Given Michael Laws' views on political correctness and the like, it's no surprise that he is not a fan of Labour's proposed Man-Ban.
And just because this is something written by Laws, it would not be a good idea for the Labour Party mandarins to simply dismiss it. Under the heading Labour's sexist suicide mission Laws opines:
This past week though, one of this country's most significant policy-makers - the Labour Party - decided to make discrimination overt. To be fair, that is the intent of their leadership, rather than their membership. But the implications are clear.
To impose a strict gender balance upon their parliamentary caucus, Labour wants to have women-only contests for electorate nominations. Should a male apply, the plan is to reject them. Even if they are gay, brown or disabled.
At first sight, the policy seems patently absurd. At second, third and fourth sight, it gets worse. It would not only be illegal under human rights legislation, but it sends the clearest of political messages: that talent, experience and intelligence is irrelevant in New Zealand, and political correctness is everything.
And if this is the thinking of the Labour Party leadership in Opposition, you can imagine such thinking will spread across the public sector when Labour is returned to government. The prospect of women-only jobs and appointments looms large. An unofficial prejudice made official.
If Labour wants to know why it is stuck in a polling wasteland, and John Key seems destined to repeat Helen Clark's three-term administration, this policy proposal explains all. Five years in Opposition has taught them absolutely nothing.
Such sexist suicide sends shudders through us all, even women. If Labour's logic is applied, professions they dominate - teaching, nursing, the media - will require reverse quotas. And let's ensure strict gender quotas for specialist undergraduate schools like law and medicine because women also dominate tertiary education these days.
Which is the really odd thing about Labour's policy: it fails to recognise the massive societal change under way. It is actually young men who are under-achieving in the new currency of learning. And that will have massive implications for the next generation.
But obviously men aren't under-achieving enough for the Labour Party hierarchy. Some artificial nobbling is also required.
Especially, it would seem, of their party's electoral chances next year.
"Sexist suicide"; we can see that line slipping into the political vernacular as easily as the expression Man-Ban already has. And epithets such as that will continue to haunt Labour in the months ahead.So they should; tokenistic policies which are demeaning to women have no place in politics.
In a rare touch of irony, Shane Jones also provides our Quote of the Day today, having been also featured in our Whodunnit? series. He is quoted in a Herald story on Labour's proposed Man-Ban:
Mr Jones said he had spent yesterday in and around Kerikeri and Kaitaia talking about the proposal, "and the overwhelming response is the public doesn't want the country run by geldings".
"Of course it's important that we have a diverse set of personalities in our caucus but merit cannot be disowned for mediocrity, whether it's Maoris, women or anyone else."
Mr Jones said most people in the provinces - where Labour needed to recapture support - were focused on the economy.
"They don't care who is going to exercise the power provided they're talented, they've got merit and they can develop a solution to the economic woes affecting so many people."
Shane Jones is absolutely right. The 120-odd people who represent us in Parliament should be there on ability first and foremost. Gender, identity, sexual orientation and all the other labels are very much a secondary consideration.
Colin Espiner has not pulled any punches with regard to Labour's proposed Man-Ban; he opines:
Oh dear. I really didn't think it was possible for Labour to top its own goal over the Sky City corporate box debacle. But it has.
After a week where the Government ought to be on the back foot over the GCSB saga, Auckland's nutty property market, and the death throes of one of its coalition partners, Labour has come out with a policy so politically barmy it makes you wonder whether it really has any interest in winning the next election.
Labour's Wimmin's Division is proposing that the party introduce quotas in some of its keenly contested electorates so that only women can be selected as candidates.
It's proposing a target of 45 per cent women in caucus in 2014 and 50 per cent in 2017 - despite the fact that already 41 per cent of its caucus are female.
As it lurches from debacle (SkyCity) to disaster (the Gower poll leak) to another debacle (the Man-Ban), the Labour Party's ability to take aim at its foot, shoot and connect grows by the day. David Shearer must be tearing his hair out.
But rather than simply point out that the proposal is barmy, Espiner explains why; read on:
The plan is stupid on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. But here goes:
For starters it's unnecessary. Labour already has far more women in Parliament than any other political party. It can boast to have produced New Zealand's first elected female prime minister - and one of its most successful. The Labour movement has produced inspirational women in all walks of public and corporate life and who have set New Zealand at the forefront of the fight for gender equality internationally.
It's outdated. Quotas are unfashionable unless they concern orange roughy or snapper. They were popular among affirmative action proponents in America in the 1970s. At a time when there is real debate over whether we need the Maori seats given the success of Maori politicians generally, Labour is proposing turning back the clock.
It's divisive. The policy will infuriate at least half of the wider Labour Party - probably more. Candidate selections are often fiercely contested. If male candidates are banned in some electorates there will be hell to pay, and the media will have a field day.
Last, it's ghastly politics. Labour already has the left-wing feminist vote in the bag. But that isn't enough. It also needs the blue-collar conservative male vote to regain power. It's just blown that right out of the water.
Labour has always struggled with the public perception it was too politically correct, too feminist, and too much in the thrall of minority interest groups. It might have been unfair, but nonetheless this was the perception, particularly during the Helen Clark years.
Already the media has dubbed this new proposal Labour's "man ban". I can just see the party's strategists smashing their heads against the nearest brick wall.
Actually Colin, it wasn't "the media" who dubbed this a "man ban". Give the credit where it's due, and it's due to Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater who first broke the story on Thursday morning.
But that's just a small point of correction; the label has stuck, and even if the party withdraws the proposal or it is voted down at the Labour Party conference in November Man-Ban has entered the political lexicon, and will forever be a blight on the Labour Party.
And Espiner is not done. He concludes with a stinging rebuke for Labour:
David Shearer has - after initially stating the policy had "some merit'' - realised he's dealing with a political bomb and come out against the policy, saying he favours targets rather than quotas. Senior Labour MPs Phil Goff, Shane Jones, and Andrew Little immediately recognised the damage the proposal would do and have denounced it too.
But it may be too late. This idea needed to be taken out and quietly shot before it ever saw the light of day. From now until it's debated at Labour's annual conference in November, Labour's opponents will have a field day.
The Opposition needs to be talking to the electorate about jobs, housing, incomes, and hip-pocket issues. Not navel-gazing about its gender balance. The public, to be frank, doesn't give a toss whether Labour has 41 per cent women MPs or 50 per cent. They just want good candidates and good policies.
Labour needs to be totally focused on winning the next election. Not wringing its hands over the way it does it.
Once again, Labour is being forced to defend its actions, rather than taking the fight to the Government. Once again, it is the Opposition under scrutiny rather than National. Once again, Shearer's grip on the party is being questioned.
Already under pressure from poor polling, this is the absolute last thing Labour needed.
This is indeed the last thing that Labour needed. But the level of ineptitude from the Labour Party is such that they are bound to give the commentariat plenty more ammunition in the coming months as the Spring Offensive draws ever closer.
This one is from Josie Pagani, who probably would be the MP for Mana right now, had the Goffice not overridden the will of the Mana LEC at the 2010 by-election. Instead, Labour's Kris Faafoi turned one of Labour's safest seats into a marginal in 2011.
Here's what Josie Pagani has to say on Labour's proposed Man-Ban, via Stuff:
"I can't understand why the Labour Party would be emphasising something like this when they're trying to get the focus on jobs and power prices and the need to get wages up, so strategically it doesn't make sense to be talking about this right now."
She did not feel a need to be pushed forward as a candidate based on her gender.
"Certainly I wouldn't stand in a seat where I felt like the implication was I couldn't win it on my own accord without some 'special help'," she said.
"That's the thing about quotas - for me they are short-term measures, they're a kick-start when needed."
While there could be a need for quotas in countries such as Afghanistan - where women have been excluded from the political process - that was not the case in New Zealand.
"We absolutely need more women represented in Parliament - but we need a diverse section of women represented in Parliament - and I think that's more effective.
"I feel there needs to be a diverse range of women represented in political processes and in the Labour Party, but I think this is a blunt instrument."
This is incredibly dumb politics from Labour, and especially from the party's new general secretary Tim Barnett. What on earth is Labour thinking?
Girls can do anything. Quotas are demeaning, patronising and just plain stupid.UPDATE: Kudos to Josie Pagani; she has now confirmed that she will not stand for Labour again if the Man-Ban becomes a policy. That would be the Labour Party's loss.
Stuff has been running a poll on Labour's proposed Man-Ban since yesterday afternoon. More than 6,000 people have responded, and the results will not please Labour's strategic genii one iota; check this out:
This is as overwhelming a rejection of this daft piece of policy as one could imagine. The total number of people thinking that this is a good idea is around the level of support that the Green Party attracts. And more than three out of every four respondents rejects this madness entirely.
But please Labour; don't be deterred by us. Push on with this proposal, if you think that it will make a blind bit of difference. Then look across at the National Party benches. Judith Collins and Anne Tolley have been in Parliament for some time. Paula Bennett joined them in 2005. And the likes of Hekia Parata, Nikki Kaye, Amy Adams, Jo Goodhew and Louise Upston were all part of the 2008 intake. Of the latter five, four are now Ministers, and Mrs Upston is National's Chief Whip. No quota system or Man-Ban has been necessary for them.
The Man-Ban is tokenism at its worst, and is demeaning to women. Whatever is Labour thinking?
We've just got home, done a few chores, turned the computer on (in that order!) and spotted this in the Herald:
The Labour Party is set to introduce a new rule under which electorates will be able to prevent men from seeking selection as a candidate by restricting it to women only.
A copy of the draft rules were leaked to blogger Whaleoil and include a provision: "An LEC [Labour Electorate Committee] may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate."
Labour's secretary Tim Barnett confirmed the rule change was included in the changes the NZ Council hoped to get approved at the party's annual conference in November. The proposal was from a working party set up after last year's conference, at which the party had set a target of 50 per cent female representation.
"It's a mechanism to get a more equitable caucus in terms of gender. Caucus composition has been stuck between 35 and the low 40s for the past 20 years or so."
So the "inclusive" Labour Party is going to exclude one gender from standing for nomination as a candidate in certain elections. Surely they're joking; right?
If they aren't joking, this is amongst the worst tokenism that we have ever seen. Women don't need to be demeaned or patronised in this manner; they are perfectly capable of getting ahead on their own merits. Frankly, Labour Party women should be insulted by this proposal.
Where's Helen Clark when you need her?
