Planet Rugby Forum

Auckman wrote:oh boy. 24 hours into the job and she's already being asked about whether she will have a baby or not.

IMO fair question for a PM because she will have to take maternity leave and an Acting PM will be taking over. In a coalition or MMP government, people will want to know who will take over for a few months. However, she can easily manage it if she times birth for the christmas / summer break. 3-4 months off and then she can manage the other associated things when she returns (breastfeeding can be done in the parenting room in parliament. Is there a parenting room in parliament?).

Dangerous question though and it has already riled up several female media commentators and probably will likely rile up other females around the country.

It was a question best left to a female journalist to ask her.

Wilderbeast wrote:

harvey wilson wrote:

You don't think raising taxes and the general ineptitude of a party led by someone who thinks like this would cause capital flight? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political ... ent-greens

You seem to have really swallowed the ethically sourced non ge fair trade Green kool aid , there's a reason the other 90% of voters recoil at the prospect of a hard left party like them being part of government.

NZ has a very low top tax comparative to the OECD. Where are these people going to go? And why didn't they leave when labour had a higher top tax rate? That argument doesn't stack up.

I haven't swallowed anything. I just read their policies, they're probably the most transparent party out there. You, on the other hand, strike me as some who repeats second hand 'wisdom' he reads on stuff comments and sources his insults from the same place. You should do your own reading. You might even change your voting preferences. That's what happened to me.

Have I insulted you? Interesting thing to say when you come out with the stuff comments nonsense and then you tell me to be open minded when its very very obvious no amount of pointing out how unfit for government the greens are for government could change your mind.

deadduck wrote:It's actually nothing to do with being pregnant, having kids, or going on maternity leave.

The problem is that she would be leading a political party into an election with the prospect of becoming Prime Minister, people are going to vote for her party in the expectation that she will continue to lead the party after the election and remain Prime Minister for the duration of the term.

Imagine the criticism Key would have copped if he'd stayed leader of National, got them over the line in the election, and then resigned his position a month later, to go sit on the back benches for the remainder of the term or left parliament altogether. Shit, he got enough of that for doing it 2 years into the term.

There's an expectation amongst voters voting for Jacinda's party that she will be the PM, especially for those voters who might swing back to Labour specifically because of her. If she has plans to leave to have a child and isn't committed to doing the role, she should be upfront about it, at the very least to preserve her reputation.

Out of all the BS vomited about it, this has to take the biscuit.

harvey wilson wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

harvey wilson wrote:

You don't think raising taxes and the general ineptitude of a party led by someone who thinks like this would cause capital flight? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political ... ent-greens

You seem to have really swallowed the ethically sourced non ge fair trade Green kool aid , there's a reason the other 90% of voters recoil at the prospect of a hard left party like them being part of government.

NZ has a very low top tax comparative to the OECD. Where are these people going to go? And why didn't they leave when labour had a higher top tax rate? That argument doesn't stack up.

I haven't swallowed anything. I just read their policies, they're probably the most transparent party out there. You, on the other hand, strike me as some who repeats second hand 'wisdom' he reads on stuff comments and sources his insults from the same place. You should do your own reading. You might even change your voting preferences. That's what happened to me.

Have I insulted you? Interesting thing to say when you come out with the stuff comments nonsense and then you tell me to be open minded when its very very obvious no amount of pointing out how unfit for government the greens are for government could change your mind.

Underlined for you. And a good argument could change my mind, you just have to present one. Unfit for govt doesn't cut it. Why are they unfit for govt?

It will be interesting to see how Ardern and Davis work as a tandem. I've always thought Andrew Little made a better deputy leader than leader. You need your leader to play the good cop and your deputy to play the bad cop. Andrew Little could have been 'angry Andy' as much as he wanted in that role.

I look forward to seeing what Labour start polling at over the next few weeks. The election suddenly became interesting.

Tehui wrote:It will be interesting to see how Ardern and Davis work as a tandem. I've always thought Andrew Little made a better deputy leader than leader. You need your leader to play the good cop and your deputy to play the bad cop. Andrew Little could have been 'angry Andy' as much as he wanted in that role.

I look forward to seeing what Labour start polling at over the next few weeks. The election suddenly became interesting.

I rate Davis highly. Winning Tai Tokerau pretty much against his party's wishes was quite the achievement. He's also not afraid to buck the trend and speak out against his party when warranted (charter schools). He's also Maori and youngish(?) so, you know, bonus points.

deadduck wrote:Jeez imagine the tutting if she did fall pregnant, she's also unmarried. Conservative NZ media would lose its shit .

It might be a politically incorrect question but it's a fair one. She's 37, this time of her life is likely her last opportunity to have children naturally (if she indeed wants them) and the role of PM and mother to a newborn don't exactly mesh. She has to be fair to the electorate and disclose her plans in this respect. She has to realise that in being the Prime Minister she's no longer just a private citizen and her private business is now NZ's business too if she is elected.

She's also publicly on record stating she wants children.

She's 37....

I mean, it's a completely reasonable question to ask for fvcks sake. As usual the feminists are flipping their shit rather than sitting back and thinking about it. No one is saying she can't run for PM, but it is perfectly reasonable to question if she plans to have kids when she is PM for gods sake. That could mean we have Winston Peters as PM for months on end and that's terrifying.

Why do people always get outraged over what to me is a perfectly fair thing to ponder.

I don't think Winston would want DPM in any govt. If you think about it, it is like the vice president of the US - what do they actually do all day? Their main purpose is to step in whenever the Number 1 is out of the country. Wow.

Winston would want something bigger and more consequential. He got foreign affairs under Helen Clark. Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

Davis would be my pick for DPM in a Labour-led govt. Greens can get something to do with the environment. Doneski.

Auckman wrote:Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

He does quite enjoy putting the boot into Kiwirail as well.

To a degree I can understand the question being asked - very politely .

But in the first hours or so ?

More of a demand than a question anyway ?

Clumsy and more than a little embarrassing .

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Auckman wrote:I don't think Winston would want DPM in any govt. If you think about it, it is like the vice president of the US - what do they actually do all day? Their main purpose is to step in whenever the Number 1 is out of the country. Wow.

Winston would want something bigger and more consequential. He got foreign affairs under Helen Clark. Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

Davis would be my pick for DPM in a Labour-led govt. Greens can get something to do with the environment. Doneski.

Winston won't report to Jacinda. End of. This is going to be a big problem for Labour's calculus I would have thought. Winston as PM (maybe for just a two year period) or no coalition.

[globus*]I was in the first Cabinet Committee meeting that Bolger and Peters were both in after the '96 election. Peters' behaviour was, eh, arrogant, ignorant, disrespectful, and oh-so-predictable. Our paper was up second and the first paper was waved through so we were in the room 20 minutes in when Peters turned up late, glad-handed his way around the room, gave Spud a clap on the shoulder, sat down next to Spud, and made no further contribution. Spud took it on the chin like a total pro.[/globus*]

Assuming that she'll be in a position to form a government, if Jacinda's got a strategic brain she'll set conditions that Peters won't live with, take the high ground, and let English live with the 'mare for three years while she chucks some good rocks at a tiring English, and at the same time builds a credible alternative government for 2020. If she's greedy she'll buy Peters this time round, but expensively and disastrously.

* for the avoidance of doubt, I like globus...

Seneca of the Night wrote:

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Auckman wrote:I don't think Winston would want DPM in any govt. If you think about it, it is like the vice president of the US - what do they actually do all day? Their main purpose is to step in whenever the Number 1 is out of the country. Wow.

Winston would want something bigger and more consequential. He got foreign affairs under Helen Clark. Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

Davis would be my pick for DPM in a Labour-led govt. Greens can get something to do with the environment. Doneski.

Winston won't report to Jacinda. End of. This is going to be a big problem for Labour's calculus I would have thought. Winston as PM (maybe for just a two year period) or no coalition.

[globus*]I was in the first Cabinet Committee meeting that Bolger and Peters were both in after the '96 election. Peters' behaviour was, eh, arrogant, ignorant, disrespectful, and oh-so-predictable. Our paper was up second and the first paper was waved through so we were in the room 20 minutes in when Peters turned up late, glad-handed his way around the room, gave Spud a clap on the shoulder, sat down next to Spud, and made no further contribution. Spud took it on the chin like a total pro.[/globus*]

Assuming that she'll be in a position to form a government, if Jacinda's got a strategic brain she'll set conditions that Peters won't live with, take the high ground, and let English live with the 'mare for three years while she chucks some good rocks at a tiring English, and at the same time builds a credible alternative government for 2020. If she's greedy she'll buy Peters this time round, but expensively and disastrously.

* for the avoidance of doubt, I like globus...

Was that the famous cabinet meeting when Tau Henare turned up wearing his dirty dog sunnies and slapped them on the table in front of his cabinet papers?

Officials aren't invited in until the meeting's called to order and they get to some subject matter that they decide they need officials' advice on. You can (and I have often) sit outside the committee room for an hour or more waiting to be called then the secretary comes out and shouts 'papers four to eleven done, thank you' and fifty people stand up and queue for those stupid tiny lifts. (BTW pretending they're relieved that their paper's almost certainly gone through unscathed and not to have been called in to explain themselves, and secretly disappointed not to have been called in and sit near the second top table for another ten or fifteen minutes, me included. )

Plot Twist:

Labour and Nats go in a coalition.

Seneca of the Night wrote:I notice that Jacinda is a lapsed Mormon. She should have about 10 children by now.

A Jew, followed by a Catholic, followed by a Mormon.

This Presbyterian will have to have a stiff whisky and a lie down. Verily, the land has been consumed by Satan.

I did warn everyone that Helen was in league with the Devil.

We animists have been having conniptions for nearly 200 years.

Well Jacinda Ardern supplanting Andrew Little has certainly livened this thread up. It's been dead the last six months.

True Blue wrote:Plot Twist:

Labour and Nats go in a coalition.

Is it Germany where the two largest parties go into a grand coalition? It's so hard to see it happening here, which is a pity as it could see the end of Winston

True Blue wrote:Plot Twist:

Labour and Nats go in a coalition.

No problem agreeing the legislative programme, English PM for 20 months then gratefully hands over to Jacinda. Works for me over any prospect of Winston or the Greens getting anywhere close to the negotiating table.

EDIT - WDB beat me to it.

guy smiley wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

eugenius wrote:To a degree I can understand the question being asked - very politely .

But in the first hours or so ?

More of a demand than a question anyway ?

Clumsy and more than a little embarrassing .

Apparently Richardson is mates with her partner, so he was set up with the question.

It's a bit of pressure to go along with the nauseating fawning that has been going on.

It is just a nonsense to wave it away and say it just 'doesn't matter'. It does.

If she was a 37 year old Helen Clark, it wouldn't as she had ruled out having children. It says a lot for the pleasant and normal person that Jacinda is that no one is really convinced she has ruled it out. She probably hasn't.

Marissa Meyer had children at Yahoo. But she is a lunatic psycho. There are the well publicised cases of City superwomen Katherine Garrett-Cox (four children), Nicola Horlick (six children - including one that died), and Helena Morrissey (nine !!!! children).

So it could be worked around I guess.

I think you need to view the question in context...

do you, Seneca, intend on having a heart attack at any stage in the near future? That being say, between now and the next election?

Has there been a falser false equivalence? In the world?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:I notice that Jacinda is a lapsed Mormon. She should have about 10 children by now.

A Jew, followed by a Catholic, followed by a Mormon.

This Presbyterian will have to have a stiff whisky and a lie down. Verily, the land has been consumed by Satan.

I did warn everyone that Helen was in league with the Devil.

We animists have been having conniptions for nearly 200 years.

I would have to have a closer look, but I think up until Spud the Dooley, the only non-Protestant PM was Vogel back in the 1870s.

Savage was raised Catholic by his sister.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Savage was raised Catholic by his sister.

That's interesting. I never associated his 'applied Christianity' with Catholicism. I always assumed it was sort of a Fabian thing.

I am not sure whether he was practicing or not, he may have had some crisis of faith after his sister died. Joseph Ward was another Catholic 20th century NZ PM.

Ward was born in Melbourne on 26 April 1856 to a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent. His father, who is believed to have been an alcoholic, died in 1860, aged 31 – Ward was raised by his mother, Hannah.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

deadduck wrote:It's actually nothing to do with being pregnant, having kids, or going on maternity leave.

The problem is that she would be leading a political party into an election with the prospect of becoming Prime Minister, people are going to vote for her party in the expectation that she will continue to lead the party after the election and remain Prime Minister for the duration of the term.

Imagine the criticism Key would have copped if he'd stayed leader of National, got them over the line in the election, and then resigned his position a month later, to go sit on the back benches for the remainder of the term or left parliament altogether. Shit, he got enough of that for doing it 2 years into the term.

There's an expectation amongst voters voting for Jacinda's party that she will be the PM, especially for those voters who might swing back to Labour specifically because of her. If she has plans to leave to have a child and isn't committed to doing the role, she should be upfront about it, at the very least to preserve her reputation.

Out of all the BS vomited about it, this has to take the biscuit.

You have strange theories. You're as close to a nihilist as probably any poster on here. There is a fashionable viewpoint in 'the west', that nothing really matters. Nothing at all. And to suggest something might actually matter, is not only wrong, it is very square.

Nietzsche's Last Man indeed. Aunty Jacinda can preside over the final extinction event, as long as it is prosperous and comfortable. After all man, what does it really matter?

Things that matter are for the terminally uncool.

I normally vote based on policy rather than the perceived odds of the leader completing the full term. The second paragraph is a completely facile analogy.

That being said I am finding myself becoming more and more of a nihilist these days. It's hard not to be really.

I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Certainly now the religious background of the family doesn't matter much, but it's certainly true that open belief in sky fairies of any sort is for the most part scorned, and a very good thing BTW. English has kept his extreme views under wraps very successfully mostly through a press that's respectful, but before Palmer, Moore, Bolger, Shipley, Clark, Key, you'd have to go back to Lange to find someone that was actually a church-head, and he was at the most benign end. We properly distrust anyone that's loony enough to actually want to follow the instructions of their god, and who offers their allegiance to them over the citizenry (Blair, for instance). Should pretty much rule them out.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

They're collecting good quality data on the margin of error.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

Seriously. In fact there were seven options:

Male
Female
Intersex
Transgender
Non-Binary
Other
Rather not say

deadduck wrote:

Flockwitt wrote:

deadduck wrote:Lots of media surrounding this struggling to tell the difference between an employee and an elected public official

So people should be bared from having children if they're elected public officials? Not really seeing the line you're trying to draw here dd.

The point is that as an elected representative there are major differences to being an employee. For instance someone like Todd Barclay could not just be fired by Bill English because Barclay was an elected MP and is entitled to see out his term regardless of what his party and the public thinks of him.
The other side of that is that as an elected representative you have responsibilities to the people you are representing and part of that is the responsibility of entering the election in good faith.

Quoting the rights an employee might have in a situation like this isn't always relevant because our members of parliament are not employees.

You're wanking on about good faith and responsibilities in the same post that you're using Barclay as example. Comic gold.

RuggaBugga wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

Seriously. In fact there were seven options:

Male
Female
Intersex
Transgender
Non-Binary
Other
Rather not say

What the hell is intersex and non-binary? I think they're just trolling at this point.

I myself am hexadecimal.

RuggaBugga wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

Seriously. In fact there were seven options:

Male
Female
Intersex
Transgender
Non-Binary
Other
Rather not say

In the area I used to work in, there was also a gender option of 'undetermined'.

True Blue wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

Seriously. In fact there were seven options:

Male
Female
Intersex
Transgender
Non-Binary
Other
Rather not say

What the hell is intersex and non-binary? I think they're just trolling at this point.

I myself am hexadecimal.

I think intersex may be haermaphrodite. Non-binary is where you've decided gender is just a social construct maaan and you refuse to be placed in a box (fnar) by society.

I was also confused by the transgender option as surely the whole point is to become either a man or a woman?

Also surely including the non-binary's in the list just annoys them more. The very fact of asking the question should be moot.

Anyway prob not the thread for it really.

They should apply the tried and true answering format.

Are you a male?

Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Auckman wrote:I don't think Winston would want DPM in any govt. If you think about it, it is like the vice president of the US - what do they actually do all day? Their main purpose is to step in whenever the Number 1 is out of the country. Wow.

Winston would want something bigger and more consequential. He got foreign affairs under Helen Clark. Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

Davis would be my pick for DPM in a Labour-led govt. Greens can get something to do with the environment. Doneski.

Winston won't report to Jacinda. End of. This is going to be a big problem for Labour's calculus I would have thought. Winston as PM (maybe for just a two year period) or no coalition.

Fair point. However, there is also the Northland familiarity factor. Kelvin Davis, Shane Jones, and Winston Peters are related to each other and have a shared history going back a long way. In fact, I reckon they put Kelvin Davis there especially because of Winston Peters. He'll report to Jacinda.

Seneca of the Night wrote:I notice that Jacinda is a lapsed Mormon. She should have about 10 children by now.

A Jew, followed by a Catholic, followed by a Mormon.

This Presbyterian will have to have a stiff whisky and a lie down. Verily, the land has been consumed by Satan.

I did warn everyone that Helen was in league with the Devil.

the "key" word is lapsed

Wilderbeast wrote:

True Blue wrote:Plot Twist:

Labour and Nats go in a coalition.

Is it Germany where the two largest parties go into a grand coalition? It's so hard to see it happening here, which is a pity as it could see the end of Winston

Sadly there are far too many die-hards who seem to believe they are mortal enemies at the opposite ends of the political spectrum for that to ever happen. Despite the fact that there policies and goals are very similar in many regards.

True Blue wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
I had to do a survey at work that listed six options for gender ffs. Hopefully this is all just a simulation.

Seriously.

Seriously. In fact there were seven options:

Male
Female
Intersex
Transgender
Non-Binary
Other
Rather not say

What the hell is intersex and non-binary? I think they're just trolling at this point.

I myself am hexadecimal.

Most people are intersex.
Well I am anyway.

Not any more - it interferes with sleep

True Blue wrote:Plot Twist:

Labour and Nats go in a coalition.

'Why don't we share?' This always comes up when the National Party feels threatened.

Auckman wrote:I don't think Winston would want DPM in any govt. If you think about it, it is like the vice president of the US - what do they actually do all day? Their main purpose is to step in whenever the Number 1 is out of the country. Wow.

Winston would want something bigger and more consequential. He got foreign affairs under Helen Clark. Maybe Transport is a biggie that he might want, given all the bridges, roads, and ports he wants to build in Northland.

Davis would be my pick for DPM in a Labour-led govt. Greens can get something to do with the environment. Doneski.

Winston can have Immigration.

Is Kelvin Davis a list MP?

jambanja wrote:Is Kelvin Davis a list MP?

He was off the list as were all Maori Labour MPs but now on at 2 because of his elevation to deputy leader.

jambanja wrote:Is Kelvin Davis a list MP?

He's currently MP for TTT. Took out Hone a couple of elections ago.