Clem Simich

Can a Carpet Bagger Win Selection Safe Blue Seat?

The National Party has some safe blue seats coming up for selection in 2014. Hunua and Clutha-Southland are the two safest blue seats in the country, and the candidate selected in these seats will have a long career in parliament without ever having to worry about their majority.

This means carpet baggers looking for a easy seat that takes them straight to Wellington without having to campaign seriously will be buzzing around Hunua and Clutha-Southland like flies around shit. I don’t object to this, opportunists can win, and because National has been so useless at succession planning they do not have a stable of good candidates ready to run in safe blue seats like Waikato, Taranaki-King Country or Clutha Southland.

Carpet baggers can win selections in safe blue seats even if they have little connection to the seat. John Key won Helensville despite not having any real connection to the electorate. Though to be fair that was a head office stitch up of monumental proportions. Maggie Barry won in North Shore when there was no good local. My oldest friend in caucus Scott Simpson won Coromandel despite having no real connection to the electorate other than a bach. The common factor in these seats was the low party membership, meaning the Party HQ could stitch up selection for a chosen candidate.  Read more »

Farrar on Labour Selection

David Farrar goes back to the days when Helen Clark controlled the Labour Party. She controlled it with an iron fist, partly because she was so much more competent than her caucus colleagues.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the parliamentary party and the party organization were divided, the Labour Party leader had very little influence over candidate selection. In fact, some interviewees reported that in 1993, the party president and her allies deliberately influenced candidate selection to move the ideological orientation of caucus to the left and to replace the incumbent leader (which is how Clark came to the leadership in 1993). However, under Helen Clark’s leadership, during which time the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary wings were far more united, many interviewees reported that she did influence many electorate selections

Clark was firmly in control. Now, no one is.

Then Farrar pointed out the truth about the National Party.

By the way this can not happen in National. The head office gets zero say at all on selection meetings. Their role is just the traditional veto early on of totally unsuitable candidates.

As a National candidate you can tell the party to stick it and there is nothing they can do. National candidates are selected by mainly local delegates and long term party members who will pick the person they want, not who the leader or the party want. The classic example is David Kirk not being able to beat Clem Simich in Tamaki.

If National cant rig a selection for a world cup winning All Black captain who received a Rhodes scholarship they can’t rig a selection.

Know your Weasel: slippery Kate on men, universities

I think the genteel electors of Epsom deserve to know the Weasel Labour have foisted on them and exposing slippery Kate’s radical views will become a regular feature on WOBH. A source brought to my attention a speech slippery Kate gave in 2006 and I was sitting on it for the campaign proper but Lindsay Mitchell alluded to it in the comments over at Farrar’s so I thought I’d run with it now. In the speech – or less politely rant – Sutton slams her own mob and decries rape and sexual assault as ‘the norm’ at Auckland.

The speech is a shocking example of hate-filled misandry. Here are some samples:

Women are the victims war (sic) fought by men

My party, the labour party talks about ‘half now’ and putting women out there yet only 32.2% of MPs are women and 23% of cabinet are women – its disgraceful

choices are limited for women in many of these roles and also because the systems that we work within are male dominated systems that are constructed by men.

At this university where many of you feel safe and free from discrimination, the so called ‘critic and conscience of society’ –is one of the worst places that systematically discriminates against women at every level. Why is it that 17% of professors and associate professors are women? But it that over 50% of general staff are women – its because there is still a hierarchy of jobs and there is a still a system where women have choices to move ahead – the boys network still exists in this university and ignores merit and denies women the choice to move forward in their career.

This place is fucking appalling – men tell you what to do, men make you feel bad – men for the benefit of men shape the system. As students we are objectified – I have been one of the people who have made jokes about “easy first years”

University is a sad story for women and we don’t fight against it because we ignore it or see it as tough luck cause its normal.

Date rape, gang rape, sexual violence are all the norm here – it’s a joke because men make it so and they are the blokes, the boys club and they are putting us down and taking our jobs.




Does slippery Kate believe gang rape and sexual violence are the norm at Auckland University, or is she just pandering to a crowd of radical feminists? If it is the former, then I think her radicalism speaks for itself. If it is, as I suspect, the latter, slippery Kate is guilty of spewing some vile hate speech to pander to her crowd.

Lindsay Mitchell ditches Socialist Rag


Lindsay Mitchell: ACT voters and libertarians are not decent people

Lindsay Mitchell is hopping mad. Not the least because she has had the temerity to read the socialist rag otherwise known as the Sunday Star-Times.
She is mad because they have insulted her.

The SST editorial says;

[quote]The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.[/quote]

Her response to the Editor;
[quote]

Dear Editor

Please cancel our subscription to your newspaper today. It is not without regret that I choose this course of action. News is important to me. Ideas are important to me. But today's editorial, which infers ACT voters, libertarians and people of faith are not "decent" people, is a more extreme view than those you profess to warn against.

Lindsay Mitchell[/quote]

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tagged:

Lindsay Mitchell to be arrested?


Lindsay Mitchell: My imminent arrest

Well perhaps not. Some nutcase is sending her letters about her imminent arrest for crimes any sane person is unable to ascertain from the documents provided by said nutters.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tagged: