Labour in crisis talks on man ban

July 9th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Senior MPs are pressuring the party to dump or modify gender quota and “women-only” selection proposals ahead of today’s regular caucus meeting.

“Free and frank” views are expected to be aired by supporters of the quota and a group of male MPs, including Shane Jones and Clayton Cosgrove, who have openly rubbished the moves.

Manurewa MP Louisa Wall has backed the rule changes and list MP Sue Moroney has also spoken in favour of their aims, although she has hinted at a compromise.

After a series of meetings that spilled over into the evening, Labour sources yesterday said the solution rested with the party’s ruling council, not its MPs.

David Shearer refused to go on television last night to talk about GCSB, unless the broadcasters promised they wouldn’t ask him any questions about the . They refused of course, so he refused to appear. Not sure I can recall a previous occassion where an opposition leader boycotts television interviews!

He has managed to man ban himself!

A solution would likely centre around redefining the 50 per cent quota as an objective, rather than a requirement.

But will the NZ Council and activists agree?

The Dom Post editorial:

Wacky ideas and politics go hand in hand. One of the reasons people join political parties is because they’ve got ideas they want to advocate. Selling raffle tickets and leafletting neighbourhoods only has so much appeal.

Hence it is no surprise that there are people within the Labour Party who think a gender quota should be introduced to ensure that women make up half its MPs after the 2017 election.

What is surprising is that the proposal has been adopted by the party’s ruling council. And what is even more surprising is that leader David Shearer has not dismissed it out of hand.

Shearer is a member of the Council that approved it.

Women bring a different perspective and different life experiences to Parliament. In recent years Ann Hercus, Fran Wilde, Ruth Richardson, Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark have all left their marks on New Zealand and Judith Collins and Paula Bennett are doing the same thing now.

It is not easy being a woman in a traditionally male institution, but none required special treatment to get selected by their parties or to rise to influential positions once they had got to Parliament.

The Labour proposal is condescending to women and counter to the party’s interests.

The people who seem to be most angry about this are in fact women.

Mr Shearer and his saner colleagues know this.

So which colleagues are not “saner”?

The Labour leader has said he prefers targets to quotas. His failure to stamp out a nutty idea leads to only one conclusion. He lacks the power within his own party to do what he knows is in its best interests. That does not bode well for him or Labour.

But good for New Zealand!

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “Labour in crisis talks on man ban”

  1. shoreboy57 (116 comments) says:

    Look if Labour want to choose more like Sue Moroney to stand for electorates, good luck to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    From ‘man ban’ to bleeder leader – surely this is terminal for Shearer’s leadership.

    But unless the severe dysfunction in Labour’s caucus is addressed all they will do is shift the blood stains to a different body.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    If it bleeds it leads – so the media saying goes – and politics would be no differant if you don’t have policies! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Is it wrong to be looking forward to the next public opinion polls with so much glee? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    Seriously, if Shearer can’t even control an internal party issue like this, how the hell can be Prime Minister?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (6,723 comments) says:

    The anti progressive progressive beat up continues.

    We were all so quick to show how progressive we were on marriage equality……..so what’s the problem here…….all these legislated attempts at equality are “equally” ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    Is today going to be the day that Shearer steps aside? Does any member of the Labour have enough support to give Shearer the bad news, or is the caucus hopelessly divided? Would David Shearer’s life be easier if he was back in Somalia negotiating with the war-lords on a daily basis?

    Ah; so many questions :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    Might be just the circles I move in but I haven’t met a woman yet who wasn’t at best offended by the proposal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Is today going to be the day that Shearer steps aside?

    Is today the day that Labour introduces co-leaders? One woman and one man of course.

    Unless it’s two women, which is also “at least 50% women”, and according to the target, also okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. davidp (3,328 comments) says:

    >David Shearer refused to go on television lst night to talk about GCSB, unless the broadcasters promised they wouldn’t ask him any questions about the man ban. They refused of course, so he refused to appear.

    So he is in hiding? I’d suggest looking in a hole in the ground in a farm. Or in an ugly house in Abbotabad.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rich Prick (1,324 comments) says:

    Shearer hiding behind Sue’s skirt is not a good look. Fraidy-cat.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BeaB (1,959 comments) says:

    What a ninny! Imagine Helen Clark running scared from TV.
    Surely he could dream up a short reply and keep the focus on the GCSB. Isn’t that what political leaders do?

    Hiding from the media is surely the beginning of the end for this spineless, yesterday’s man.

    Mind you, it is usually a mistake to choose a leader who is not only several years older than the PM but looks and sounds it.
    The Leader of the Opposition should look younger, fresher, more vigorous.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Louisa Wall et al the gift that keeps on giving. These fruit loops like the Greens are consigned to occupy Her Majestys Opposition benches for a very long time if they keep dreaming up wacko policy like this.

    What they wont see is that thinking wimmin view these compulsory quotas as the insult to their intelligence that they are.

    In a democracy if you are good enough the citizens will vote for you. If not they wont.

    OH but of course the Socialist Party and the Greens don’t believe is real democracy they believe in THEIR brand which is WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU CITIZEN MORONS.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (5,705 comments) says:

    What the “man ban” overlooks is the primacy of ideas versus personnel. We need a women’s voice for women’s issues but women’s issues aren’t 50% of politics. The “man ban” is an attempt to select the **right** people as the Greens are doing with “te tiritti”*.

    *Chris Trotter describes the left’s adoption of “te tiritti” as “the litmus test of authentic revolutionary praxis”
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2010/05/taking-greens-seriously.html

    the labour party is split between those who hang out in university common rooms and drool over the words of stubble chinned Professor Paul Spoonely (the doyen of multi culturalism and mass migration) and those who live and experience a real (versus theoretical) world.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    The Labour rapid response team has leapt into action (after five days).

    Labour pulls ‘man ban’ policy on Shearer’s request

    The party’s leader David Shearer requested the ‘man ban’ policy be pulled, to instead focus on setting targets for seats held by women in Parliament.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-pulls-man-ban-policy-shearer-s-request-5502617

    Too little too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. tas (528 comments) says:

    It’s starting to look like Labour will have a public spat about their internal candidate selection processes. It’s incredibly damaging to a party to show disunity over an issue that somehow manages to be both abhorrent and irrelevant to the vast majority of the electorate.

    This may be bad for Labour, but it’s great for NZ. For once, the party is tearing itself apart over an issue that won’t actually hurt the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    @tas – it’s not great for New Zealand. The stronger and more functional each party is the better it is for our democracy and Parliament.

    It’s bad enough with a major party being abysmal in opposition. If they happen to fluke it into Government then the country could have a big problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    LOL, the newspeak has got to the point where you dare not say a crap idea is crap for fear of the consequnces.

    Labour are dysfunctional, and I get the feeling it is probably terminal, unless someone as hard as Clark was rises to the top and knocks heads together.

    Failing that they should split into two parties, the unionists and the gays.

    Thy would be two smaller weaker parties but at least they would be two parties that could function and work on coherent messages.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. OneTrack (1,977 comments) says:

    Pete – “It’s bad enough with a major party being abysmal in opposition. If they happen to fluke it into Government then the country could have a big problem.”

    So while they are currently so incompetent and ideologically crippled I am happy for them to stuff up as much as possible in order to minimise the possibility of your horror scenario “fluke it in” occurring.

    What we need is a party for the “workers”. Damn, I think that party is called National. Ok, problem solved then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Zapper (845 comments) says:

    Why is Louisa Wall, who “disagrees with discrimination in any form” not being taken to task for supporting this?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. smttc (638 comments) says:

    Zapper, because the corollary of disagreeing to discrimination in all forms is aspiring to equality in all things. You don’t seriously think Wall sees any inconsistency in all this, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Neil (528 comments) says:

    It seems that Louisa Wall is one of these people who tries to bend the gender gap, with gay marriage and the man ban.,
    She probably has never done anything constructive in her stupid career. The gay marriage ban aliented a giant section of the senior citizen community while the man ban was just stupid. How on earth do Labour pluck idiots like her for safe seats ?She joins people like Catherine Delahunty,Turei and Sage as being prima donnas and a waste of money in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Paulus (2,299 comments) says:

    Helen is back in 3 weeks time – she will sort out all the Men (and Geldings?).
    Assume Helen will interview Shearer and offer him his job back in the corrupt UN.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    So the down side of this whole affair is as follows…

    1. The Labour leadership is disconnected from the party apparatus. The Party apparatus is operating independantly from the political wing and without regard to it’s aims. There is no combined approach or tactical plan.

    2. The leadership has been exposed as impotent and out of touch with the electorate.

    3. The position of any women in the Labour political wing is not tainted by the possibility that women have been favoured by the electorate committees over male candidates.

    4. Competent and able women seeking nominations for Labour may be overlooked as their selection over men could be seen as a tacit acceptance of an unspoken policy.

    The upside for Labour……… Nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Honeybadger (145 comments) says:

    Helen is coming home?

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.