Labour proposes fascinating new sex-based selection policy

[Ab]

If Whaleoil's docs are legit, this is going to be fucking gold.

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/07/mo...or-more-women/

[Juju]

Surely there has to be some logical, reasonable, contextual explanation for this document.

Surely?

Guys?

[Golden Teapot]

It looks like Key is safe for another term.

[Lightspeed]

I like the idea of more women in positions of power, although I think Labour may just be assuming they're going to lose as things are so are trying to pull out something radical they hope will catch on.

[fixed_truth]

lol failoil

Originally Posted by Juju

Surely there has to be some logical, reasonable, contextual explanation for this document.

Surely?

Guys?

Not sure if I agree with the proposal entirely but Andrew Geddis has some info on the UK Conservative Party's policy.

[Ab]

The lolarity commences.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...omen-only-rule

[StN]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I like the idea of more women in positions of power, although I think Labour may just be assuming they're going to lose as things are so are trying to pull out something radical they hope will catch on.

Maybe they should stand up a few midwives?

This whole process is screaming out for a well balanced Venn diagram showing Male, Female and Rainbow labour in all it's equalness.

[Lightspeed]

Well, I certainly would like them to stand up for the essential* and undervalued members of our community. Teachers, nurses, midwives, women, children...

But standing up for is not the same as attempting radical initiatives. I mean, I do appreciate the attempt to shift the status quo, but the idea stupid. For one thing a 50/50 split would deny women the opportunity for a majority in parliament.

*Essential to maintain the kind of society we say we want. You know, where people typically aren't stupid and don't have a tendency to be habitual cunts.

[fidgit]

Well. This is just ridiculous. I don't think I'm ever going to vote National, but this really is the nail in the coffin of ever considering Labour for "the party I want represented in the Coalition".

I honestly thought we'd had enough women Prime Ministers and party leaders (of every party except the hard-right and Fundies) to move beyond thinking politicians should be selected on anything but merit. Gender based selection is mind boggling.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Well, I certainly would like them to stand up for the essential* and undervalued members of our community. Teachers, nurses, midwives, women, children...

But standing up for is not the same as attempting radical initiatives. I mean, I do appreciate the attempt to shift the status quo, but the idea stupid. For one thing a 50/50 split would deny women the opportunity for a majority in parliament.

*Essential to maintain the kind of society we say we want. You know, where people typically aren't stupid and don't have a tendency to be habitual cunts.

StN said stand up, as in 'stand up as a candidate in an electorate'. Not 'stand up for'.

[Farmer Joe]

lolcicles.

[xor]

Isn't Louisa Wall contradicting herself when she advocates for equal rights for homosexuals but wants to deny men the chance to run for a labour seat in parliament.

What a bunch of cunts. David Shearer deserves to be rolled now. That cunt should grow a pair and tell them to GTFO, hell if he did that then perhaps support for labour might even go up. It certainly is going to get worse now because of this.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Gender based selection is mind boggling.

I think positive discrimination is fine in some contexts. But 14 of Labour’s 34 MPs and 8 of their 22 electorate MPs are women. I'm not convinced that it's necessary here.

Anyhow, would be surprised if this gets past the proposal stage.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

StN said stand up, as in 'stand up as a candidate in an electorate'. Not 'stand up for'.

True dat. Good to see my knee jerk isn't having a go at someone for what I think they said.

[ChaosWulf]

Wow, what a colossal clusterfuck. GG, Labour.

[chiQ]

FFS! NO.

[xor]

Must be embarrassing for the rest of wimin if there has to be some rule to 'level out the playing field'

[ChaosWulf]

Originally Posted by xor

Must be embarrassing for the rest of wimin if there has to be some rule to 'level out the playing field'

In a word - "yes".

[Cyberbob]

Women obviously can't get there on their own merits, so they need a helping hand, you see.

[Lightspeed]

Well, while women are very capable, society (men and women) tends to make uphill for women what is a plain cruising for men. So attempts to counter that seems reasonable, but this particular approach does not.

[spigalau]

And here I was thinking they were going to allow you to shag the local MP's in exchange for your vote.

Thank fruck I was wrong, the carpotamus does not do it for me.

[smitty]

LOLspeed nah your wron.... oh wait. You said something well reasoned, actually addresses the actual subject, and balanced.

Fuck.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Women obviously can't get there on their own merits, so they need a helping hand, you see.

Surely you can see that it's not just about having the right merits? The type of political system/process/culture a party has can be a barrier to women.

Only 15 of Nationals 59 MPs are women. Seriously, why do you think women aren't interested in becoming MPs and/or aren't being selected here?

It's not a helping hand to tweek the system so that skilled women can better participate.

It's stupid because not only is Labours proposal not the right kind of change to the system; but they don't even have a problem with women candidates being put off or not being selected!

[smitty]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It's stupid because not only is Labours proposal not the right kind of change to the system; but they don't even have a problem with women candidates being put off or not being selected!

No one is arguing that females are not under-represented. Just merely that labour's proposed quota system is bloody ridiculous, especially when there's so many far more important issues they could be doing. This sort of inappropriate theatre is likely to cost Labour the election - or at least a few seats.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Women obviously can't get there on their own merits, so they need a helping hand, you see.

If electorate candidates were normally determined by an aptitude test with the highest scoring person getting the nomination you'd have a point. When they're decided by arbitrary/subjective criteria like who's press secretary you used to be, I'm of the opinion, "meh, what's one more".

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Surely you can see that it's not just about having the right merits? The type of political system/process/culture a party has can be a barrier to women.

How many women presently in Parliament have school-age children?

[Ab]

There has to be a National mole in the Labour organisation somewhere. That's the only thing that could explain these absolutely retarded things hitting the news at such perfect times, time after time.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

How many women presently in Parliament have school-age children?

Exactly. I think Josie Pagani makes some relevant points about changing childcare and the inflexibility of parliamentary work hours.

[BoyWonder]

I think it is an attempt to stop The Civilian always lampooning their attempts to get into the spotlight. Now they have an untouchable story - flawless victory.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Exactly. I think Josie Pagani makes some relevant points about changing childcare and the inflexibility of parliamentary work hours.

Politics is like anything - 90% of success is turning up. Joining the business networks. Going to the union meetings. Knocking on doors. Getting preselected. Parents don't have time for that shit. And MOTHERS certainly don't have time for that shit.

I am reminded of this comment from John Tamihere on why Labour of recent years has had such a, how can I put this, rainbow flavour:

They don’t have families. They’ve got nothing but the ability to plot. I’ve gotta take my kid to soccer on Saturday, they don’t. So they just go and have a parlez vous francais somewhere and a latte, whereas we don’t get to plot, we’re just trying to get our kids to synchronise their left and right feet. They don’t even think about that.

I’ve got a fifteen year old whose testosterone’s jumping and he’s scrapping around at school. Now they don’t have that, and because they don’t have that they’re just totally focused. You’ve also got a fully paid organization called the union movement, who can co-opt fully paid coordinators. These people just never sleep.

[Savage]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...gainst-man-ban

[aR Que]

i just don't get it.

[CCS]

Can't Labour achieve the same outcome by simply promoting women up its Party List?

Hell, they could do what the Greens had proposed - have the party list alternated by gender (lol).

[Golden Teapot]

If you think of the labour camp then being frank at most 20% of their MPs are there based on merit; or at least I can't imagine what worthwhile criteria the rest score high on. So, this balancing by sex won't really cause them any harm (beyond disenfranchising lots of people who might otherwise vote for them).

I'm reminded of Atomic Kitten too. With the volume turned down there was a time when they were worth watching. Likewise having some labour politicians worth watching might be enjoyable too.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'm reminded of Atomic Kitten too. With the volume turned down there was a time when they were worth watching.

Yerp.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

There has to be a National mole in the Labour organisation somewhere. That's the only thing that could explain these absolutely retarded things hitting the news at such perfect times, time after time.

That would actually make a lot of sense. Although maybe I just want to believe Labour's problems aren't about Labour.

[p01s0n]

national fifth column conspiracy

[ilk]

Originally Posted by Ab

Politics is like anything - 90% of success is turning up. Joining the business networks. Going to the union meetings. Knocking on doors. Getting preselected. Parents don't have time for that shit. And MOTHERS certainly don't have time for that shit.

I am reminded of this comment from John Tamihere on why Labour of recent years has had such a, how can I put this, rainbow flavour:

Genuinely curious, don't know if he's ever registered an opinion: what is his position on same sex adoption? That would help level the playing field for the poor downtrodden hetero politicians.

[Ab]

His comment wasn't about gender or sexual preference; it was about parenthood. He observed that parents of young children don't have spare time to devote to machiavellian politicking like childless politicians do.

[ilk]

So the rainbow flavour angle was your own inference? It made the quote read as if he was talking about a gay conspiracy.