Labour proposes fascinating new sex-based selection policy - Page 2

CCS · 6th July 2013, 14:02

Quote:

Mr Jones said he had spent yesterday in and around Kerikeri and Kaitaia talking about the proposal, "and the overwhelming response is the public doesn't want the country run by geldings".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10895113

aR Que · 6th July 2013, 14:11

Always a push to get more woman into certain industry, should just bar men from the job.

Fucks me off that these cunts are too pussy to support their own ideas.

?>Superman · 6th July 2013, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

It looks like Key is safe for another term.

fixed_truth · 6th July 2013, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by aR Que

Fucks me off that these cunts are too pussy to support their own ideas.

That's because it's not an actual party policy. It's a proposed selection rule change put forward by their Council and will be voted on at the end of the year.

But from the way the media has run with the story I can see how it could be perceived as something more. Had Labour's public/press relations people been any good then this probably would have been a non-issue.

Ab · 8th July 2013, 16:34

This is just a cock-up from beginning to end by Labour, and it's a long way from ending. They're just fucking muppets.

Quote:

Dear Members,

It is with regret that we must announce the cancellation of this year's Piss-up at the Brewery.

An administrative error by a member of our team has led to our booking for the venue falling through.

The person responsible has been spoken to, and has assured us that this particular error will not occur again. On the strength of that assurance the person responsible has been promoted.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this cancellation may cause.

While we appreciate that this is the fifth year in a row that the Piss-up at the Brewery event has been cancelled, we are confident that next year's event will be the best one yet.

Onwards to victory in 2014!

pretty much.

chubby · 8th July 2013, 17:22

their individual incompetence will not keep them out forever.
lets not forget that shonkey is the only reason the torys are safe,and even with fans-he wears pretty thin.
http://www.imperatorfish.com/2013/06...is-better.html

Lightspeed · 8th July 2013, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

This is just a cock-up from beginning to end by Labour, and it's a long way from ending. They're just fucking muppets.

Helen must have been a tough lady, no wonder she got some boss UN job.

aR Que · 9th July 2013, 13:35

giving up our security? that has been a train long coming. you're the dip shits that put so much 'private' information in one place.

plaz0r · 9th July 2013, 14:38

Ab · 29th October 2013, 14:43

If you liked MAN BAN you're going to love EVERYTHING BAN:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11147719

fixed_truth · 29th October 2013, 17:33

Quote:

But a remit proposed by the party's ruling New Zealand Council would require the list-ranking committee to pro-actively ensure that its list fairly represents "sexual orientations", as well as tangata whenua, gender, ethnic groups, people with disabilities, age and youth.

That's a bit vague. I don't think a fixed quota would be a good approach for Labour; but if they're talking about making some changes to the way things are done so that more elite people want to enter politics - then that's a good thing imo.

fidgit · 29th October 2013, 20:09

ok ok I get it, they don't want my white-middle-class-straight-male vote. Done.

CCS · 29th October 2013, 20:21

Lemme guess - you're going to the greens instead?

GM · 29th October 2013, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

If you liked MAN BAN you're going to love EVERYTHING BAN:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11147719

No mention of Asians?

CCS · 29th October 2013, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by GM

No mention of Asians?

Quote:

as well as tangata whenua, gender, ethnic groups, people with disabilities, age and youth.

fidgit · 29th October 2013, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Lemme guess - you're going to the greens instead?

I voted Green/Labour in the last 4 elections.

If an election was held tomorrow, I wouldn't vote. The only party saying the things I want to hear at the moment is NZ First, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for that.

CCS · 29th October 2013, 22:45

Man, don't vote for the greens. Not even once.

xor · 30th October 2013, 08:17

I thought politicians were meant to represent values, not skin colour, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

GG labour

Lightspeed · 30th October 2013, 09:50

I don't really get why people vote based on party, at least in NZ with so few parties. Most of what the public is aware of is faff, the fine detail of how these parties operate seems mostly lost on us, we only are aware of headline grabbing issues which account for a tiny proportion of government function.

You can only really vote based on the grossly simplified political spectrum. On the right you have a focus on private wealth, individual rights and responsibilities, power over vulnerability. On the left you have public wealth, community rights and responsibilities, power for the vulnerable.

All this nonsense is pure faff.

Cyberbob · 30th October 2013, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

at least in NZ with so few parties.

Compared to who, exactly?
NZ has a shitload of choices. Sure, that means that the only viable government is a collation, normally consisting of a very small party having king-maker-like power, but we have a damn sight more choice when electing those who reflect our values than a lot of other countries out there.

pxpx · 30th October 2013, 13:15

God damn I hate the term "king-maker". Stupid fckn nz media.

Lightspeed · 30th October 2013, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Compared to who, exactly?

I should have said "viable parties". We currently have 3, maybe 4 who can be counted on to consistently get members into parliament? I think/hope as MMP matures we will see something closer to 5 or 6 spread across the political spectrum. Like many European countries.

GM · 30th October 2013, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

ethnic groups

I should clarify, there are more Asians than Pacific Peoples in NZ but they exclusively mention Pacific People as a priority group but not Asians - in other words it looks as though the decision to apply this policy is driven more out of the interest groups rather than actual demographic representation (presuming that is what they're basing their diversity quotient on), but then who really cares its a shit idea anyway.

CCS · 30th October 2013, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by GM

in other words it looks as though the decision to apply this policy is driven more out of the interest groups rather than actual demographic representation

Well SHYEAH.

Remember that this is the Labour party that hates asians and doesn't want the yellow peril to buy up all of our land and make us tenant farmers. They also don't want them chinky bastards coming here and buying our houses, no sir. But gosh darn they're more than happy to sign a free trade agreement with them!

fixed_truth · 30th October 2013, 15:03

You need to quit smoking so much of that that whaleoil son.

From "A ban on all foreign non-residents except Australians from buying existing houses" you're spinning some racist shite.

CCS · 30th October 2013, 15:14

No, Labour is racist. I like how you ignored Labour's constant ravings over The Asians buying farms, eg Crafar.

Besides, we all know that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to realise that.

fixed_truth · 30th October 2013, 15:21

Oh we all just know. Awesome, thanks for your reassuring assertion.

CCS · 30th October 2013, 15:23

What, do you want me to produce a leaked document with Labour letterhead that says "Policy re: The Asians"?

Maybe I should rephrase that. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to be missing half your brain not to realise that.

fixed_truth · 30th October 2013, 15:41

Wat? Asserting your point as some kind of axiom doesn't make it true. Nor does playing the 'your dumb if you don't think so' card.

GM · 30th October 2013, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

What, do you want me to produce a leaked document with Labour letterhead that says "Policy re: The Asians"?

Maybe I should rephrase that. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to be missing half your brain not to realise that.

I would also add that the largest contingent of foreign owned farms in NZ I believe are actually German, but from what I remember Labour constantly referred to Chinese interests where foreign ownership was being touted as being the 'big threat' to our economy.

Edited: best link I can find is: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...ash-into-farms

Lightspeed · 30th October 2013, 16:29

Politics is crazy. Picking up on the crazy of one political group or the other and then defining them by it is buying into the crazy.

CCS · 30th October 2013, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Wat? Asserting your point as some kind of axiom doesn't make it true. Nor does playing the 'your dumb if you don't think so' card.

I've a feeling that there is no amount or type of evidence that I could ever produce that would be enough to convince you. Nonetheless, as GM points out, Labour never objected when Germans bought farms here. Nor did they object when Americans bought up land. I don't recall hearing a peep of dissent from them over white celebrities buying oodles of land here. James Cameron, Shania Twain for example. I wonder what would happen if Jackie Chan tried to buy a bunch of land here? I bet Labour would invoke the Chan Ban.

Lightspeed · 30th October 2013, 17:22

Yes, yes, and National think the poors are crims and seek punishment for benefit fraud, but tax fraud ain't no thing, rich folk do no wrong, they're just acting in good faith amirite.

fixed_truth · 30th October 2013, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

I've a feeling that there is no amount or type of evidence that I could ever produce that would be enough to convince you. Nonetheless, as GM points out, Labour never objected when Germans bought farms here. Nor did they object when Americans bought up land. I don't recall hearing a peep of dissent from them over white celebrities buying oodles of land here. James Cameron, Shania Twain for example. I wonder what would happen if Jackie Chan tried to buy a bunch of land here? I bet Labour would invoke the Chan Ban.

A quick google search of "germans buying farms" . . . first article

Quote:

Labour leader Phil Goff said the approvals reflected his party's concern that foreign investors would increasingly want to buy up New Zealand land to control food supply channels.
"That is not in our interests as a country."
Land should stay under New Zealand ownership unless there was clear evidence that a buyer would bring new jobs and grow the economy, Mr Goff said.

So I think you're all teko.

Labour's concerns about New Zealand land, property speculation and assets is consistent with its economic ideology and not because they "hate asians" and "don't want them chinky bastards coming here and buying our houses".

CCS · 30th October 2013, 18:41

Oh, so they're just xenophobic in general terms? Ah sweet.

Lightspeed · 30th October 2013, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Maybe I should rephrase that. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to be missing half your brain not to realise that.

I wonder if he will rephrase his rephrase?

aR Que · 31st October 2013, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Politics is crazy. Picking up on the crazy of one political group or the other and then defining them by it is buying into the crazy.

The crazy ideas are what will make the country a crazy place. Hence the wariness of crazy.

What'd make it really choice is if you could only vote for your minority group. Sorry, son, you azn, so you must only what a azn representing you.

CCS · 6th November 2013, 13:00

Remember this from David Cunliffe?

Quote:

It seems David Cunliffe lied to us right from day one as Labour’s leader…which in reflection isn;t really a surprise, he is a Labour party member after all.

Remember that glib soundbite Cunliffe trotted on his first day as party leader:

“There is a new train leaving the station and I want everyone on it.

There will be one set of rules for all.

It will be a meritocracy, we will do the very best we can for the whole party and New Zealand.”

A meritocracy is where people are selected on merit – not according to the particular style of genitalia they happen to be born with.

With the new Man Ban a meritocracy cannot exist. The one set of rules is a fabrication. There are now two sets of rules. One for most people then a special set of rules for minority groupings. They can’t exist on the same track.

David – you are liar!

But we knew that anyway.

Shame cunt.

Lightspeed · 6th November 2013, 21:45

Kind of fair call actually. Except CCS can't escape polar extremes as usual, having contradictions does not make one a liar, it only makes you human.

Still, it's a lazy hack job to try to artificially improve numbers like that. If you want to make your demographics proportional across the board, you have to start addressing the psycho-socio-economic factors that are precluding that from happening. You can't just look at a fucking spreadsheet and go "change that number".

Ab · 6th November 2013, 21:49

The only way of "balancing" parliament in gender terms is to "unbalance" it in lifestyle terms. Mothers are never going to get equal representation in parliament because motherhood is highpriority timeconsuming hard work, and a political career takes time and effort. Thus the only women you're going to get in parliament (to generalise) are those who don't have or want children.

29th October 2013, 20:09	#52
fidgit Always itchy	ok ok I get it, they don't want my white-middle-class-straight-male vote. Done. __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

29th October 2013, 20:21	#53
CCS Stunt Pants	Lemme guess - you're going to the greens instead? __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

29th October 2013, 22:45	#57
CCS Stunt Pants	Man, don't vote for the greens. Not even once. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

30th October 2013, 15:14	#66
CCS Stunt Pants	No, Labour is racist. I like how you ignored Labour's constant ravings over The Asians buying farms, eg Crafar. Besides, we all know that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to realise that. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

30th October 2013, 15:23	#68
CCS Stunt Pants	What, do you want me to produce a leaked document with Labour letterhead that says "Policy re: The Asians"? Maybe I should rephrase that. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that when Labour says 'foreigners' they mean 'The Asians'. You'd have to be missing half your brain not to realise that. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

6th July 2013, 14:11	#42
aR Que	Always a push to get more woman into certain industry, should just bar men from the job. Fucks me off that these cunts are too pussy to support their own ideas.

8th July 2013, 17:22	#46
chubby	Five reasons why this potato is better than John Key their individual incompetence will not keep them out forever. lets not forget that shonkey is the only reason the torys are safe,and even with fans-he wears pretty thin. http://www.imperatorfish.com/2013/06...is-better.html __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

9th July 2013, 13:35	#48
aR Que	giving up our security? that has been a train long coming. you're the dip shits that put so much 'private' information in one place.

29th October 2013, 14:43	#50
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	If you liked MAN BAN you're going to love EVERYTHING BAN: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11147719

30th October 2013, 08:17	#58
xor	I thought politicians were meant to represent values, not skin colour, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. GG labour

30th October 2013, 09:50	#59
Lightspeed	I don't really get why people vote based on party, at least in NZ with so few parties. Most of what the public is aware of is faff, the fine detail of how these parties operate seems mostly lost on us, we only are aware of headline grabbing issues which account for a tiny proportion of government function. You can only really vote based on the grossly simplified political spectrum. On the right you have a focus on private wealth, individual rights and responsibilities, power over vulnerability. On the left you have public wealth, community rights and responsibilities, power for the vulnerable. All this nonsense is pure faff. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

30th October 2013, 13:15	#61
pxpx	God damn I hate the term "king-maker". Stupid fckn nz media.

30th October 2013, 15:03	#65
fixed_truth	You need to quit smoking so much of that that whaleoil son. From "A ban on all foreign non-residents except Australians from buying existing houses" you're spinning some racist shite. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

30th October 2013, 15:21	#67
fixed_truth	Oh we all just know. Awesome, thanks for your reassuring assertion. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

30th October 2013, 15:41	#69
fixed_truth	Wat? Asserting your point as some kind of axiom doesn't make it true. Nor does playing the 'your dumb if you don't think so' card. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

9th July 2013, 14:38	#49
plaz0r	wat

30th October 2013, 16:29	#71
Lightspeed	Politics is crazy. Picking up on the crazy of one political group or the other and then defining them by it is buying into the crazy. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

30th October 2013, 17:22	#73
Lightspeed	Yes, yes, and National think the poors are crims and seek punishment for benefit fraud, but tax fraud ain't no thing, rich folk do no wrong, they're just acting in good faith amirite. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

30th October 2013, 18:41	#75
CCS Stunt Pants	Oh, so they're just xenophobic in general terms? Ah sweet. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

6th November 2013, 21:45	#79
Lightspeed	Kind of fair call actually. Except CCS can't escape polar extremes as usual, having contradictions does not make one a liar, it only makes you human. Still, it's a lazy hack job to try to artificially improve numbers like that. If you want to make your demographics proportional across the board, you have to start addressing the psycho-socio-economic factors that are precluding that from happening. You can't just look at a fucking spreadsheet and go "change that number". __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

6th November 2013, 21:49	#80
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	The only way of "balancing" parliament in gender terms is to "unbalance" it in lifestyle terms. Mothers are never going to get equal representation in parliament because motherhood is highpriority timeconsuming hard work, and a political career takes time and effort. Thus the only women you're going to get in parliament (to generalise) are those who don't have or want children.