Labour’s proposed man ban
Labour continues lurching to the left, and stealing policies of the Greens. This time they are stealing the Greens policy for gender quotas for candidate selection, but they have gone even further than the “fruit loops” and are proposing a “man ban”, where an electorate can apply to have a women only selection!
Whale has been leaked the proposed new Labour Party selection rules. They are embedded below.
The rule mandating a quota for women is:
New Rule 289A. For the 2014 election the Moderating Committee shall, in determining the list, ensure that for any percentage of party vote likely to be obtained, and taking into account the electorate MPs likely to be elected with that level of Labour support, the resultant Caucus will comprise at least 45% women. For the 2017 and subsequent elections the percentage shall be at least 50%.
So this is a fully fledged quota for women. No more having to compete on merit. If Labour looks to get 50 MPs, then at least 23 of them in 2014 must be women, and from 2017 at least half of them must be women.
Note that the 50% quota is a minimum. Under this rule a caucus of 75% women and 25% men would be fine, but a caucus of 48% women must not be allowed.
New Rule 248A. An LEC may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate. Such approval overrides the right granted in Rule 251 for any member to be eligible for nomination.
This is the one that takes the cake. Labour wants electorates to be able to ban men from even seeking selection for that seat. I don’t think even the Greens are that deranged.
I fervently hope that the Labour Party conference adopts these new rules. It will help marginalise them and make them more unelectable. Imagine having to campaign for a party that bans men from seeking selection in some seats!
I suspect some MPs will speak out against these changes, as they tried to do with the change to the leadership election rules. But the fervent activists will no doubt ignore them again.