Collins is not particularly religious like myself but has common sense conservative view point on most issues.

Why is that a “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.

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]

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.

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.

I mean where is the South American one armed one legged lesbian dwarf ??

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.

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

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.
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.

Oh JP – you’ve found another glaring omission – there’s no blind people on National’s list!

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.

Actually, the gender makeup of the National candidates shows National *doesn’t* have a woman problem.

JC

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.