Remember this scene from the Tauranga by election?
Well it appears that National is determined to ensure that this sort of visual does not appear for the Hamilton West by election and it appears that they have banned white men from seeking National’s candidacy.
Claire Trevett at the Herald has suggested that Chris Luxon wanted the Tauranga to be a joyous celebration of National’s commitment to diversity. Instead they short listed four white men and selected someone who brutalised teenagers with bed legs. And although the selection panel apparently knew about this they did not think it was an impediment from being a National MP.
So this time he wanted a candidate pool that looked more like something that a Labour selection would have.
From the Herald:
Luxon’s credibility was on the line – his earlier, milder suggestion that the Tauranga byelection might deliver diversity was completely ignored. He lost a Māori MP in Simon Bridges, and the shortlist was four white men.
This time the party didn’t want to take any risks of a repeat, so the party appeared to decide the only surefire way to ensure diversity in Hamilton West was to remove all temptation of a white, male candidate completely.
In its effect, it is perilously close to the territory of Labour’s proposed 2013 “man ban.” That was a proposal to only allow women to stand in some electorates. It was controversial and then-leader David Shearer dumped it, and Labour toned it down to a more general, longer-term target (it now has more than 50 per cent women).
National’s Hamilton West equivalent would be the “white-man ban” – the party had quiet words and took out the two white male candidates.
The argument that National has applied a white man ban is pretty compelling. Trevett reports that Tim MacIndoe wanted to contest the seat again and I suspect he would have been a shoe in. He represented the area for 12 years. He was always an urbane slightly more conciliatory and slightly less crazy member of the National Party who I thought would be really difficult to move.
MacIndoe’s willingness to stand aside is interesting. I wonder what motivated it?
The second white male candidate who was excluded from the list is former mayor Andrew King. He may not have been the ideal candidate but a former Mayor not even making a shortlist of five for local members to discuss when only three candidates are advanced is pretty weird.
There is only one possible conclusion. National has instigated its own form of Labour’s man ban. Because it realises that our electorate wants to have representatives who actually look they represent all of us.
Just one point…
'shoo in' not 'shoe in'. Though shoe does have a place in view of the woeful selection at Tauranga and perhaps the 'unsuitable' candidates were booted away or into touch in Hamilton.
Who are on the shortlist? For those not able to link to Granny Herald, though Granny perhaps no longer. Perhaps Witchy or Warlock* Herald as it has morphed into something less benign than Granny.
*a man who professes or is supposed to practice magic or sorcery; a male witch; sorcerer. a fortuneteller or conjurer.
with the amount of grandads spouting outdated nonsense in the herald, granny is still appropriatte. maybe we should start a sweepstakes on who else will be dug out of a crypt. is roger douglas still cheating the reaper?
Of course it's a "white man ban", and the way it's been reported is an extraordinary contrast to the uproar when Labour encouraged women to be candidates. That was portrayed as madness, the end of civilisation as we know it, the lesbian uprising, no red-blooded male was safe, blah blah blah.
I know commentators don't do apologies, but there are plenty who should be reflecting on their behaviour then and now.
"Barmy" Luxon?
The only reflection the granny opinionators do is in the mirror.
A reminder of what a low bar exists these days that lazy piece is referring to others and I see it's shane jones turn for some more opining, reckons and expectations of pixie dust and fairies.
While National indulges in this identity crisis, Labour has outmanoeuvred them, calmly selected Georgie Dansey, and is now getting on with it.
Pity they didn't pick her the last time around.
Ain't THAT the truth ! And those among Labour who supposedly had/have “oversight” over selection either actually have it (due diligence? even… research and thinking!)
Or are removed from any chance of fucking OUR chance of keeping NZ safe from nact !
Yeah, nah …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300728543/labour-hamilton-west-candidate-seen-at-ambush-protest-against-own-minister
Options for the candidate in this situation:
1) Turn up, own it, engage
2) Don't turn up
(The party HQ would probably prefer she chose Option 2 but a skilled candidate could choose 1 and turn it into a positive)
Not an option: turn up and then hide from media. What did she think was going to happen?
The quality of the National short list for this seat is high, it will be a difficult choice.
I hope the two that miss out look at other seats or consider a place on the list.
Even uncle bob, two sheets to the wind on Christmas afternoon, would look credible against a candidate that protests against their own government policy
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300728543/labour-hamilton-west-candidate-seen-at-ambush-protest-against-own-minister
uncle bob hasnt got his name up front. maybe thats because his cause is two shits in the wind. so, its georgie dansey getting in the media, while uncle bob fafs around brownwashing himself.
If you are going to lift stuff verbatim from Farrar at least put it in quote marks.
??
– David Farrar. 7:00am Wednesday 02 November
– Alan. 10:58am Wednesday 02 November
Thanks, but that’s not verbatim and thus no quote marks are required. One could call it paraphrasing or plagiarising, depending on one’s views. RW commenters are not the most original ones, generally speaking; they all sound the same to me.
It's certainly close enough not to be an original thought and definitely from that particular source. Felt Standard readers out to know that, and I like the word, verbatim.
We urgently need more diversity of class in parliament, parliament is extremely diverse in terms of race gender and sexuality but utterly unrepresentative in terms of class, education and income.
An upper middle class brown,gay, female is no different to an upper middle class white straight man in terms of representation.
Norman Kirk wouldn't even be allowed to be a labour candidate in today's labour party because he didn't have a university degree or finish high school.
How can parliament claim to be representative of NZ when it's virtually exclusively upper middle class university graduates, unless 3/4 of NZ are lawyers it's unrepresentative of NZ.
We desperately need more working class, poor, it and tech experts (having so much of our political class tech illiterate is allowing tech companies and their data mining algorithms to wreck untold havoc on society) having so few of our politicians understand what it's like to go without, to go hungry, to be in debt, to rent is why parliament doesn't handle class based issues with the urgency they need because they don't experience or understand anything outside their middle class bubble apart from statistical data.
Replacing upper middle class white straight neoliberal men robot politicians with upper middle class gay, brown,female neoliberal robots will never achieve anything.
Im glad politics is more inclusive of race gender and sexuality but until it's representative of class, income and education it will continue to be unrepresentative and ignorant of class based issues
"Norman Kirk wouldn't even be allowed to be a labour candidate in today's labour party because he didn't have a university degree or finish high school. "
That is not true. Our local Labour candidate in 2020 had no academic qualifications. What evidence can you offer to support your contention?
We have had an airline pilot, a post office worker, a shop owner, two teachers, a secretary, a nurse, a printer, as well. Three were university graduates.
Kirk by the way was known as a literate and extremely well-read individual. He worked at Firestone in ChCh as a stationary engine driver and was able to read voraciously while on that job. I know because I worked in that same boiler house as a coal trimmer after he had left, and this was told to me by his fellow workers who were proud of him.
Kirk would not be a Labour candidate today for his social views, which were deeply conservative.
Kirk said this in 1969. “Basically there are four things that matter to people: they have to have somewhere to live, they have to have food to eat, they have to have clothing to wear, and they have to have something to hope for.”
That resonates still in the NZLP.
In 1969 he told me personally that he would havev no problems in withdrawing troops from Vietnam.
He sent a frigate to oppose French nuclear testing.
He opposed the Springbok tour.
He showed the way in terms of racial equality.
All of that would still be NZLP policy.
He was partly a social conservative. So was I. I changed, I've had 50 years to change.
Kirk died after 20 months in office as PM. What views of his would also have altered?Look at what he achieved.
He is still honoured today in the Labour Party.
I know because I was one who today at the Labour Conference did just that.
I know because today the PM honoured Kirk at Conference.
I know because I saw today the photo exhibition mounted in the foyer to honour his legacy.
I know because I was there somewhere in the photos at the 1974 Conference. I knew the Labour Party then. I know it now. Kirk would fit in for his vision, social compassion, sense of justice, desire to make changes and his essential humanity.
I honoured him in 1969, and I do in 2022.
I have visited his grave in Waimate. He lies alongside some of my forebears.
To write him, or the Labour party, off for some views held fifty years ago does both a disservice, but that I suspect is your intention, DS.
Lastly, would the Kirk of the late 60s and early 70s have been tolerated in the National Party then?
Or now?
DS, here's what you said on 3 December 2021 on the Standard.
"I'd also suggest a sizeable population of Labour voters (particularly religious ones) would not actually be enthusiastic about further liberalisation of abortion. Both big parties have their share of social liberals and social conservatives."
National are starting to realize that us old white males are society leeches.
Good only for driving buses or directing parking at agricultural A and P shows.
No more heroes anymore!
NB: There is a certain element of sarcasm in my contribution, in case you missed it.