Is John Key a hypocrite?

John Key says that, unlike Labour, National won’t be campaigning on the referendum issues. Good, they need to concentrate on retaining the Treasury benches.

However John Key did see his way to making this statement:

Mr Key says MMP has settled down and has some real advantages.

“Proportional voting systems allow greater ethnic diversity and a better gender balance.”

Perhaps he would like to sort out his own party’s Gender balance before he praises up the benefits of MMP. Maybe he could suggest to the President and Board that National’s own selection processes start using MMP to ensure a better gender balance within the party. If he moves swiftly he could have it implemented in time for the list ranking before conference.

Of course he could bypass all that by introducing four new women to caucus through the board appointments and give high list positions to the three women candidates running in seats. The tip line has suggested a number of women who are going to get list only positions, and this will be covered in the next few days.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • peterwn

    Whale – re last paragraph – Are you saying that John Key runs the Board?

    • Pretty much. There is him, and the caucus rep, that’s two, plus Peter because he would never challenge the PM. That’s three, then there is Kate Hazlett, and Grant McCallum, that’s 4 and 5 respectively, out of nine I’d say yes he does run the Board.

  • hagues

    How about appointments based on merit not just to even out numbers based on gender?

  • Ethnic diversity and gender balance? FFS we’re talking about running the fucking country not a fucking footy club chook raffle! (although I wouldn’t trust some of the retards currently in Parliament to manage a chook raffle). Comments like the one above only serve to reinforce my opinion that Key is a weak do-nothing status quo loving charlatan. howzabout we try something that hasn’t been attempted for many years and choose candidates on their ability to do the fucking job rather than some failed notion of affirmative fucking action?

    • spiker


  • titanuranus

    New Labour Party press release,

  • adolffiinkensein

    Your headline would better read:-

    ‘Is Whaleoil an Idiot?

    You’re sounding more and more like a retreaded reject from a Greens Party pre-selection.

    • Let’s not get into who sounds like what when it comes to the Quisling Key, adolf.

      Still waiting for an answer to my question from the other day. If Brash was so great as Nat leader, how come he’s so terrible as ACT leader (with exactly the same policy platform)?

    • Anything adolf? Anything at all?

    • Nah thought not. It isn’t about the quisling Key at all is it? It’s about the National Party. They could make John Hatfield or Sue Bradford leader and you’d be all over the blogs spouting about how great they are.

  • abjv

    WO said repeatedly in the pros and cons for candidates, particularly Coromandel and North Shore, that ‘National doesn’t run quotas for electorates’ and instead aims to pick the most suitable candidate for each electorate. Who they’ve ended up with this time is a derivative of the makeup of their electorate membership (which long-term is a problem for them).

    The MMP List is there for the party to ‘balance it up’ as it sees fit. e.g. you need a good lawyer-type person as an MP out the other side of an election in case you need to appoint an Attorney General. If there doesn’t happen to be one in the ‘best candidates’ chosen for winnable seats. you put one high on the list. That’s one of the benefits of MMP (some might say the only benefit).

    It is up to each party how to use the list to ‘balance’ the likely resulting MPs both in terms of appeal to voters, and the fact you might have to run a government with them. Labour balances out its electorate gaggle of gays and unionists by picking – umm err – a gaggle of gays and unionists.

    We’re yet to see National’s list. They’ll need some competent ones on it, able to take senior positions following the 2013 mid-term reshuffle (given that some of the candidates in winnable seats are either past it or never got up to it in the first place). And the resulting balance has to appeal to the electorate. In 2014. Its called succession planning.

    Personally I don’t care how they are picked. The result has to be a group I’d feel like voting for, so I would have to see competence, compatability, a sense of direction, a level of compassion, different points of view, which I’m not going to see if they are all “suited” people rather than suitable people.

  • ltchop

    Wow I see a list place for Alisdair Thompson – fit in well – he’s looking for a job !