On ABC's 7.30 tonight, there was discussion of a stoush over the pre-selection of a man to fill the shoes of Nicola Roxon, who has resigned - with many saying it should have automatically gone to a woman again.

I personally find such an approach abhorrent - since the right of pre-selection remains or should properly remain with the branch that person represents - an issue that even Julia Gillard - who benefited massively from Labor's demanded 40% men, 40% women and 20% open - said was a wrong turn by Labor in the past that she would see right.  i.e. a return to pre-selection in the hands of the rank and file and NOT the power brokers at Party Central placing THEIR candidate by imposition from above.

So - when this actually occurs and the will of the people says differently from the hardened ideologues who actually believe in enforced representation as being democratic - the entire process is vilified and called undemocratic, since a (gasps) MAN was pre-selected in a safe seat.

What say ye - Members of The House? ::)

Fill out the poll - ye Sassenachs!

Quote:

"I personally find such an approach abhorrent"

As do I.

Voted accordingly.

Labor's blatant feminist agenda is but one of the things that's turned me off them.

Emilys List... pathetic.

I voted 'no' but to clarify I mean the candidate should not be selected just because she is female but on merit. (so technically it could go to a woman again)

:(

I must admit, though, that my first thought upon reading the thread title
was that someone had hawked-up a couple of nice big green 'gollies' and
deposited them on Gillard or Roxoff or someone... ;) :o :-? ;) :o :-?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

Fill out the poll - ye Sassenachs!

There is no maybe or dont care. I dont care which gender is in the seat. Obviously others dont either.

SOB

I voted no but only in the context of the thread, but the word being left out of the poll "automatically"

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:39am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 8:26pm: Fill out the poll - ye Sassenachs! There is no maybe or dont care. I dont care which gender is in the seat. Obviously others dont either. SOB

Depends upon the reasons.  It shouldn't be filled just based on gender (affirmative action) but on the merits of the candidate.

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:39am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 8:26pm: Fill out the poll - ye Sassenachs! There is no maybe or dont care. I dont care which gender is in the seat. Obviously others dont either. SOB Depends upon the reasons.  It shouldn't be filled just based on gender (affirmative action) but on the merits of the candidate.

Thats right. However the poll is asking us to choose based completely on gender.

PS did you get back to that other thread?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

PS did you get back to that other thread

..being?

Swagman wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:06am: PS did you get back to that other thread ..being?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365459525/17

Post number 17. You need to acknowledge it so you can stop saying all ppl have to do is "get a job" and realise there arent enough jobs to go around.

SOB

Acknowledge what?  That if you want a job you can get a job?  I'll stand by that.

Anyway I made my reply... :)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 12:52pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:06am: PS did you get back to that other thread ..being? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365459525/17 Post number 17. You need to acknowledge it so you can stop saying all ppl have to do is "get a job" and realise there arent enough jobs to go around. SOB

And I heard on the news this morning that the jobless rate
is UP, so that's even less jobs to go around.

Kat wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 12:52pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:06am: PS did you get back to that other thread ..being? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365459525/17 Post number 17. You need to acknowledge it so you can stop saying all ppl have to do is "get a job" and realise there arent enough jobs to go around. SOB And I heard on the news this morning that the jobless rate is UP, so that's even less jobs to go around.

Yes harder but not impossible.  That is the point.

I've never seen a zero unemployment stat yet have always managed to get a job.  Some times you have to move around
to where the jobs are or be pro-active and apply direct without any job ads or take a job that you don't like but at the end of the day if you really want a job you will get a job.

Kat wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Quote: "I personally find such an approach abhorrent" As do I. Voted accordingly. Labor's blatant feminist agenda is but one of the things that's turned me off them.

But, it can so easily be argued that ideologies have their rightful place as political representations, even if at odds with the deterministic demon that we know of as democracy.

What I'm trying to say is that a 'natural' course of events is one that will favor women over men and dictatorship over democracy.  That is, of course, unless there is a God.

The whole argument was over some saying that since it was a 'women only' seat it should go to a woman again - I personally follow the policy of best person - regardless of gender - but obviously some do not - hence the argument at all.

The issue is - should there be a mandated number of women only seats - as Labor so obviously demand at this time - and when the actual voted goes the other way - should that will of the voters be overturned to favour policy?

What, my bruvvas and sis :)tahs - IS democracy?

I amended the poll - voting already was 10:1 against automatic pre-selection for another woman.  Vox Populi....