NZ Labour – The Feminist Election Campaign
As one commenter reminded us recently, Barack Obama won his last presidential campaign by chasing the female vote.
I have made the point before that feminism is not a viable economic model, and taken to its natural conclusion there will be a point, at which it breaks the back of the federation – obviously that raises the question, who will be the last president of the United States of America?
Ask yourself this; what would an extreme feminist campaign look like and would it be easily identifiable?
There would be three key elements to look for;
Seen anything like this recently?
If you look past Labour’s campaign slogans, that simple strategy became undeniably visible, when party leader, David Cunliffe, kicked off their campaign by apologising for and demonising men.
Another commenter pointed out that Cunliffe was elected by the party; however that is not how I would see it.
There is a dominant feminist-faction in labour that wanted a manageable figure head. Cunliffe, a former diplomat who knows how to satisfy political masters and being the elitist politician he is, would happily trade trotting out their extreme feminist campaign to fulfil his dream of being prime minister – they’ve got him by the puppet strings.
These same feminists quietly waiting in Labour’s back room, would have pointed this out and Brenda Pilot, PSA (1) secretary and Helen Kelly, CTU (2) president, both staunch feminists who would have promoted Cunliffe to the unions as the man for the job.
It was a case of a leadership election by feminist fraud – not election by the conscious voter – the unions were conned.
Cunliffe fits well with ALP (3) leader Bill Shorten – they are both elitist politicians (No doubt they see themselves as a wonderful combination for Trans-Tasman leadership) but Cunliffe so much more so, that he couldn’t be bothered turning up to his deputy’s (David Parker) conference speech.
Parker was quick to distance himself from Cunliffe insisting he is ‘egalitarian'(4).
They are both addressing factions of the party, but that’s Labour as it is.
That confirms the distance between Cunliffe and Parker, who obviously still has leadership aspirations. Even if Cunliffe hasn’t worked it out, his useful purpose is only to front an election campaign, any spoils of victory would be short lived with Cunliffe destined to join the growing collection of failed puppets alongside Phil Goff and David Shearer.
Is there a manly side left in Labour – that’s a question of integrity.
Anti-Male. Anti-Family. Long live the mothers and children of the feminist dream. Feminist dogma has become Labour policy and we would pay a high price should it succeed more than it already has.
Watch the dining-room tables burn and let our next generation graze at the refrigerators of New Zealand. It doesn’t matter what your education policy looks like if children come to school from a broken down society.
They will come happily to school to eat their free lunch but not hungry to learn.
It’s all a bit of a mess really, but what else would expect from a political environment that insists its primary requirement is to burn men at the stake of extreme feminism.
1. PSA – Public Service Association
2. CTU – Council of Trade Unions
3. ALP – Australian Labor Party
4. Egalitarian – believing in equality for all people.
In a Labour leadership primary the vote of the caucus is given a 40 per cent weighting, as is the vote of the wider membership, with unions holding 20 per cent of the vote.
Last year Robertson was defeated in his bid to become leader, despite winning the support of 16 of the 34 MPs in the Labour caucus, against 11 who backed Cunliffe and seven who picked Jones.
The raw data from members and affiliated unions was only made public.
The numbers show that among party members, Cunliffe had the support of 3243 members, compared to 1440 who selected Robertson and 709 who picked Jones.
And when it came to the unions, the backing was even more emphatic.
Among delegates in the Dairy Workers Union, 33 backed Cunliffe, six backed Jones and Robertson did not win a single vote.
Among EPMU delegates, 25 delegates backed Cunliffe, eight backed Robertson and two back Jones.
In the Maritime Union, 15 delegates chose Cunliffe for leader, one chose Jones and none backed Robertson.
In the Meat Workers Union, 22 preferred Cunliffe, six Jones, and one Robertson.
In the Rail and Maritime Transport Union 18 chose Cunliffe, three Robertson and two Jones.
The vote in the Service and Food Workers Union was the only one which was anywhere near close, with members of the union voting rather than simply delegates.
But Cunliffe was still the preferred candidate, with 254 members giving him their vote, 177 backing Robertson and 66 backing Jones.
Those with twitter and facebook accounts – tweet and spread message:
—————————-
Record consent before being falsely accused of “ª#‎rape”¬ or “ª#‎DomesticViolence”¬. Under @nzlabour you are guilty unless proven innocent. “ª#‎nzpol”¬
Comment by ashish — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 11:53 am
I am not persuaded that National are any more family friendly than Labour. Remember the parental leave is for mother and her partner, not for fathers.
At Forum on the Family, when shown many examples of parents being prosecuted under the Crimes Act s59. John Key said he didn’t see any problems, his officials said there were no problems and noone apart from Family First was complaining about problems. When he was shown problems, then he would act on them, as he has always promised!!??
[I think in essence he meant noone but Family First and 4000 parents dealing with CYFs and many thousands of fathers dealing with familycaught$, but noone listens to them anyway.]
Bob McKroskie rolled his eyes and politely said nothing.
For me, the take home message from the Forum, was National are practically as dangerous as Labour, probably more. Maybe for different reasons, which I guess are more important than the reasons that Labour shouldn’t be trusted.
I see gambling debts, broken families and fat, easy retirements for politicians all around.
I see alcoholism harm growing, but with minimal publicly funded treatment.
I see families distracted by defending themselves from worthless prosecutions, plundered by legal defense bills and crushed into silence.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, costing 100x the parental leave token.
No promise to support a working complaints commission for CYFs.
No promise to support a working complaints commission for familycaught$, or even to get familycaught$ working effectively and cost effectively. (Just turning it off would be a good first step, if they cannot do better.)
Winston Peters came across surprisingly well, by comparison. Ditto Colin Craig, who promised to address s59.
All of this shows how important it is to go to candidate’s election meetings and ask questions about family policies.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 2:54 pm
Murray, would you vote for a men’s rights party that started their campaign with a slogan like women are witches and we are going to hunt them down?
Labour has become fanatical, obsessive, extreme when it comes to its behaviour around domestic violence.
They might as well rebrand as the DVP – the Domestic Violence Party – that upholds the torch of feminist idealism.
Even their would-be Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, was holding his flamming torch over the police today, for not prosecuting enough men.
This sort of stuff belongs in the dark ages and they’re expecting voters to accept this as normal sane behaviour and them as rational policy holders for a better New Zealand.
Either Labour needs to get back to its roots or we need to accept the Labour Brand has been permantly highjacked and hope to see a people’s party succeed in left wing politics.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 3:26 pm
I have always been saying this.
Initially, as an immigrant, I also went to vote for Labour, because everyone was doing it. This was like 3 elections ago. But that was the last. I could see the deterioration of male concerns as a blanket approach was being taken for womens’ rights by making all men collectively guilty of a previous patriarchal society.
The men that still support Labour’s ideals are either:
1. who are confused about their gender.
2. who have gone past their use-by dates.
3. who are after sympathy sex.
4. who don’t actually analyze policies and determine support by which party was in power when they migrated.
Honestly, I can not see any male who has even a bit of self dignity supporting the extreme ideals of this party.
Comment by ashish — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 3:37 pm
Downunder, I agree. I can only see Labour as of historical interest only, of no forward looking importance.
I mentioned evidence offered by Family First:
Mum on a Mission
My Mummy is a Criminal
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 3:54 pm
When Labour (a female term if I ever heard one) started touting the need to equalise the number of women candidates, they lost the plot.
Women may or may not be better politicians than men; they might or might not be better prime ministers. Sadly, I don’t think their track record in either is that impressive (no more impressive than men).
So to insist on 45% female candidates (officially dropped as a policy, as I recall), and then present – amazingly – 45% of their candidates women, shows their true colours.
Why not 15% of their candidates as Asian? Why not 5% Polynesian? 10% Maori? 16% disabled? 20% retired? 4% Muslum and 12% Christian? You get the idea. [actual percentages may not be statistically factual].
No, there is a feminist agenda.
Their policies are just feminism in action.
Can anyone name a specifically male-orientated positive policy?
They’ve definitely lost my vote.
Now for National? Mr Teflon Key may not actually offer any specific male-positive policy either; but I reckon better the devil you know.
Oh electronic tagging of all men is on its way, mark my words, regardless of who is in power.
So too, guilty until proven innocent, and ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine’ in family court. (read that one from the woman’s perspective).
The anti-money laundering implemented by National is a start. Before long they’ll be able to track your wealth, and will eventually become fair game in the tax and divorce courts.
Labour will eventually regain office, and tax the wealthy (who , unsurprisingly are still male).
Women will win more instant outing of men (where ‘outing’ of men means ‘out of the family home; its now mine’; ‘out of involvement in parenting’; ‘out of the teaching industry’ (well under way already); )
The solution?
Sex change, guys. Its the only way. Bob Moodie understood this. Don the dress. Alice is Wonderland is surprisingly appropriate – it is a fantasy world we’re headed for.
Gotta go now – my skirt awaits me ….
Comment by OMG You're (*&^^% — Wed 9th July 2014 @ 8:09 pm
It should be obvious to anyone except someone mentally challenged that all the parties in power since the human and parental rights of children and fathers have been ignored are using feminists to gain power and control over the general population.
Laws that feminists and pretend feminists who are actually statists write and vote for are written in non-gender language. So all the rights that females think they are taking away from males, they are actually also giving away the same rights!
hate begets hate.
People need to wake up and realise that Labour Party has been the same as the National Party in most countries for the last 30 years.
The Greens got voted in by pretending they would get rid of Genetic Engineering and at least make sure it was labelled for us to choose. They lied.
ACT & NZ First have also voted for anti male and therefore anti children and family laws.
Which as stated earlier, are also anti-female laws whenever cops and Judges decide they don’t like that female.
So that leaves the new parties = Internet/Mana, People’s Mandate Party (mandatory consensus laws i think), Copnservative Party who remain the only viable and unrevealed Party’s as far as i know. Please correct me if i’m wrong.
If we don’t vote we can’t really complain. Even if we think its all corrupt we have nothing to lose.
p
Comment by Phil Watts — Thu 10th July 2014 @ 11:19 am
#6 – OMG You’re (*&^^% : Totally agree, but you’re behind me on the sex change list so wait ur turn.
Comment by Phil Watts — Thu 10th July 2014 @ 11:21 am
@Murray Bacon
Do you know if Family First had video cameras rolling for those interviews?
Surely they must have and be providing links for a wider audience outside the conference.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 11th July 2014 @ 3:22 pm
Phil Watts (#7): A nice summary there, well done.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 12th July 2014 @ 11:09 am
cheers bro, i can count the number of times someone has said “well done” to me in my life on the fingers of one hand!
Comment by Phil Watts — Sat 12th July 2014 @ 12:18 pm