017 at 1:15 pm

            don’t get me started 😉 (or do, there is a half written post on the Youth UBI policy).

            • Sabine 9.1.1.2.1.1
              21 August 2017 at 1:21 pm

              the thing is, if he were to advocate a ‘dividend’ to all Kiwis irrespective of the amount of children (why only families with three children? ) it would do a world of good to so many.
              Pay back some debt, fix that leaking roof, throw it at that business, buy a car that is not 20 years old etc etc etc, and at the same time businesses would rejoice, money!.
              but this bs about ‘families’ with children. What about families with dependent adult children, or families looking after dependent adult family members i.e. siblings, cuzzies, uncles/aunties, or families looking after dependent parents/grand parents. Nope, not ‘family’ enough?

              ITs this ‘here’ let me buy your vote with money coming from a fund that I don’t participate with.

              btw, his private contribution to his ‘party’ is that tax deductible?

              • RedLogix …
                21 August 2017 at 9:19 pm

                What about families with dependent adult children, or families looking after dependent adult family members i.e. siblings, cuzzies, uncles/aunties, or families looking after dependent parents/grand parents. Nope, not ‘family’ enough?

                Oh think it through. In the long term if we ever do get to a Universal UBI … then ALL of these family members would receive it.

                • Sabine …
                  21 August 2017 at 10:21 pm

                  no mate, i am speaking of a dividend for all, you are speaking of buying votes. and then only some.

                  how many children do mr. morgans children have. will that ‘benefit’ apply to them? are they paying taxes, or are they just given a free ride?

                  btw, i don’t need a UBI.
                  We have UBI, its called benefit, and if we would apply it correctly without forcing people to jump through hoops we would not be in the first place.

                  so no, again, your mate is trying to take money he does not contribute too, taxes, and pay one group against the next one.

                  so no. just flim flam bullshit. Maybe he should have given his 500.000 to some families with children rather then prop up his vanity party.

    • RedLogix 9.2
      21 August 2017 at 9:49 pm

      Like I’ve been saying for ages, Gareth Morgan’s true baseline for “doing what works” is “doing what Gareth Morgan wants to do”

      Which in the real world is precisely the basis on which any successful person gets anything done. That’s not the same thing as getting everything you want. No sane person expects that.

      But to achieve anything in the real world (as distinct from the bubble of the internet) you need vision and values. I’m not asking you to agree with them, or even like them. If not then feel free to say so.

      But demonstrably Morgan has achieved way more in his life than likely most of ever will because he’s willing to back himself and go for it. Of course you will have to face the industrial strength ‘tall poppy’ mowing down machine that operates in this country … but then Morgan’s real crime here is simply that he is male, he is white, he is wealthy, he does get things done … and he doesn’t give a shit about what we think of him.

  10. Andre 10
    21 August 2017 at 12:27 pm

    In terms of electoral impact, surely this brainfart from Morgan has to be good for Greens/Labour.

    Think about which voters will be attracted or repelled by this. It might pull some blue-greens (or black-greens) that are attracted by Morgan’s environmental views, but just can’t bring themselves to vote Green or Labour. Morgan sticking it to Labour may just tip them over.

    On the other hand, how will it be received by those leaning Green or Labour, but would like to see another new voice in Parliament pushing environmental and tax equity issues? Personally, it’s certainly erased the last vestiges of any inclination I may have had to vote TOP.

  11. adam 11
    21 August 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Liberalism will always revert to “I’m right, nah nah nah nahna.”

    Thanks Gareth for reminding everyone that at heart, your a money loving, know it all conservative, just like the rest of them…

  12. Ad 12
    21 August 2017 at 12:53 pm

    TOP vote should break to Labour now.

  13. Cinny 13
    21 August 2017 at 1:03 pm

    It’s the old boys club same old bullshit women have endured for eons, Morgan isn’t even standing for parliament is he?

  14. james 14
    21 August 2017 at 1:37 pm

    I don’t like TOP policies but this latest outrage against Morgan is stupid bullshit.

    • roy cartland 14.1
      21 August 2017 at 2:17 pm

      Not true. As EVERYONE commented during the Metiria fiasco, he knew what he was saying, and how it would sound. It just isn’t feasible that he “meant” the LP, not Jacinda, and anyone who thinks otherwise is the one with the problem.

      At the very least, a complete dick.

    • Robert Guyton 14.2
      21 August 2017 at 3:47 pm

      James is with the pale old male, Morgan and can’t see what all the fuss is about??
      Getaway!!

      • RedLogix 14.2.1
        21 August 2017 at 9:15 pm

        ” pale old male” .. another sexist double standard. Just as well I can’t be arsed getting outraged over it.

        (PS: You left out the ‘stale’.)

  16. Stuart Munro 16
    21 August 2017 at 2:20 pm

    I wonder myself whether the public response will be more ‘that’s blatant sexism’ or ‘that’s crude and unchivalrous’ – difficult to measure but negative both in progressive and conservative terms.

    It may well be deliberate – the ‘any publicity is good publicity’ playbook works for principally for parties that aren’t well known. Even in the relatively politically interested atmosphere of the Standard, when was the last time Morgan rated more than a passing mention?

  17. CLEANGREEN 17
    21 August 2017 at 2:30 pm

    JACINDA IS A VERY COOL LADY AFTER WATCHING THAT VIDEO. – @welovejacinda.

  18. mikesh 18
    21 August 2017 at 2:39 pm

    He´s saying that Labour´s policies are still ¨same old same old¨ and that the change of leadership is merely cosmetic. Whether he is right or wrong about that, he´s entitled to hold and express such opinions – I think it was Roussou who pointed that out a long time ago – but there is nothing sexist about them.

    • weka 18.1
      21 August 2017 at 2:58 pm

      Saying something isn’t sexist doesn’t make it so 😉

      • mikesh 18.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 5:34 pm

        I gave my reasons.

        • Psycho Milt 18.1.1.1
          21 August 2017 at 9:41 pm

          Somewhere else on the thread? On a different thread? If so, link to them. There is nothing in comment 18 to back up your assertion.

          • mikesh 18.1.1.1.1
            21 August 2017 at 9:48 pm

            Stephanie Rodgers should perhaps consider whether the expression ´pale, stale, and male´ is not sexist.

            • Psycho Milt 18.1.1.1.1.1
              21 August 2017 at 10:00 pm

              So, there was nothing sexist about Gareth Morgan’s comments because Stephanie Rogers used the expression “pale, stale and male?” That reasoning is pretty hard to follow.

              • mikesh …
                21 August 2017 at 10:56 pm

                It was hard to follow because that was not my argument. Actually the comment somehow got into the wrong place. It was actually intended as a reply to comment 9 by weka. Sorry about that.

            • weka 18.1.1.1.1.2
              21 August 2017 at 11:19 pm

              “Stephanie Rodgers should perhaps consider whether the expression ´pale, stale, and male´ is not sexist.”

              Stephanie didn’t say that. But even if she did, and even if it were sexist, you still haven’t in fact given any reason for your assertion that what Morgan did wasn’t sexist.

              • mikesh …
                22 August 2017 at 8:38 am

                I agree; but neither was the ¨lipstick on a pig¨ sexist.

                My ´reason´ was my interpretation of the metaphor.

                • weka …
                  22 August 2017 at 8:49 am

                  What you said was – Morgan’s tweet meant this,

                  1. Labour don’t have good/new policy
                  2. Changing the leadership is a cosmetic only change
                  3. irrespective of whether he is right, he’s allowed to say it

                  None of that explains why it’s not sexist.

                  Irrespective of the 3 points you made, calling Ardern merely cosmetic is sexist. For the reasons I explained in the post.

                  • mikesh …
                    22 August 2017 at 12:24 pm

                    It’s mildly insulting, but not sexist. Politicians often say unkind things about each other during an election campaign. And he was calling the change ‘cosmetic’ not Jacinda. Anyway you have your views and I have mine. You’ve said nothing that convinces me so I’m not going to argue further.

                    • weka …
                      22 August 2017 at 12:30 pm

                      sure, that’s you asserting it’s not sexist without saying why/how.

                      If Jacinda isn’t meant to be the lipstick, I’d like to know how else to parse it.

              • Mike Steinberg …
                22 August 2017 at 7:27 pm

                It’s a well known expression for making cosmetic changes to make something appear better than it is. It isn’t a s8xist expression.

                Obama used the same expression in relation to the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. The GOP said that Obama was suggesting Palin was a pig. The Obama campaign responded:

                “Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy”

                http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/09/obama-lipstick-on-a-pig-011693

                • weka …
                  22 August 2017 at 7:30 pm

                  It is sexist when you imply that a woman politician is nothing more than a paint job, in a society that routinely undermines women because they are women. I’ve explained this in the post. Sexism is contextual.

      • RedLogix 18.1.2
        21 August 2017 at 9:30 pm

        Saying something IS sexist doesn’t make it so either.

        You know from where I’m sitting right now, in a location as far removed from NZ as I ever expect to be, deep in the Columbian jungle, all this has an utterly surreal sense to it.

        Sometimes this little echo chamber really does lose touch with reality.

        • NewsFlash 18.1.2.1
          22 August 2017 at 8:12 pm

          Come on, Morgan deliberately played that card to give the impression that women are aren’t capable of having anything in the way of intelligence or anything else of value, I’ve watched Morgan over the last twenty years and he has NO empathy, Morgan only cares about Morgan.

          He considers himself to be a very good at economic strategies, but every one that he has promoted has been a dud.

          He is a sexist misogynist, like all RW conservatives, just look at the respect JK has for women.

          Morgan just wishes he was as popular as Ardern, but he doesn’t have the personality to motivate and inspire people and give them hope,

  19. rhinocrates 19
    21 August 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Making that oaf Sean Plunket director of communications was the giveaway that TOP was just going to be more of the same old sexist shit.

  20. Anne 20
    21 August 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Good post. Thanks weka.

    Here is Helen Clark and Gaylene Preston talking about exactly the same sort of thing. 30mins long but well worth a watch:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201855409/helen-clark-and-gaylene-preston-my-year-with-helen

  21. Carolyn_nth 21
    21 August 2017 at 3:47 pm

    I’d say this has backfired heavily on TOP, and they will now be down for the count.

  22. Thomas 22
    21 August 2017 at 8:13 pm

    I don’t agree with what Gareth said, and I don’t agree with him doubling down. But neither do I think he meant it maliciously. And he should have known better.

    But I’m also really curious about how anyone could actually read TOP’s policies and not think they’re brilliant. In just a handful of policies they’ve created a web that is strong on economy, strong on environment, and strong on the social safety net. There is as much in the intersection of policies as there is in any given itself.

    The only story Labour’s policies tell me is “We’re not National” and, and Green’s say “We’re feisty and left of Labour”, but not a one of their policies make sense or are cohesive with any of their other policies. I just don’t get it.

    • Carolyn_nth 22.1
      21 August 2017 at 9:06 pm

      TOP policies look like a selection of topics chosen by someone behind a computer, used to looking at spreadsheets and statistics.

      Green policies are developed by members, in relation to GP values and principles. There’s a focus on communities, families and life, work, survival and leisure within communities and in relation to the environment. Like Labour policies, they are developed according to where the needs are seen to be most pressing.

      Labour has a stronger focus on the workplace and jobs, but they also focus on families, and communities within society – things needed to live a reasonable life, with a focus on social, employment, education and economic issues.

      Life is messy, unlike neat spreadsheets and charts. Many laws and regulations already exist, so parties develop policies to improve existing legislation, or to add ones where there are gaps, or new developments.

      If you think TOP’s policies neatly fit together, then it must be your perspective: one somewhat removed from the messiness of life and continually changing society. To me they look like a narrow selection, or an over-simplified map as to how someone sees life.

  23. mary_a 23
    21 August 2017 at 8:25 pm

    This proves Morgan is part of the old boys’ club. A good fit with Natz.

    Jacinda did a great job of not biting back at his sexist comment, instead handling it very diplomatically, making Morgan look the absolute dick he is.

    Well done Jacinda 👍

    • RedLogix 23.1
      21 August 2017 at 9:13 pm

      Another double standard “dick” metaphor. Just as well I can’t be arsed getting outraged over it.

      • marty mars 23.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 9:18 pm

        No youre running off half cocked now.

        • Union city greens 23.1.1.1
          21 August 2017 at 9:20 pm

          Be dum tish lol

        • RedLogix 23.1.1.2
          21 August 2017 at 9:24 pm

          Nope. Dick refers to the male penis as a derogatory putdown. It’s inherently WAY more sexist than lipstick.

          It’s just we’ve all gotten so used to using it no-one even notices anymore. And if any male should object … well he’s going off “half-cocked”. 🙂

          • Sabine 23.1.1.2.1
            21 August 2017 at 9:28 pm

            funny, i have been called a dick.

            hmm, not that i would sport the anatomy.

            but yeah, Mr. Morgan needs to have a talk with his wife about that whole thing.

            • RedLogix 23.1.1.2.1.1
              21 August 2017 at 9:36 pm

              The point is .. sexist putdowns using the male penis as an object of derision is really commonplace. We are so saturated in it we don’t even notice. No-one gets outraged, and if anyone objects they get laughed at.

              And the ‘lipstick’ metaphor was in common use for quite some time without anyone really getting outraged … until someone noticed there was a political motivation to fake some in order to attack Morgan.

              Good oh. Just don’t expect me to take any of this ‘sexist’ stuff seriously again.

              • Psycho Milt …
                21 August 2017 at 9:46 pm

                As someone who routinely calls people cunts or twats, I don’t really have a problem with also calling people dicks, pricks, cocks or whatever. The insult factor isn’t about sexism, it’s about Anglo-Saxon culture finding genitalia unmentionable. If you called a German a Schwanz or a Fotze, they’d probably be able to figure out you were trying to insult them but would more likely find your inability to learn proper insults amusing.

                • RedLogix …
                  21 August 2017 at 9:52 pm

                  So if using objects as intensely gender specific as the genitalia are considered perfectly acceptable to use as putdowns and insults … precisely how did “lipstick” get to be so objectionable?

                • Sabine …
                  21 August 2017 at 9:58 pm

                  you never use these words. they are beyond disgusting in the german language. If they laugh at you its because they are to polite to punch you. Thems fighting words dude.

                • Sabine …
                  21 August 2017 at 10:10 pm

                  @ weka, it really depends the situation.
                  we use colourfull language for sure, but these two words especially the F word are considered especially vile, maybe used in very cheap porn and even then. they are only demeaning.

                  one of the things we say in bavaria is ‘am oarsch leckscht mi’ or ‘ ja do leckscht mi am oarsch’ which would be very rude in english ( it means, you may lick my behind 🙂 ). In the early twenty century a gentlemen from the North of Germany had a courtcase against a bavarian farmer and brewer before the royal bavarian court that he lost. Why? the way it is used can mean surpise, upset, happiness, astonishment etc etc etc. so to be an insult it must be delivered in a situation demanding an insult. 🙂

                  so it really depends how you say something and where/when.

                  but these two words can easily get you in a hospital.

              • McFlock …
                21 August 2017 at 9:48 pm

                And if genders had equal place in society your point would be more widely accepted.

                But if you insist on judging every comment in a socioeconomic vacuum without regards to who is using what language from which perspective in society, you’ll just keep being perplexed and writing it off as “fake”.

                I’ll assume that at the very least you’ve realised that the “n” word isn’t generally acceptable to use unless one is in a specific demographic?

                • RedLogix …
                  21 August 2017 at 9:58 pm

                  Ah … the only ‘stale pale males can be sexist’ logic. Fair enough as an argument that trumps all.

                  You win.

              • Sabine …
                21 August 2017 at 9:57 pm

                Mate, he wanted to put her down and it back fired. Easy as.
                Sadly money can’t buy a lot of things. It might buy you a party, it might buy you some votes, but it can’t buy you common sense.
                And Gareth Morgan has no common sense.
                I know you like him and think he is the best thing since sliced cheese, UBI and all, but frankly that was an own goal. He should own up to it.

                Lipstick on a Pig is a gendered insult. Always was always will be. And frankly he is not even funny when delivering such a comment. Maybe if he were not such an arrogant dudebro but then he is.

                but then i was never gonna vote for the tax avoider anyways. You see that is what i see when i look at him, someone who is proud of avoiding taxes and who expects the wage slaves to fight his revolution for him. So nah, mate no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, its still only a pig.

                • Union city greens …
                  21 August 2017 at 10:15 pm

                  One who wants me to pay capital gains tax on my home, even when I haven’t sold it and have no capital gains, based on a valuation based on inflated market prices because of foreign buyers and the domestic investor class inflating market prices.
                  Get te fuck, yer rich prick bam.

          • marty mars 23.1.1.2.2
            21 August 2017 at 9:35 pm

            It is also a short version of richard – and isn’t male penis redundant?

            Anyway you’re probably right – this is where it gets hard imo all the ins and outs of the arguments it’s difficult to hold on to the truth however we may interpret that.

            • Union city greens 23.1.1.2.2.1
              21 August 2017 at 9:40 pm

              Penis, gets hard, ins and outs, hold on to. I’m dying here lol

              Work German helmet in and I’ll have to take tomorrow off with a split side.

              • RedLogix …
                21 August 2017 at 9:54 pm

                Do you want me to go down the ‘lipstick slowly rising from within it’s sheath’ path?

                It’s a visual metaphor that’s been exploited by many an advert over the years. It could easily be argued that lipstick has more visual connotations with the penis than anything else.

              • McFlock …
                21 August 2017 at 9:55 pm

                I hope your boss hasn’t shafted you out of sick leave

  24. Thinkerr 24
    21 August 2017 at 8:36 pm

    3 things (inc 1 people may not like):

    1 – I think TOP is about as relevant as Bob Jones’ NZ Party or Colin Craig’s Conservative Party and will implode rather than becomes part of any govrnment.

    2 – Morgan might have made the same comment to Muldoon, but he wouldn’t have looked good in the rebuff and would likely never try it again.

    3 – ok, I know politics is about who you associate with (and therefore distance yourself from), but Bill English did well in acting quickly and putting Morgan in his place for a sexist remark against English’s #1 opposition candidate. There’s a time for playing politics and a time for standing up for what’s right and English did the right thing on this occasion, I think.

    • weka 24.1
      21 August 2017 at 8:40 pm

      The Bill English thing plays well until you remember FJK and Amanda Bailey (and all the others). It’s an act.

    • mikesh 24.2
      22 August 2017 at 10:53 pm

      The appropriate metaphor for that is “jumping on the bandwagon”. Bill probably needs to do a lot of that at the moment.

  25. RedLogix 25
    21 August 2017 at 9:02 pm

    This is the most funny post on The Standard of all time. Turns out faux outrage is not the sole preserve of rw trolls.

    • marty mars 25.1
      21 August 2017 at 9:11 pm

      That’s probably an exaggeration – of all time? Doubt it.

      He could have nipped this in the bud early if he had humility but he doesn’t and didn’t. This is how things end and I should know cos I supported Mana.

    • NewsFlash 25.2
      22 August 2017 at 8:41 pm

      It’s been slapped down all over the world on twitter, maybe you need to remove those rose coloured glasses.

      Morgan’s policies are designed to look reasonable, but as they say, “the devil is in the detail”, and Morgan has a history of misleading.

  26. Incognito 26
    21 August 2017 at 9:30 pm

    I reckon Gareth Morgan is no more than a moustache on a biker.

    • RedLogix 26.1
      21 August 2017 at 9:40 pm

      Given that both Gareth and Jo have probably travelled more rough bike miles around the world than your average biker on their bloated Harley’s … it’s hard to see quite how that works.

      • Incognito 26.1.1
        21 August 2017 at 9:56 pm

        Let’s stay with metaphors for the moment; what do you get when you remove the moustache from a biker’s face?

        Answer: a baby-faced biker.

        Explanation: “biker” stands for TOP and “moustache” stands for Gareth Morgan.

        Never liked HD myself but I do love twins.

      • Sabine 26.1.2
        21 August 2017 at 10:15 pm

        again, i would be very careful with ‘average biker’ on a bloated harley. are you talking about the tribal Nations, the Hells Angels, the Head Hunters, the Nomads etc. or just the unpatched riders that clock up thousands of k’s every year cause fun?
        i would venture a guess that they have done an equal amount of k’s.

        funny, Mr. Morgan and I we share ‘friends’ . Germans who toured the world on their bikes. At home one of them rides a bloated harley and the other a bonneville.
        When they came here they were on some old transalp.

        stereo types mate, a lot of bullshit. I myself own two classic hondas and a bonneville, my mate rides a bmw. see? bikes. we loves them.

  27. Carolyn_nth 27
    22 August 2017 at 8:05 am

    So Gareth Morgan said on Checkpoint last night, he made the statement to get attention, because no one was paying attention to TOP policies.

    Next time he says something obviously outrageous, I will ignore him.

    It IS about values, as weka, posted. And he has shown he’s happy to make sexist statements to get attention. Shows his values, really.

    • weka 27.1
      22 August 2017 at 8:56 am

      I watched the press conference. I suspect he doesn’t understand how it was sexist, but I don’t think he’s trying to either. Like Stephanie said, he’s just convinced he’s right. I don’t have a problem with his rationale for saying something outrageous to get media attention, Hone Harawira is similar. But I still think it’s all about him and he doesn’t realise how badly that comes across.

      Nevertheless he could have done that without being sexist, so I take from all that that he’s happy to play the game how he sees fit and never mind the punters (in this case women). Making use of casual sexism isn’t casual, it’s strategy. I don’t know if they planned this or just took advantage of it once the ball started rolling, but it’s hard not to see Sean Plunkett’s values in the thick of it as well.

      • CoroDale 27.1.1
        22 August 2017 at 3:03 pm

        Sexism or bestiality? Come-one Bro, shall we talk politics again.

        Wow, how is this for policy detail.

        “Labour will ban foreign speculators from buying existing New Zealand homes.”

        Wow, those “speculators” must be shaking in their boots.

  28. mikesh 28
    23 August 2017 at 5:36 pm

    Driving home just now I passed an electronic billboard with the words ToP accompanied by a picture of Gareth. Underneath it had the words ¨lipstick x pig x policy¨

    Arrogant? … perhaps. But perhaps it´s just good politics. The original metaphor was something of a cliche; if the PC´s hadn´t kicked up such a fuss then probably no-one would have noticed it. They´ll be kicking themselves if ToP get a lot of traction from this.