The Dim-Post

December 4, 2014

Rank

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 11:44 am

Stuff has a cut’npaste story up on the TransTasman newsletter’s annual rankings of MPs, a yearly ritual in which a bunch of elderly right-wing journalists pour praise on their favorite right-wing politicians and scorn on their most despised left-wing enemies. Whatever.

But what struck me reading through the rankings is that there seemed like a big difference in scores between male and female MPs irrespective of any left-wing/right wing bias. Even female National MPs I rated quite highly were ranked lower than totally undistinguished male Nats. And it’s even worse for Maori, who all seem arbitrarily low regardless of party, or how well they perform.

The data breaks down like this: Average score for a Male Pakeha MP in the Transtasman ranking is 5.4. Males overall have an average ranking of 5.1. Pakeha overall average 5.1. Maori are way lower than Pakeha with average rankings of 4.6. Female MPs are way lower with an average ranking of 4.4. If you compile the rankings for Labour and the Greens, the men get an average ranking of 5.2, but the women are dragging them down with an average ranking of 4.4.

Here’s a list of the TransTasman writers. I’m informed that the sole contributors are the authors listed at the bottom of the report. You might not be shocked to learn that they are all white men. But what that means is that TransTasman’s inequality in their rankings and staggering bias towards Pakeha males has nothing to do with identity politics. See, identity politics is just something the left does to privilege women or Maori. It’s a form of political correctness gone mad in which people value gender or ethnicity over actual merit, but when white guys get privileged, or when we coincidentally overwhelmingly favor other members of our race and gender that’s definitely nothing to do with identity politics. Or racism or misogyny. It’s always just because we all deserve it. Shame on you for doubting the analysis of the impartial, objective white guys at TransTasman!

53 Comments »

  1. What nonsense Danyl, I just checked the list and they actually have two women in the TransTasman team. One office admin to manage their schedules and organise the office party and another woman to format their words into pretty PDF documents and email them out!

    Comment by Richard29 — December 4, 2014 @ 11:58 am

  2. This stuff is fucking awful. It sounds like an excerpt from the Turf Digest’s tips for Race 5 at Trentham.

    “Failed to fire during the election campaign. Did just enough to avoid the disloyalty tag. Extremely competent Whip and a political beast.”
    “… boundless enthusiasm and a huge work ethic… ”
    “a fourth could be within his grasp . . . the question has to be whether the PM has the staff in place to support him to a fourth term.”
    “… There’s nothing he needs to prove and, if he sometimes seems boring, he couldn’t care less.”
    “Does he have the will and the stamina for another three years on the Opposition benches and a campaign in 2017?”
    “Strong campaigner with a big ego . . . Watch for a leadership tilt in the future.”

    Comment by Phil — December 4, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

  3. Louise Upston

    Promotion was no surprise and she’s destined for the cabinet. She’ll be expected to hold the line against Labour’s fierce females when women’s issues come up – which will decide whether she goes up the rankings

    Very intrigued by this analysis. Are they saying that if Upston suddenly declares herself a feminist and recant her comments on beauty pageants that’s a negative or a positive? How about her rankings depend on what she does for women?

    Comment by TerryB — December 4, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

  4. Christ I look at that list and see Julie Ann Genter described thus “Transport is her thing and she does it well. Fierce opponent of the Govt’s highway binge, good speaker who researches the issues.” which is good enough for 4.5. FFS that’s shocking.

    Comment by TerryB — December 4, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

  5. Tracy Martin “Makes the most of what Winston Peters leaves for her. Gives the Govt a hard time, she’s good with education. And she has to take a bunch of newbies under her wing this year.” is worth 4 (down from 5 in 2013!). You could go on and on but yup some evident bias.

    Comment by TerryB — December 4, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

  6. John Key out on his own? Well, yes, when it comes to deceit, dishonesty and breaking promises. Indeed, I don’t think there is a politician in living memory who could rival the current PM.

    Comment by Ross — December 4, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

  7. danyl, danyl …

    The pakeha male MPs all made it to their current positions without any special assistance, because of their individual skills and capabilities. So of course they are going to do well in their role, given that only the best of the best get chosen. Maori and women MPs, on the other hand, are just the recipients of special pleadings who have been promoted into positions that they lack the basic abilities to perform (although some of them try really hard, and good on them for giving it a go!).

    See? Even your puny “facts” wither in the face of ideology.

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 4, 2014 @ 2:32 pm

  8. I fink the people wot won get higher marks.

    (Further uniquely insightful punditry now available, to pad out lazy radio programmes and my CV)

    Comment by sammy 3.0 — December 4, 2014 @ 2:35 pm

  9. I we hadn’t given the ladies and maaries the vote, then the average would have been higher. Stands to reason. Bloody PC gone mad.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 4, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

  10. transtasman is either really biased, or women, maori and left leaning politicians really suck.

    Comment by leah — December 4, 2014 @ 3:51 pm

  11. I fink the people wot won get higher marks.

    Except the boy winners (male National MPs) got an average mark of 6.25, while the gurl winners (Female National MPs) got an average mark of 5.625.

    Comment by Grassed Up — December 4, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

  12. Here we have a bunch of political activist nut-jobs (well seasoned, right wing), with identity biases to the fore, ranking politicians – they’ve produced a very stupid list. You respond by pointing out the intrinsic stupidity of the approach and indulging in some well needed ridiculing.

    If a bunch of political activist nut-jobs (varied vintage, left wing) place identity biases to the fore when ranking politicians, that gets ridiculed as well. It is, as you prove, so very easy to do and thankfully so.

    Comment by unaha-closp — December 4, 2014 @ 4:50 pm

  13. Ethnicity and gender issues aside, the Trans-Tasman newsletter is basically an old boys’ club newsletter that exists to say nice things about itself.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — December 4, 2014 @ 4:57 pm

  14. “the Trans-Tasman newsletter is basically an old boys’ club newsletter that exists to say nice things about itself.”

    And apparently get re-published in the DomPost. For some reason.

    Comment by izogi — December 4, 2014 @ 5:27 pm

  15. If a bunch of political activist nut-jobs (varied vintage, left wing) place identity biases to the fore when ranking politicians, that gets ridiculed as well. It is, as you prove, so very easy to do and thankfully so.
    No. It is a function of salience. Properly ranking a list without a gender bias will contrast with the Pakeha-male normative standard. This means it appears to be a result of identity politics, but the reality is that is an absence of gender politics.

    Pakeha-male normative bias is so pervasive that you’ve been brainwashed into thinking it is a result of meritocracy. Methinks you gain an advantage from this position.

    Comment by Mikaere Curtis — December 4, 2014 @ 9:10 pm

  16. MC Subtle & true.

    Comment by paritutu — December 5, 2014 @ 7:36 am

  17. According to David Farrar, the real victims here are the unjustly criticised middle aged white males of the Trans-Tasman and Dompost. God Farrar is a pompous prick.

    Comment by Sanctuary — December 5, 2014 @ 7:45 am

  18. Have you considered that the women in Parliament may actually be, on average, less capable than the men?

    (For example, because the sexist environment of Parliament tends to keep the most capable women out, or hinders them from performing to the best of their ability once they’re in)

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 9:16 am

  19. My point is: the TransTasman guys may not actually be being sexist themselves, rather reporting (their take on) the unfortunate results of other people’s sexism.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 9:19 am

  20. Or is there someone here prepared to argue that the National Party recruits lots of talented women, and they perform brilliantly in Parliament, and the TransTasman guys just refuse to recognise it?

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 9:38 am

  21. “Properly ranking a list without a gender bias will contrast with the Pakeha-male normative standard.”

    I agree, here the pakeha-male normative bias of the TransTasman authors has produced a ranking list.

    Yet as our host shows that list contrasts greatly with the selection processes of the National party.

    “Even female National MPs I rated quite highly were ranked lower than totally undistinguished male Nats. And it’s even worse for Maori, who all seem arbitrarily low regardless of party, or how well they perform.”

    Any claim of pervasiveness of TransTasman type pakeha-male normative bias is therefore highly questionable.

    If you correct on the basis that there is a pervasive bias when in fact the bias is weak, you produce a result worthy of ridicule.

    Comment by unaha-closp — December 5, 2014 @ 10:08 am

  22. Or is there someone here prepared to argue that the National Party recruits lots of talented women, and they perform brilliantly in Parliament, and the TransTasman guys just refuse to recognise it?

    I am.

    Go read the comments attached to the rankings for National’s male and female cabinet ministers. There’s no appreciable difference in the evaluative terms used for the performance of each. Yet the male cabinet ministers have an average score of 7.28, while the female have an average of 6.67.

    This is true for individual examples. Paula Bennett, for instance, is said to be “a loss to the welfare portfolio. Bennett had skin in the game, it needed her. … She was a key player in the successful 2014 Election campaign, making sure candidates measured up and did their job.” Sounds like she was pretty much a complete success … but her performance “only” gets her a 7.5 (5th equal highest of National’s cabinet, along with five other Ministers).

    Of Chris Finlayson it says “John Key has faith in the MP who Tariana Turia says is the best Treaty Negotiations Minister NZ has ever had.” Which gets him an 8. Why? How is his performance .5 better than Bennett’s? And if it’s just “subjective ranking”, then what does it tell us about the biases of those doing the ranking that men are ranked higher pretty much across the board?

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 10:15 am

  23. > Of Chris Finlayson it says “John Key has faith in the MP who Tariana Turia says is the best Treaty Negotiations Minister NZ has ever had.” Which gets him an 8. Why? How is his performance .5 better than Bennett’s?

    Presumably if Tariana Turia had said that Paula Bennett was the best social welfare minister NZ had ever had, she would have got an 8 too?

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 10:30 am

  24. Bennett had skin in the game

    Skin? That was just leopard print. Silly old buggers.

    Comment by Joe W — December 5, 2014 @ 10:31 am

  25. @Antoine,

    OK, then. Compare these descriptions.

    “X is a smart, capable, no-nonsense Minister and X is on top of X’s portfolios. And X is one to watch – it wouldn’t surprise anyone if one day X is National’s deputy leader.”

    “The former [professional] is a natural for [this] portfolio and seems happier with it than Y was with those Y previously held. Y has a safety first instinct and wants to take the sector with Y. Expect [the portfolio] to be a steady ship.”

    Which one deserves the higher mark, based on these assessments?

    (Here’s a hint to help you decide – the first is a woman, the second is a man).

    We could do this all day, of course … but like I said earlier: petty little things like “facts” aren’t going to shift ideology.

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 10:52 am

  26. @Flashing Light

    I think the reason why the second Minister (Coleman) is ranked higher than the first (Adams) is that Coleman’s portfolio (Health etc) is more important than Adams’ (Justice etc). To be ‘a natural’ for the Health portfolio and run it as a ‘steady ship’ may be seen as a higher bar than to be ‘on top of’ the Justice portfolio.

    > We could do this all day, of course

    We could, and no doubt we’d uncover lots of inconsistencies and oddities in the TransTasman assessment,

    >… but like I said earlier: petty little things like “facts” aren’t going to shift ideology.

    Just remember you have your ideology too.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 11:02 am

  27. I think the reason why the second Minister (Coleman) is ranked higher than the first (Adams) is that Coleman’s portfolio (Health etc) is more important than Adams’ (Justice etc).

    Errrr, what? You must be sole resident of a universe where a bunch of older white blokes wing blokes assumes that a centre-right government place more importance on a health portfolio than a justice one.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 5, 2014 @ 11:24 am

  28. *older right wing blokes

    Comment by Gregor W — December 5, 2014 @ 11:24 am

  29. @Gregor

    As far as I can tell (being a complete outsider) the National Govt thinks it’s pretty important to have someone well-thought-of in the health portfolio. It’s crucial to the Govt’s image with voters. Having Ryall in Health got them coverage like this:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/vernon-small/9773871/Minister-of-loud-ties-and-safe-hands

    No doubt they will be hoping for more of the same with Coleman.

    I’d add that Vote: Health is $15B per year and Vote: Justice is just $400M (if I am reading http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2014/summarytables/estimates/09.htm correctly).

    A.

    PS For the avoidance of doubt, I am not necessarily arguing that Ryall _actually_ did a good job in the health portfolio!

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 11:33 am

  30. > You must be sole resident of a universe where a bunch of older right blokes assumes that a centre-right government place more importance on a health portfolio than a justice one.

    The point that Coleman is ranked higher than Adams in Cabinet is kind of a clue, too

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 11:39 am

  31. @Antoine,

    Just remember you have your ideology too.

    Yes. But mine is true!

    Seriously, but. Here’s what we “know”. We know that the Transtasman writers have created a ranking list of MPs. We know that their list systematically ranks female MPs lower than male MPs, both generally and within specific parties. That difference in ranking also applies to “high achievers” in the National Party.

    So then we look for why that might be the case. One explaination is that the nature of the job (being a politician) is unattractive to women, so far fewer women opt to participate than men, meaning that there’s a far smaller talent pool to select from, so that those who do take it up are (on average) not as good as the men that do … plus the nature of the job then makes it harder for them to “succeed” at it. Another explaination is that those doing the ranking are looking for and rewarding traits that they themselves possess and/or admire, which has the gendered bias effect of ranking male performance above female.

    I’m now wondering why these are either/or explanations? After all, the 3 Transtasman writers are consummate political insiders. We should therefore expect them to share the sorts of biases/preconceptions that “the sexist environment of Parliament” (as you called it) exhibit. Meaning that one of the reasons that fewer women want to participate in politics is precisely because of the underlying method of assessment as applied by people like the Transtasman writers. Which then creates a feedback loop – the Transtasman writers are “reporting (their take on) the unfortunate results of other people’s sexism”, while at the same time feeding into it by giving women across the board lower marks than men (because they are not seen as being “as good at” politics).

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 11:40 am

  32. > We know that their list systematically ranks female MPs lower than male MPs, both generally and within specific parties.
    > So then we look for why that might be the case.

    That’s good! I approve. Most of the other commentators have skipped this step and jumped to a knee jerk conclusion.

    > one of the reasons that fewer women want to participate in politics is precisely because of the underlying method of assessment as applied by people like the Transtasman writers

    You could be right. I don’t know much about the motivations of women in turning away from a political career, never having met one who’s done so🙂

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 11:51 am

  33. The point that Coleman is ranked higher than Adams in Cabinet is kind of a clue, too

    Not really. By that logic then in terms of major portfolios the current government must believe that Local Government is far more important than Health, less alone the centre-right staples of Justice and Energy and Resources.
    Broadly speaking the portfolio rank must be ideologically grounded otherwise how would you explain patsy portfolios like Defence and Regulatory Reform being way ahead of unimportant shit like Education and Social Development.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 5, 2014 @ 11:59 am

  34. @Gregor

    > Not really. By that logic then in terms of major portfolios the current government must believe that Local Government is far more important than Health, less alone the centre-right staples of Justice and Energy and Resources.

    You are referring to the fact that Bennett is ranked one place higher than Coleman?

    I think Bennett’s core portfolios of Local Government, Social Housing and State Services _are_ very high priorities for this Government’s 3rd term.

    > Broadly speaking the portfolio rank must be ideologically grounded otherwise how would you explain patsy portfolios like Defence and Regulatory Reform being way ahead of unimportant shit like Education and Social Development.

    You are referring to the fact that Brownlee and Joyce are ranked higher in Cabinet than Parata and Tolley?

    I think there might be another explanation for that!!!!

    One that is neither racist, sexist nor ideological

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 12:15 pm

  35. You are referring to the fact that Brownlee and Joyce are ranked higher in Cabinet than Parata and Tolley?

    No. Quite simply referring to the portfolios, not the relative competence of the Ministers attending them.

    I’m just trying to elicit what side of the fence you are sitting on in response to Flashing Light’s comment @ #25 given that you appears to be saying that important portfolios go to the top people, and yet we have clear examples of both bullshit portfolios and not particularly competent Ministers (not mentioning any Brownlee’s in particular) being placed ahead of important portfolios and capable Ministers – not even taking into account the whole apparent bias in TransTasman’s ratings.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 5, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

  36. > you appears to be saying that important portfolios go to the top people

    Nah, you missed the point of my #26.

    The point I was making was that success in an important portfolio (like Health) is considered more of a feather in the relevant Minister’s cap, than equal success in a less important portfolio (like Justice).

    (Not that Coleman has actually had _time_ to demonstrate success in Health yet, but we’ll let that pass)

    > We have clear examples of both bullshit portfolios and not particularly competent Ministers (not mentioning any Brownlee’s in particular) being placed ahead of important portfolios and capable Ministers

    I get that you don’t agree with National’s Cabinet rankings or have a high opinion of their MPs. You’re welcome to your opinion.

    I think Flashing Light is perfectly capable of holding up his/her end of the argument without you stomping around trying to elicit stuff on his/her behalf.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 1:04 pm

  37. (Not that Coleman has actually had _time_ to demonstrate success in Health yet, but we’ll let that pass)

    Ahem.

    So his assumed future competence in a “more important” portfolio means he “deserves” a higher rating than someone with demonstrated competence (and future leadership potential)? Lucky there’s no assessment bias at work, otherwise imagine what the results might look like! :-}

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

  38. Oh there’s bound to be assessment bias, I’m just not convinced its gender-based.

    For all I know the writers personally know both the MPs involved and/or or have gossiped with other people that do. And have formed an opinion on their respective characters on that basis.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 1:29 pm

  39. For all I know the writers personally know both the MPs involved and/or or have gossiped with other people that do.

    How does this exclude/mitigate the possibility of “gender bias”?

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

  40. In that it acknowledges that there may be other reasons for ranking the MPs the way they are, other than (a) gender or (b) proven performance.

    If your point is that the writers are running around in a clique of aging white right-wing males, and therefore that all the ‘gossip’ they hear comes from an aging right-wing male perspective, then you may or may not be correct. I don’t know either way, as I don’t know the gentlemen personally (not being an aging white right-wing male!)

    This discussion has strayed rather from my original point, which was that in any given group of people, it is possible that the average competency of the females may actually be more than that of the males, or vice versa. Where this is the case, acknowledging it is not sexism.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 1:57 pm

  41. his discussion has strayed rather from my original point, which was that in any given group of people, it is possible that the average competency of the females may actually be more than that of the males, or vice versa. Where this is the case, acknowledging it is not sexism

    And I guess my final (honestly!) response to this would be that where the assessment of “competency” is done purely on subjective measures, and those doing the subjective assessment are three white males, and the result of that assessment is that the people who look like them are deemed across the board to be more competent than those who don’t look like them, then there are strong (albeit less than absolutely conclusive) reasons to believe that the assessment exercise has been tainted by the unconcious or implicit biases of those undertaking it (see here: http://med.stanford.edu/diversity/FAQ_REDE.html) … reasons strong enough (I would argue) to put the ball back into the court of those who have conducted the assessment exercise to show how they’ve guarded against any risk of bias.

    Not that, in the end, it really matters. Who cares about Transtasman?

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 2:55 pm

  42. I dont give a rats about TransTasman. What concerns me is how Danyl spends his time.

    I think his original post was intended to persuade people that the TransTasman writers, and by extension their National Party cronies, are a bunch of sexist racist old white male right-wing douchebags… in order to get more people to vote Green next election.

    I dont think thats a great use of his talents, which would be much better employed writing satire like God intended.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 3:16 pm

  43. I think his original post was intended to persuade people that the TransTasman writers, and by extension their National Party cronies, are a bunch of sexist racist old white male right-wing douchebags… in order to get more people to vote Green next election.

    I get that you don’t agree with Danyl’s assessment of the TransTasman’s confirmation bias or have a high opinion of his analysis. You’re welcome to your opinion.

    I think Danyl is perfectly capable of holding up his/her end of the argument without you stomping around trying to project your opinion of his motivation.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 5, 2014 @ 3:58 pm

  44. I think his original post was intended to persuade people that the TransTasman writers, and by extension their National Party cronies, are a bunch of sexist racist old white male right-wing douchebags… in order to get more people to vote Green next election.

    I dont think thats a great use of his talents, which would be much better employed writing satire like God intended.

    Isn’t there a certain irony in you chastising danyl for leaping to conclusions about what the TransTasman authors were “really” doing (being sexist/racist old white men), then leaping to your own conclusions about why he is doing so? Maybe he just thinks, you know, that the TransTasman rankings are fucked … and that as they are being bandied about in the media, that might be worth a comment? Or are you really a National Party operative sent here to discredit his analysis? Are you? ARE YOU?

    Oh … and people who tell danyl that he should “just write satire” are just like those annoying individuals who show up at gigs yelling at the band to “play us your old stuff!” If you don’t like the new direction he’s taking, don’t buy a ticket.

    Comment by Flashing Light — December 5, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

  45. I think the meta-issue here is that “competence” is, in politics (and possibly elsewhere, but let’s not go into that) a metric which is both universal (e.g, everybody, regardless of political values, believes that competent politicians are better than incompetent politicians) and highly subjective. Or, to put it more succinctly, we can all agree that competence is good, but we can’t agree what it is.

    The irony here is that Danyl himself, as recently as his post-election blogs, has been a strong advocate that competence should be the main metric we use when assessing politicians, going so far as to say it should be subordinate to issues of policy and organisational democracy. If somebody’s assessment of “competence” is inevitably informed by their subconscious bigotry, then this means a political party that prioritises appearing competent over everything else may well end up in some unpleasant places.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — December 5, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

  46. I think his original post was intended to persuade people that the TransTasman writers, and by extension their National Party cronies, are a bunch of sexist racist old white male right-wing douchebags… in order to get more people to vote Green next election.

    Maybe. Or it could just be that he noticed a funny example of how sexist old right-wing males are douchebags and pointed it out. Feel free to let Occam’s Razor sort it out for you.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — December 5, 2014 @ 7:32 pm

  47. I’ve just noticed that Transtasman gives an average rating of 7.0 to gay men – far higher than the 5.0 given to straight men. Gay men actually appear to be the highest placed subgroup in the entire set of rankings.

    So that’s something, I guess.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — December 5, 2014 @ 10:25 pm

  48. It is hard to accept that Catherine Delahunty is more of an idiot than Steffan Browning.
    I don’t know her but isn’t she sort of like the staunch spiritual guide of the more radical greens: like, say, the Roger Kerr or Ruth Richardson of the green movement? An acquired taste but well regarded in her own context?
    Whereas he is … well, nothing needs to be said after the ebola thing.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — December 7, 2014 @ 8:59 am

  49. Also, I don’t thin you’d find too many National supporters who would really rank Michael Woodhouse above Nikki Kaye.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — December 7, 2014 @ 9:07 am

  50. I don’t know her but isn’t she sort of like the staunch spiritual guide of the more radical greens: like, say, the Roger Kerr or Ruth Richardson of the green movement? An acquired taste but well regarded in her own context?

    Finding out what Delahunty actually gets up to is only a click away. Certainly it’s a lot more informative than fishing to have your prejudices confirmed around here.

    Comment by Joe W — December 7, 2014 @ 9:23 am

  51. I don’t thin you’d find too many National supporters who would really rank Michael Woodhouse above Nikki Kaye.

    That was got me looking at the numbers.

    Comment by danylmc — December 7, 2014 @ 2:41 pm

  52. Well I dont know about the general list, but I can understand why maori MPs are so low. Tell me anything any of them have achieved for maori. In fact tell me anything any of the great list of maori MPs since 1938 have done for maori. You will probably need a bit of paper sized about A20

    Comment by barry — December 7, 2014 @ 10:43 pm

  53. Well, Matiu Rata set up the Waitangi Tribunal.

    Comment by kalvarnsen — December 7, 2014 @ 11:14 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: