Jones and Little would have been goners

July 5th, 2013 at 11:47 am by David Farrar

A the last election got 34 MPs. 22 were male and 12 female. Under ’s proposed quota, the bottom five men on the list would have to have been placed below the next five women. So who would have been the lucky five women to have got in:

  1. Carol Beaumont
  2. Carmel Sepuloni
  3. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
  4. Steve Chadwick
  5. Kate Sutton

The next after that is Josie Pagani and Lynette Stewart.

More interesting is who are the five men who would have been dumped:

  1. Raymond Huo
  2. Rajen Prasad
  3. Shane Jones
  4. Andrew Little
  5. Charles Chauvel

Next on the list to be dumped would be Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker!

This shows well the problems of quotas. You’d get gender equality, yet knock out a Maori, two Asians and a Pacific Islander which means less diversity in other areas. Diversity is important (well to me anyway), but you need to balance up many competing factors. A quota removes discretion and is a vote of no confidence in a party to be fair to women.

This may explain why David Shearer has said he against the quota and the man ban (it took him a day to decide though!)

Labour leader has come out against proposed party rule changes that would ensure half of all its MPs were women by 2017 and would allow “women-only” candidate selections in some seats.

The proposed rule changes, to be decided at the party’s annual conference in November, would force the party’s list selection committee to ensure women would make up 45 per cent of the party’s caucus in 2014 and 50 per cent by 2017.

However, Shearer said targets, not quotas, was a better way to go.

Absolutely, which is National’s position also.

However just because Shearer and some MPs are against, does not mean it will fail. Quite the contrary. The Party President is a strong supporter of it, and they have been agreed to by the party’s ruling NZ Council – which Shearer is on. Activists could well vote to humiliate Shearer by voting for them in November.

One has to wonder did Shearer vote against them at the NZ Council meeting? If so, then he must have got rolled. If not, he has flip-flopped. Either way a leader not in great control of his party.

Tags: , ,

40 Responses to “Jones and Little would have been goners”

  1. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    Clearly more National supporters must join the Labour party and put up more stupid remits that will alienate everyone with a brain. It’s a winning strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    I’d rather that the party leader did not support all party remits put before the party conference, than a leader who controlled what was put forward …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    When are National going to dump the Dept of Women’s Affairs?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Ok … someone had to ask. For the purpose of this exercise do the Dyke ‘females’ in their caucus count as male or female?

    Just wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    Its amusing.
    I see no loss of talent and no gain in talent. There all just as terrible as the next!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Ok … someone had to ask. For the purpose of this exercise do the Dyke ‘females’ in their caucus count as male or female?

    It’s easy to tell the males and the females apart.

    Males have a penis, females have a vagina.

    I hope this clears up any confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “Ok … someone had to ask. For the purpose of this exercise do the Dyke ‘females’ in their caucus count as male or female?”

    I assume the homosexual men would count as women if the get their dicks cut off.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Peter (1,714 comments) says:

    What about man-ginas?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Sean Plunket put it very nicely this morning just after the 11am news when he said:

    Listen closely, and you’ll hear the sound of the Labour Party slowly bleeding to death because of its stupidity

    Right on the button.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Sean Plunkett is wrong, if the issue is representation of women rather than the how, then Labour has the advantage.

    Why does Labour have representation at 41% and National only 25%?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    So the ideal candidate ticks all the boxes, female (or even “better” but only to some, transgendered), gay, mixed asian, pacifica, maori (and gets to chose which they are at any one time), disabled in some profound yet not too severe manner (blind, deaf, and mute would be going just a tad too far even if very popular with the public), union representative and teacher to round out the profile; possibly in a gay marriage for extra points.

    A person like that could qualify for any spot you like, and their grievance victim points would be higher than anyone else so their opinion would rule ! (No over-ruling victims, it’s not permissible in this day and age).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Ed, the Labour Party has too many homosexual male MP’s, this is the real reason Chauvel is leaving.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Paulus (2,633 comments) says:

    I do not think that the Parliamentary Labour Party i.e. Shearer will have any say in the matter.
    It is entirely in the hands of the Unions who own Labour and the Rainbow wing led by the Secretary of the Party, Timothy Barnett, who is of course sex neutral.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tas (625 comments) says:

    If I were in the Labour party, I couldn’t think of a better way to sabotage them than this. Yesterday’s politics headline was about the govt getting heat about its spy legislation. Today’s headline is Labour talking about Labour talking about Labour. And it’s a real turn off to centrist voters (even if it will get Labour some Green votes).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. KapitiCoast (114 comments) says:

    Q: Why does Labour have representation at 41% and National only 25%?

    A: Why is Labour struggling at the 30% support mark for last 5yrs and National hovering between 45-48% over same period?

    Priorities in aspects of running a country SPC, National have them, labour clearly do not!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Kapiti Coast, being men too busy running the country to bother with fair representation of half the population …

    Complacency about such things is why a party in government then lose an election and have the time on their hands to consider such issues I suppose …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Yes KapitiCoast.

    – National got 47% party vote and have 27% female MPs.
    – Labour got 28% party vote and have 40% female MPs.
    – Greens got 11% party vote and have 50% female MPs.

    The voter turnout at the last election was 74.21% – at least 25% of those voters (and probably around 50%) were women.

    The voter gender balance will vary across parties but presumably there’s a lot of female voters who choose to vote for parties with proportionally less women candidates.

    Perhaps voters, including female voters, put more priority on balancing the budget than balancing the genders.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    Honestly, who cares?? Labour only exists to redistribute taxes from the productive sector of society to their voters and clients. No individual of good character, values and intelligence would want to have any involvement with Labour.

    Why don’t they just stick with their existing quota of 50% donkeys and 50% jackasses? It wouldn’t make any difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Paulus

    “..Timothy Barnett, who is of course sex neutral.”

    Is it a nun or a friar?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    And United and ACT got stuff all votes and yet no women but two expendable men sat at the government trough in Wellington.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    SPC:
    Why does Labour have representation at 41% and National only 25%?

    A difference in representation does not necessarily mean discrimination.

    Why so many male rubbish men? Why so many female primary teachers? Is there institutional sexism in our rubbish collection and teaching industries?

    Why so many more women than men at university? Why so many more men than women in trade training? Institutional sexism again?

    Or maybe there are roles that happen to have more men apply for, and roles that happen to have more women apply for. Selection on merit (or even at random) will result in a gender imbalance – THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    If it is based on the number of women seeking to be MP’s, why are more women seeking to be MP’s for Labour than National?

    If the same number are seeking candidacy in both parties, the why does one party find women candidates more meritorious than the other?

    A clue to the answer

    1. More women are list MP’s, they can live in Wellington with their families.
    2. Labour has more list MP’s because National win more electorate seats.

    Electorate MP’s spend days each week apart from their families. Thus most will be men.

    The only way to balance this is to select women without children to electorate seats – but voters prefer to elect a local MP with a family life …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fisiani (1,040 comments) says:

    National cares about quality Members of Parliament. They encourage candidates from all genders,ethnicity,race, creed, sexuality and hair (if any) colour. They value the contents of their brains and not the size of their wallet or the genitalia they possess. The latest member of the National caucus is a lesbian Maori and she took the place of a white male idiot from Christchurch. National puts no barriers to women and would welcome high quality women. This policy of Labour’s is demeaning to women. It is paternalistic and patronising.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. OneTrack (3,121 comments) says:

    I call on Jones and Little to immediately apologise profusely for their indescretion in taking someone elses place and stand aside so the wimmen can assume their rightful place.

    On a related subject, why doesn’t Labour have a male, female (and transgender?) co-leader like the other “progressive” parties. Its not fair. That should be the next remit to come up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Fisiani, if this came from National it would undoubtedly be paternalistic and patronising, but from the Labour Party, really? Women are a major force in that party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    This is an utterly ridiculous proposal on so many counts it is hard to know where to start. It is patronising, divisive, discriminatory and predicated on entirely spurious rationales. One can’t even offer the back-handed compliment that the proposers “mean well”. It has nothing to do with equality or representation, and anyone who claims it does has no real understanding of those concepts.

    True representation is not having a parliament that mirrors in every proportion the characteristics of society (inviting the reductio ad absurdum argument that we would need the correct proportion of mentally ill, low-IQ individuals as well!), but having a body of people able to speak for us (like a lawyer – who represents his client, not by imitating him/her, but acting on behalf of). I am quite capable of choosing who I want to speak for me – and it is based on their ideas, policies, competence, empathy, understanding, political skills (etc), not their sex, skin colour or any other “ism’.

    I am female, but how does that mean I need a woman to speak for me? Cannot men speak for my concerns? Am I so utterly different from men that only a woman can understand my needs? And what are these “woman’s issues”? Are women fundamentally identical in need, belief, political ideas, that any woman could speak for them, but no man can? Does having a woman MP or PM make me a better woman – more liberated, more fulfilled, more represented? Or would I rather have someone who represents my politics, than my characteristics.

    Or is this not about representation at all, but about the women in the party getting their bite at the cherry (or snout in the trough?) In which case, this offers nothing more than nepostism – jobs for the sisterhood. True equality, true recognition of women as the equal of men requires levelling the playing field, not stacking the cards. By all means, if women are discriminated against because they are women (ie. not given the candidacy purely because they are female) then address the problem at source – but institutional discrimination will never root out discrimination – it only entrenches it (obviously)
    True believers in equality would never create a system where men cannot have more than half the posts. (Note that the policy says women must be AT LEAST 50%).

    The policy also misunderstands equality. Equality =/= equal outcomes. Whether a party has 50%, 40%, or 25% women says nothing at all about its attitude to women, equal opportunities, or political legitimacy. A party that LEGISLATES 50% women says an awful lot about its attitude to women – and men. (And says a lot about their opinion of politics and competency as well.)

    I don’t care if Labour institute this – any more than I care if anyone sets up a women-only party, or Asian party, or Red-headed-Gays-with-one-leg party, or if a party only has white middle-aged, middle-class men. When it comes to an election, I will vote on their policies, and my understanding of their ability to lead a country and represent (speak for) their constituents – as, I believe, will most voters. If a party only cares about people who look like them, or getting their mates on board, then they’re not going to be much use at representing anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    One Track, it would only encourage Cunliffe to re-launch his challenge wearing a dress.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    **Sorry for typos above – for some reason it won’t let me edit it. Nepotism , not nepostism, of course!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Evadne, the glass ceiling exists because of the onerous time demands that working mothers cannot meet.

    Electorate MP jobs require a women to spend says apart from her partner and children, this on top of the hours deters many.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    SPC – I can well believe it. It might be worth debating those very issues. But legislating a quota within a party would not address those things, nor give much incentive to change them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Evadne, the best that can be done is 50/50 on the list and there will be the woman candidates that should ensure this naturally enough.

    The Labour move is in regard to the electorate seat candidacy – basically because the glass ceiling dilemma (as per hours and time away from family that deters women that have or might later have children) is not one that has an answer. It’s a sign of a desperation to meet their aspiration of equality when they are not sure how the dilemma can be overcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @SPC, it’s not an aspiration, it’s a demand, a hold-up and a mugging. At least it would be if it wasn’t going to be ridiculed out of court.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    @SPC & c.f. AlanW (with whom I am in agreement) – It also presupposes that 50/50 is a requirement or indication of “equality”. I am yet to be convinced that 50% women in parliament is either required or desirable, any more than 50% in plumbing, nursing, business, sailing, bus driving, banking, multi-national company boards, local licensing trusts, or stationery shops (or any other business, board, governing body or profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Evadne, yes, it’s ludicrous nonsense from every perspective and you can only shudder at the prospect of such blithering idiots running the country. Of course the implication is that women voters should only be allowed to vote for women candidates and men to vote for men. And then we can move on to laws that only apply to men and others to women.

    Or cut to the chase and have a legislature for idiots. Labour would have a permanent majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. pseudonymous (74 comments) says:

    OK,let’s take it a step further.
    Primary educators should demand 50% male and 50% female in schools as teachers.
    You can see that taking off!!
    Bullshit

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Alan, the idea of general electoral rolls for women and men has possibly not yet been considered as an alternative to the conference proposal …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ALcHiUkxgk

    Thread Godwin’d….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    For some years I sat on an all-male board of directors. When the first woman was appointed it created a such a positive difference in the board’s governance functions. Perhaps a coincidence, but it made me think of the benefits of diversity.

    That said, this initiative is positive discrmination. The trouble with this is that most fair minded kiwis dont support any form of discrimination – and are rightly sceptical of discrimination being sold with a positive spin.

    Shame on Jackie Blue for becoming a standard bearer for discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BR (81 comments) says:

    Chauvel would have survived.

    She’s not a man.

    Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Simon J Taylor (32 comments) says:

    The part that bothers me is that this may not be damaging to Labour in the longer term. Sure if the proposal goes ahead it may cost them one election (opportunity to be rid of shearer BTW? but that’s another story). But I can see many voters opposed to this, eventually “sucking it in” by 2017 in their search for another Govt. Then we will have a Government with some members chosen by this rotten and iniquitous system.
    Don’t forget: for changes of Government it is not a matter of if but only when.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote