Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835065 1-Aug-2017 15:45

mattwnz:

I am guessing she may also want to have kids in the near future, which won't be all that easy if you are the PM. Not all people want to have kids, but most seem to.

I was gonna jump on this huge generalisation, but it seems it is correct in this case:

Ardern says she wonders if she's done the right thing talking about her desire for family.

"But maybe there's some benefit out there in being a bit more open about the struggles we all have in balancing these things in our lives? Maybe I just need to be open and have some faith that it'll be okay."

She's 36 years old?

"Yeah."

Smiling, smiling, smiling - even when the questions have become ridiculously personal: "I don't mind people knowing that I have that desire, but maybe I'll keep some explicit timelines out of the picture.

"I have to be really conscious that when I'm talking about these things, it does, by default, drag Clarke in too. Politics does that to our partners and our families, and that's tough."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11789352

That said, I think you over-egg the impact on women of having children versus men; sure, the pregnancy period's somewhat more tricky, but can't see why after that it's a big issue. Unusual for a leader, yes, but not insurmountable.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1835067 1-Aug-2017 15:51

If she did become PM, and then if she did have a child while PM - would that be a world first?

I don't have a problem with it - if that's what she chose to do. Plenty of women are forced by economic necessity to return to work soon after having children.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835074 1-Aug-2017 16:02

Fred99:

If she did become PM, and then if she did have a child while PM - would that be a world first?

Seems not to be the case. That said, most sites answering this question report unelected rulers like Cleopatra, or figurehead heads of state like Queen Victoria.

But it does seem the first elected head of state to have a child while in power may have been Benazir Bhutto - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtawar_Bhutto_Zardari

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1835101 1-Aug-2017 16:57

mattwnz:

Yes age is just a number etc etc. However it comes down to maturity, as well as life experiences. Lets just say that I don't think she will be any match in the leaders debate against the like of English, Winston Peters etc. SHe hasn't been in politics all that long, an didn't she she did say she had no aspirations to be leader quite recently? I am guessing she may also want to have kids in the near future, which won't be all that easy if you are the PM. Not all people want to have kids, but most seem to.

She's been in politics (and the Labour party) for 20 years. Most people with 20 years experience in a field would be thought of as very well qualified. She's young, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

I don't get this attitude that "real world" life experience is some critically important feature for a politician/leader. When I go see an accountant I don't feel more confident because they used to be a farmer. I don't pick the surgeon who only recently picked up the gig after 15 years of software engineering.

John Key's life experience as a foreign currency trader taught him to 1) ruthlessly fire people with no emotion, and 2) amass a vast personal fortune. For the life of me I will never understand why some people actually viewed that as a strength instead of a weakness.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1835222 1-Aug-2017 20:30

allio:

mattwnz:

Yes age is just a number etc etc. However it comes down to maturity, as well as life experiences. Lets just say that I don't think she will be any match in the leaders debate against the like of English, Winston Peters etc. SHe hasn't been in politics all that long, an didn't she she did say she had no aspirations to be leader quite recently? I am guessing she may also want to have kids in the near future, which won't be all that easy if you are the PM. Not all people want to have kids, but most seem to.

She's been in politics (and the Labour party) for 20 years.......

......... I don't get this attitude that "real world" life experience is some critically important feature for a politician/leader.

Two points here:-

1. You would have thought she would have learnt by now lol

2. Donald Trump!

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1835556 2-Aug-2017 11:20

I cant help feeling this is a deliberate ploy by Adern, Robertson and Co. To change leaders before election campaign would involve large amounts of time, money and Union inputs. Their rules allow a leadership change during a campaign to be determined by caucus. This could be a shrewd move.

darylblake

1162 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1835697 2-Aug-2017 12:57

No. Its not a shrewd move in my opinion.

Labour have drifted too far to the left of politics. A lot of the leaders they have had recently, like Cunliffe, Shearer and Little have been trampled on by the government. National has been offering reasonably sensible policies which are predominantly centralist policies.

Elections are won in the centre. This lot has wandered over and sat down with the greens. While National and NZ First have cleaned up in the centre. You would hardly refer to National as a hard right party any more.

Jacinta doesn't change much at all. Public nonsense and slow NZ news days threw her up onto a pedestal which ultimately pushed her into a role she was not particularly enthusiastic about. Labour will try and pull out all the stops to win votes now. It may work, it may not. But they really really need to go back to the drawing board and re-invent their policies if they want to be involved in a government.

The other terrible thing that Little did was get in bed with the Greens, a crazy move and one which has cost a lot of support.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Journeyman

1186 posts

Uber Geek

#1835753 2-Aug-2017 14:18

MikeB4:

They are polling at around 35% ? turmoil? Actually the left are polling around 77%

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just dreaming. Labour has been polling in the mid-20s. The left are polling nowhere near 77% - in fact, I can't remember the last time they came anywhere close. At the moment the left wing are polling at 39% all up - best case scenario.

Poll: Labour crumbles, falling towards defeat

Leaked poll puts Labour at just 23 per cent

Labour slumps to its lowest level in more than 20 years in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835759 2-Aug-2017 14:30

Journeyman:

MikeB4:

They are polling at around 35% ? turmoil? Actually the left are polling around 77%

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just dreaming. Labour has been polling in the mid-20s. The left are polling nowhere near 77% - in fact, I can't remember the last time they came anywhere close. At the moment the left wing are polling at 39% all up - best case scenario.

Poll: Labour crumbles, falling towards defeat

Leaked poll puts Labour at just 23 per cent

Labour slumps to its lowest level in more than 20 years in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll

I took out Act and other right wing and added Labour, Green, National in the left wing vote. Most of New Zealand's political party would fall in the centre left of the spectrum on the global spectrum so yeah 77% for the left vote is probably a good representation.

sen8or

1787 posts

Uber Geek

#1835773 2-Aug-2017 14:46

And that is exactly why Labour will struggle to get back in, National are far more centrist than they have historically being.

Left Wing.................................Centre.........................................Right Wing

Greens (Labour / NZ First / National) Act

I'm sure Peter Dunne and the Maori party would both sit equally in there with Labour et al but those three are pretty much stacked on top of each other, Labour slightly more to the left than National, but only because they have to be seen to be different.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1835813 2-Aug-2017 15:29

MikeB4:

Journeyman:

MikeB4:

They are polling at around 35% ? turmoil? Actually the left are polling around 77%

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just dreaming. Labour has been polling in the mid-20s. The left are polling nowhere near 77% - in fact, I can't remember the last time they came anywhere close. At the moment the left wing are polling at 39% all up - best case scenario.

Poll: Labour crumbles, falling towards defeat

Leaked poll puts Labour at just 23 per cent

Labour slumps to its lowest level in more than 20 years in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll

I took out Act and other right wing and added Labour, Green, National in the left wing vote. Most of New Zealand's political party would fall in the centre left of the spectrum on the global spectrum so yeah 77% for the left vote is probably a good representation.

National is center right.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1835831 2-Aug-2017 15:52

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Journeyman:

MikeB4:

They are polling at around 35% ? turmoil? Actually the left are polling around 77%

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or just dreaming. Labour has been polling in the mid-20s. The left are polling nowhere near 77% - in fact, I can't remember the last time they came anywhere close. At the moment the left wing are polling at 39% all up - best case scenario.

Poll: Labour crumbles, falling towards defeat

Leaked poll puts Labour at just 23 per cent

Labour slumps to its lowest level in more than 20 years in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll

I took out Act and other right wing and added Labour, Green, National in the left wing vote. Most of New Zealand's political party would fall in the centre left of the spectrum on the global spectrum so yeah 77% for the left vote is probably a good representation.

National is center right.

Not if you compare them Globally they are Centre Left

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1835964 2-Aug-2017 17:52

I had to smile at the promo for One News tonight showing Kelvin Davis leaping to Ardern's defence at being asked about having children, thereby proving that chauvinistic and condescending responses can come from anywhere. In the rush to jump on the bandwagon and show his PC credentials he did just the opposite.
She can speak for herself and doesn't need defending. If she can't, then she has no business trying to be PM.

Edit: Corrected spelling

Double edit: Promo a bit misleading, he was asked for an opinion it would appear. But she can speak for herself. Quite eloquently actually.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836285 3-Aug-2017 09:52

Fred99:

If she did become PM, and then if she did have a child while PM - would that be a world first?

I don't have a problem with it - if that's what she chose to do. Plenty of women are forced by economic necessity to return to work soon after having children.

Here's my issue with it. Labours polling results have improved since she became leader. They have changed nothing else, the policies are the same, the message is same, so people are voting for her (which is worrying enough on it's own).

Say she gets pregnant and hands over to her Deputy, goes away for a yet to be determined time, and whilst in the process of that, decides she wants to spend more time with the baby, which is 100% fine, and I'd fully support it, but it leaves people with a leader they didn't

elect with policies they didn't support under Little. Labour have been unable to make a dent in the polls for much of 9 years, because they aren't saying what voters want to hear and I don't see that changing any time soon. They are a party in turmoil and I believe it should concern voters about their ability to lead.

It's a world first and asking the question *is* reasonable, and YES I'd expect a man to be asked the same question. She has said she doesn't care about being asked, so in that regard, I'd ask why anyone else should be offended. I think there are a lot of people who just *love* some drama, they live for it, and will jump on anything remotely controversial.

Personally, I think that if you want lead a country, there are sacrifices required. For almost every other role I couldn't care less.

It also worries me she said 6 months ago she categorically didn't want to be PM. To me potentially I see her handing over to Winston to get his support. I don't want him in charge either.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1836306 3-Aug-2017 10:05

networkn:

Fred99:

If she did become PM, and then if she did have a child while PM - would that be a world first?

I don't have a problem with it - if that's what she chose to do. Plenty of women are forced by economic necessity to return to work soon after having children.

Here's my issue with it. Labours polling results have improved since she became leader. They have changed nothing else, the policies are the same, the message is same, so people are voting for her (which is worrying enough on it's own).

Say she gets pregnant and hands over to her Deputy, goes away for a yet to be determined time, and whilst in the process of that, decides she wants to spend more time with the baby, which is 100% fine, and I'd fully support it, but it leaves people with a leader they didn't

elect with policies they didn't support under Little. Labour have been unable to make a dent in the polls for much of 9 years, because they aren't saying what voters want to hear and I don't see that changing any time soon. They are a party in turmoil and I believe it should concern voters about their ability to lead.

It's a world first and asking the question *is* reasonable, and YES I'd expect a man to be asked the same question. She has said she doesn't care about being asked, so in that regard, I'd ask why anyone else should be offended. I think there are a lot of people who just *love* some drama, they live for it, and will jump on anything remotely controversial.

Personally, I think that if you want lead a country, there are sacrifices required. For almost every other role I couldn't care less.

It also worries me she said 6 months ago she categorically didn't want to be PM. To me potentially I see her handing over to Winston to get his support. I don't want him in charge either.

Have you forgotten that we've actually got an unelected PM -because the last PM merely got bored with the job or whatever?

Personally, I think people (and the media) should STFU about it.

It's a non-issue. We're electing a PM, not a president - nor anointing a future monarch.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11