So few women MP’s and both Rich and then Collins, had an interest in welfare policy - so many men and they did not?

And in another party Newman was fronting it.

Why does this only occur in right wing parties? Just what exactly is the unique skill set which these “women” bring to this ministerial portfolio anyhow? Cmon - its to imply a caring policy - when offering a tougher line.

When Rich actually thought for herself she was dumped. As GT was from Maori policy.

But if anyone resists the selling of the right wing party line, we are now simply called stupid - being “liberal/left” PC and offside from the right wing man “mainstream” not good enough for you anymore?

“Your argument is flawed.” Oddly enough, both sides say this. So at least one of them has to be wrong (it’s always the other). Or realistically: nothing is usually wrong. It’s just different values.
“Benefiting the rich.” Enciting “tall-poppy” feelings generally.
“Racist/sexist/etc.” Association with something percieved as negative to attempt to change the perspective.
“-gate”. Er, more journalistic, I’m just sick of them using the gate suffix to any random scandal.
“Politically correct.” While in effect euphemisms and percieved restrictions of speech, it’s often used wildly outside of the intention. “Divorced from mainstream values”? The post had potential but he’s digging himself into a hole there. “I don’t like it, it’s PC.”
“Wrong.” = “I don’t like that.”
“Anti-[something]”. The accusation that one must not want something if they don’t support it. Don’t support Greens? You obviously don’t care about the environment. Don’t support United Future? You hate family values.

Two legs Good, Four legs Bad.

Although it did start out the other way round, or was that end up the other way round?

Oh dear, the Memory Hole has struck. Oops, that’s another Orwellism.

His point, I do recall, was that it was perfectly feasible to run a society on the basis of a few, frequently chanted fabrications, provided there were nasty penalties in place for non-chanting or forgetting the fabrication de jour.

Of course, we’re well past all that now, Orwell was writing, oh, two whole generations ago. No possible relevance. Move right on, nothing to see Here!

LOL… Could it be that Collins and Newman were the welfare spokeswomen for their respective parties because they’re interested in the issues, and were seen as having skills to bring to the table? Or is that just not in accordance with the conspiracy theory de jour - which I still haven’t quite got a handle on?

Sometimes, to paraphrase Mill, I think political discourse in this country has been taken over by the Stupid Party.

After all, a good many of them have wives who are ‘persons of gender’, don’t you know…

The “Eradication of Political Correctness”. Don’t they mean the “Enforcement of the Tyranny of the Majority”. Problem for them, though, is that white, sexist, racist homophobes are not the Majority anymore.

And isn’t the “Eradication of Political Correcness” itself “Politically Correct” under Mapp’s and Brash’s inept attempts to define the term.

If you want a laugh, check out the Righties getting stuck into each other over this debacle on DPF’s blog.

CR “I’m not evading your question, I’m treating it with the sarcastic contempt it deserves.”

Yeah right. So you really weren’t happy, that I asked that question.

Surely even you have noticed the cynicism of ACT and National both having women spokespersons for Welfare - National replaced Rich with Collins - what is it, a womens job to front right wing policy on these issues? Is this some sort of PC?

CR “Ditto for Alistair - I generally see no point in trying to engage with people who tell me what I think and why.”

I can only assume you cannot defend the blatant and obvious “mainstream PC” involved and would rather not discuss such matters. It is the obvious conclusion and whether you like anyone pointing it out, rather than just thinking it to themselves, is your affair.

Sorry guys but the stream has moved on, and you are stuck in a back eddy. And by the looks of things (as so often happens with stagnant water) it is starting to stink.

yeah right-on and while were at it let’s examine history shall we:

First, those zaney white abolitionists in the States, yip how dare they presume to know what was best for negro slaves.

Then, those (predominantly left-wing, white bourgeois) rabble-rousers in the UK who campaigned to let Jewish refugees into England before the second world war. The nerve of it all, presuming to know what was best for the Jews.

Then, (white, bourgeois, left-wing) Robert Conquest, speaking out against the horrors of Stalinist Russia. Silly Englishman presuming to know what was best for the Russians.

And most recently the Green Party of New Zealand speaking out for the people of Zimbabwe. Well I never.

More seriously, I think that, living in a democracy as we do (something you presumably find burdensome) the Labour Party (for example) might be quite entitled to speak out for minorities, given the vast numbers of people from minority groups who voted for them. It’s called representation.