NZ Herald on National’s list
August 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald editorial says about time:
When the National Party published its candidate list on Sunday a greater ethnic diversity was immediately apparent. Six Maori, three Asians and a Pacific Islander have been placed high enough on the list to get into Parliament if National polls as well as it expects.
I am guilty of this myself, but I amused how Asians are all lumped together, when in fact in winnable places are a Chinese, a Korean and an Indian Sikh. All quite different races and cultures. But hey as I said, I do it myself sometimes.
Samoan Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Korean-born Melissa Lee and Indian Kanwal Bakshi can probably count on joining Pansy Wong, too long National’s solitary representative of immigrant communities.Indeed, she has been almost a solitary Asian voice in Parliament, for Labour has supplied only the Pakistani Ashraf Choudhary, who has been practically silent, and the smaller parties have offered no seats to non-Maori minorities.
Is Choudary still an MP? My goodness.
National’s list, incidentally, still looks light on women; only four rank in the top 24, from which a cabinet would be likely to be drawn.
There is still some way to go. It looks like women will comprise 26% to 28% of National’s caucus, much the same as is currently the case. This is more than double the international average for female parliamentary representation. The problem is not so much where women are placed on the list, but that not enough stand to be a candidate. I may touch on this at some later stage.
As for the top 24, it would be very foolish to assume that the top 24 are automatically the Ministerial pool.
Though only one Maori, Georgina te Heuheu, ranks in the top 24, three more, Tau Henare, Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett, are in positions for an almost certain return to Parliament and two others, Rugby Union director Paul Quinn and Tauranga prosecutor Simon Bridges, will make it if National wins 60 seats. Six of 60 would be an advance on the present three of 48.
It is possible that after the election National will have more Maori MPs than Labour.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:57 am
“National’s list, incidentally, still looks light on women;…”
You gotta love Granny a.k.a. The NZ Herald a.k.a. National’s Auckland media arm. So, it’s incidental that there are hardly any women in the top 24! Hmm, wonder how the women feel about that? In gender terms, National’s list is about where Labour was in 1980. It’s pathetic, not incidental.
[DPF: Labour in 1981 had 4/43 MPs women, which is 9%. That is one third of 27%. Could not be more wrong]
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:01 am
Quota above merit?
Just asking.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:06 am
It will be funny if National’s merit system results in more Māori MPs than Labour’s quota system. Funny in a “stuff your condescension” kind of way.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am
“The problem is not so much where women are placed on the list, but that not enough stand to be a candidate.”
Is this actually a problem? The fact is that people have children. When they do, one parent often stays home to look after them. This is usually the mother, simply because she has breasts.
This means that over their working lifetime (say 20 to 65), a man will generally work for the whole 45 years, while the average woman will work for much less. At any one time there will be less women available to apply for any job, including standing for parliament.
This also means that when you get women standing for parliament, they are likely (with exceptions of course) to be career women who probably have less children than average or no children at all – simply because it is these women who have the time and interest to stand.
Is the average woman represented better by a career woman with no children or a man with a wife and children back home? I would suspect the latter, but it is a grey area.
You will always end up with more men in parliament than women. This is natural, and not necessarily a problem. It is good to have a few women MPs but I wouldn’t get too tied up about proportional representation.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am
>In gender terms, National’s list is about where Labour was in 1980.
But Labour don’t have a male co-leader and co-Prime Minister selected on the basis of gender. So in terms of selection based on body type rather than merit, they’re still at least 18 years behind the Greens.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:14 am
“I am guilty of this myself, but I amused how Asians are all lumped together, when in fact in winnable places are a Chinese, a Korean and an Indian Sikh. All quite different races and cultures. But hey as I said, I do it myself sometimes.”
Get over it. I’ve been lumped in with Europeans for a long time, and I’m sure that neither the French, Greeks nor Swedish would consider me to be “one of them”.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
In the South Auckland seats there were many quality women candidates and the panel selected all men.
[DPF: What I would like to do is get the stats for how many women make themselves available for nomination and how many get selected and see how they do compared to men.]
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Jafa
In your world is it more important to be PC or at least look PC than it is to have the best qualified individuals?
I can just imagine the shit fights that go on inside left wing parties when it is list ranking time, you would have to consider, race, gender, sexuality, union affiliations, level of political correctness, etc.
No wonder our country is in the shit, when any party sits down to construct its party list the only thing I want them to consider (after all it is my money the bastards are intending to spend) is ARE THEY THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Big Bruv, even Blind Freddy can see that the Nats have a woman problem!
You are right about the various criteria that are considered when Labour does its list. It’s all there in the rules.
But you are wrong that (1) NZ is in the shit and (2) that diversity in Labour’s caucus has anything to do with the problems that NZ does have. You just keep making those statements without any proof to back them up.
Anyway, you can’t look at National’s list and honestly say that they are the very best people for the job. Readvertise I say. (There are a few exceptions, granted.)
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Jafa
Bollocks, ability should always be the first and only consideration, give me ONE good reason why an inferior candidate should be promoted over a far better qualified candidate simply because they are a different gender.
That is why I want Judith Collins to be the PM within four years.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Big Bruv, even Blind Freddy can see that the Nats have a woman problem!”
Actually, the gender makeup of the National candidates shows National *doesn’t* have a woman problem.
JC
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
It is a sad reality that women voters are much more guided by gender solidarity than men are, which gives an automatic advantage to the party fielding women leaders and candidates. I do think that that is one explanation for the Nats 9 years in opposition.
I neither like it or endorse it, but that is the sad reality. I do believe, though, that “Big Jen” would have been the Nats best bet both in her ability, toughness and principles; AND the “women voter” aspect. The Nats could have had their cake and eaten it too, just like Labour with THEIR tough socialist woman leader.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Labour have a man problem.
Vote:Why are a lot less men than women Labour voters?
What are they going to do about that?
August 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Jafapete said – “Big Bruv, even Blind Freddy can see that the Nats have a woman problem!”
Oh JP – you’ve found another glaring omission – there’s no blind people on National’s list!
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:26 am
Jafa
Bollocks, ability should always be the first and only consideration, give me ONE good reason why an inferior candidate should be promoted over a far better qualified candidate simply because they are a different gender.
That is why I want Judith Collins to be the PM within four years.
Ahhh..
Perhaps I should clarify my Collins comment, I do not care what gender, race or bloody sexuality a person is I want them to be the best person for the job.
Vote:This is why I honestly believe that Judith Collins would make a great PM, at the very least she seems to understand what the National party is all about and that is not something you could say about the thoroughly nice Mr Key.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
“DPF: Labour in 1981 had 4/43 MPs women, which is 9%. That is one third of 27%. Could not be more wrong.”
Before the 1981 election it was actually three. (But perhaps you included Marilyn Waring as one of ours. Understandable.)
After the election we had Mary Batchelor, Helen Clark, Ann Hercus, Margaret Shields, Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, Fran Wilde. That’s six.
Two of those in Parliament in 1981 got into cabinet in 1984 (Hercus and Shields) and two later joined the Cabinet (Clark and Wilde). It will be interesting to see how much better National does 24 years later, should it win power.
Also, you seem to be comparing candidates with those elected.
Source: http://www.elections.org.nz/democracy/electorates/women-in-parliament.html
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Jafa
Nothing seem to shake you from your PC belief that “better” depends on having woman in cabinet irrespective of ability, the Nat’s will have done “better” as long as they place the best people in cabinet, lets face it they don’t have to do a lot to be miles better than the current government.
Do I have to remind you that those in cabinet are effectively running the largest company in NZ and as such it is not a place for politically correct appointments.
PC is a cancer that is rapidly spreading, unless we make a concerted effort to eradicate it we are facing a very bleak future, PC stifles debate, it promotes people beyond their abilities and is one of the contributing factors in so many of our best and brightest pissing off overseas.
PC is a philosophy that does not stand up to any sort of interrogation, the only way it can be defended is through personal attacks and the labeling of those apposed to it, as an example of that I asked you before if you could give me ONE good reason why an inferior candidate should be promoted over a superior one simply because of their gender and as yet you have refused to answer.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Yeah, big bruv, I was reading an interesting article recently about a looming backlash in Sweden over the “gender balance” lunacy, where registered companies face sanctions shortly if 50% of their executives are not women; and the business community is running out of women to appoint, well short of that target, and are looking at being forced to make appointments of completely uncredentialled women, or accept bureaucratic appointments of the same, so as to meet those targets…….
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
using jafapete’s dopey rationale, perhaps we should sack 90% of nurses in NZ, because the male/female balance is so disproportional.
Vote:PC lunacy interferes and distorts natural variations. It is natural that there are less female MPs because many have families to look after and choose that commitment instead. It is natural that the average female wage is less than males because their career is often interrupted or ended by child rearing.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
none of the Parties lists are remotely representative.
I mean where is the South American one armed one legged lesbian dwarf ??
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Show me where I’ve suggested that quotas produce the best results, BB.
My main point is that the Nats have a woman problem, which has resulted in their list being almost devoid of women at the top end where the cabinet would come from, in the event National wins the election. (Incidentally, I am not a Collins-hater like many lefties, and expect she’ll make a formidable cabinet minister some day).
Farrar seems to have missed that this is what I meant with the comparison with where Labour was 20+ years ago, but then I guess I didn’t make myself so clear, and he’s tied up with this far-right indoctrination thing on Waiheke. That, in the event that it gets to form the government, National is not likely to do much better gender-wise than Labour in the early 1980s is sad.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jafa
I have not suggested you said that quotas produce the best results, what you HAVE said is that the Nat’s need more females just because they are female, you even have the temerity to suggest that the Nat’s have a problem because they do not have more females in their incoming cabinet.
I am still waiting for you to tell me why a superior candidate should be overlooked for a position in favour of an inferior candidate simply because of their gender.
The one point you have raised that has some merit is the question of why more quality Shelia’s have not made themselves available for the Nat’s, I do not have the answer to that question but when you look at the behaviour of the Labour Shelia’s in the house and the sexist taunts they toss across the debating chamber that ridicules those National females who have kids I am not surprised they are reluctant.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
We’re still waiting on the Nat’s or DPF’s analysis of the diversity of the list in terms of GLBT candidates?
In terms of out candidates that I’m aware of, there’s only Chris Finlayson, making it 1/73 or 1.4% of the list. However, I stand corrected – there may be others I’m not aware of.
d
[DPF: I am not aware of any other candidates who identify as GLBT. I suspect thought that the overall Caucus would after the election be considerably more "liberal" on issues such as civil unions]
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
jafapete said: Big Bruv, even Blind Freddy can see that the Nats have a woman problem!
If you think National have a gender balance problem, take a look at the ACT list! Depending on the gender of the mystery number 5, only two women int he top 10, and very few more going right down to 60.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Toad
Why is that a “problem”?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
If Judith Collins was leader or PM I would probably vote for National. She shows that a woman does not have to act like a man to be in charge. You will not hear her calling the opposition scum bags like the present PM. She called Benson-Peep a pervert but that is factual. If if was not for this corrupt Labour government he would have been charged.
Collins is not particularly religious like myself but has common sense conservative view point on most issues.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Toad, after number 28(?) on ACT’s list, it’s just alphabetical, so probably better just to stick to the top 28.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
From where I am sitting Labour appear to have a real gender problem. Half of them don’t know what gender they are and most of us don’t know either!!!!!!!!!
Vote:August 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 am
Why is Labour so reluctant to compile and release their list? Could it be because of the massive amount of infighting that will be triggered when Labour candidates realise the dream is over. They aren’t going to make it back to parliament so it will be back to the real world for them.
Vote: