Internet-Mana Party. The fallout begins

So the fallout of the Kim Dotcom Internet Party and Hone Hawaria's Mana Party merger has begun. This in itself isn't a suprise,  as Sue Bradford made clear when the meger was first suggested that she was dead against it and would quit if it went ahead. Thankfully Sue is a woman of her word and has stuck up for her principles. Contrasting with Mana Party leader Hone Hawaria's money and anti John Key lust, that has lead to him selling out his principles.

I can only conclude that Hone is selling out for Dotcom's cash, because there is no other reason for Mana and The Internet Party to contemplate any sort of alliance. They have no crossover appeal at all.
One party is a Maori national socialist party from what would generally be described as the hard left. The other is in the mold of the Pirate party, a largely single issue technology based party,  with general appeal to technology savvy voters. Most experts agree that the general type of voter that the Internet Party should appeal to are tech savvy,  business minded, younger, center-right leaning voters.
In other words in a normal world these two parties would not even consider talking to each other, let alone entering into a formal merger for parliamentary purposes.
They should be ridiculing each other in the time on political tradition,  not jumping into bed with each other like some messed up drunken game of jealousy sex.

Luckily for us we have Sue Bradford,  and likely others, to confirm to us that Mana is selling out its principles,  and indeed its mana, for the sake of money from Kim Dotcom, and a chance to skew the 2014 election in their favour. If it wasn't for Sue standing up for jer principles,  no doubt Mana and the Internet Party would be trying to spin this as some sort of great coming together of the minds.

Although I don't, and never will agree with Sue Bradford's politics, I have had the chance to meet and deal with Sue Bradford,  and can say she is a nice respectful person,  and appeared to me to be no different to you or I. Rather than her public persona, which is generally ogerish and rabid.

Thus I can conclude that for Sue Bradford to be so against this merger, as to quit a party she joined soon after it was founded, she must have a genuine belief that this merger is against the best interests of the political left in New Zealand, and New Zealand politics in general. This is reinforced by her reported comment on Radiolive this afternoon.

"Sucking up to German millionaires is not my vision of the future."

Clearly reflecting her socialist anti capitalist views.

What will be interesting, and is something that hasn't been given much media attention, is what Maori think of the merger. Especially those Maori who were drawn to Mana's strong  Maori nationalistic policies. I can't see them gaining anything from this merger.
Indeed I see many reasons for them to be appalled at the merger, given there's only room in a party for one large personality. And I hate to tell you, Hone won't be that large personality,  Kim Dotcom will. He's a one man publicity machine, especially since his extradition trial is likely to be big news in the lead up to the election. Mana's policies and issues will be swept by the way side in the Kim Dotcom tsunami. There will be no room for discussion of any Maori issues. How can this be good for Maori voters?

How many other Mana Party members will wake up to this and defect from the party? What effect will that have on the combined Internet-Mana party vote come election day. Is it a case of rats jumping from a sinking ship before it's even left port?
Only time will tell. But in my eyes it doesn't look good.

Diversity? Or just another thing to shout about?

The other day this blog post from a NZ bank Ceo caught my eye, The Rainbow Connection, about their push to become Rainbow Tick certified. The Rainbow tick is an idea to boost inclusiveness in the workplace and assess your organisation's policies and procedures against a set of criteria for gender and sexuality inclusiveness. A worthy goal no doubt.

But do we need yet another layer of policy written, and another standard to assess our HR policies against? Or is it just a case of tokenism driven by marketing think rather than any real need?

Personally I think sadly it's the latter rather than the former. I base this upon the fact that ASB felt the need to make a blog post on their new staff inclusiveness policy in public. To me this shows they are seeking some sort of recognition for their decision. I assume they hope this recognition will come in the form of new business, and being talked about. I guess that I'm writing about it confirms the latter point. We also know that the so called queer market is a highly lucrative one. With in general this market demographic having a high level of disposable income. So for a bank this could be a lucrative market.
I also noted that ASB have created a new group called diversity, for connecting with the LGBTI community.  Again I think this reinforces the marketing aspect of the decision to become part of the Rainbow tick program.

I say sadly because all workplaces should accept their staff for who they are. Their sexuality and gender have nothing to do with it. We all know the research tells us diversity is better for a companies bottom line.  But should it become our focus above hiring the best person for the job?
If they do a great job does it really matter what a staff memeber does or identifies with as long as it's legal?
I don't think matters at all. It could be yet another sign of our increasing push for influence of our employees lives outside the workplace. As an employer or hiring manager all you should care about is that they are the best person for the job, and that you have a safe workplace for all your staff.
Now I guess you could argue that having the Rainbow tick adds to the workplace safety as Barbara Chapman ASB's Ceo does.
But then where do you draw the line for workplace safety? And do you risk pigeonholing your staff into different boxes based upon a set of criteria that has nothing to do with their work ability.  Do you also risk marginalising others staff who feel they are no longer important, or that their peculiarities don't matter.
As a left hander I feel marginalised on a daily basis. I mean have you tried writing with a nice pen when your hand brushes over your freshly written masterpiece, smudging it so it looks like a piece of interpretive art. Or even some smartphones having the microphone on the bottom right corner,  which is right where you want to put your little finger if you're a lefty.
Frustration doesn't begin to describe these. And arguably they have more relevance to my work than my sexuality.

I'm not trying to trivialise sexuality and gender identity at all. I know it's a sensitive topic to discuss, and many people have strong feelings about it.
A lot of people struggle with their own sexuality and sexual identity as it is.

To make it a big deal in the workplace could be a good thing, or a bad thing for someone who is struggling with their own thoughts around this. As an HR practitioner I'd hate to have it on my conscience if implementing something like the Rainbow tick program made someone who was struggling with their feelings feel more uncomfortable,  or more pressure to label themselves one way or another.

In my mind all good organisations should aim to employ the best talent they can, and promote their best talent as fast as possible. Without worrying about what quota they are filling, or box they are ticking.  If you pick the best, you are highly likely to promote diversity more so than under a targeted system. Diversity of sexuality or gender identity happens right across the population,  so without worrying about it,  you'll do it anyway.

Worrying about it, and assessing your HR policies against ever increasing numbers of diversity criteria is just going to make you go grey quicker, and remove your eyes from your focus on staff performance. Then you'll be in real trouble.

Introduction

As a long time reader and commentator of blogs on things that interest me I thought it was about time I get down to writing one myself, and making a place where I can share my views on things with others.
I can't promise it'll be polished at first, but I can promise it'll always be honest. You'll know exactly what I think of things. I wear my heart and opinions on my sleeve, and don't apologise for any of it. As a wise man once told me it's a hell of a lot easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

It'll have a kiwi focus on the things I care about, and some I don't, but that grab my interest, or just I find funny. Some may be universal world wide,others uniquely kiwi in application.
So if you're from outside New Zealand and have stumbled across this, then welcome. Feel free to read and comment. Us kiwis are known for our welcoming laid back culture. But don't be surprised if some of what I say doesn't make sense to you.

As the descriptior at the top of the blog says it'll mainly be a blog about politics,  mainly NZ, but also around the world where I think I have something worthwhile to say. Economic issues,  again with a NZ focus, but also putting my take on some of the economic issues of the day. Human Resources in New Zealand,  and my take on things that come across my desk and screen on a regular basis. Plus the odd bit of sport, cars, bikes, and lifestyle topics.

All will be from my view unless titled as a guest post. And with this comes my view that everything is basically political, and we live in our own little bubbles that shape how we interact with the world.

About me. Well I'm Kiwi guy in my 30's in New Zealands North Island, but originally from the lower part of the South Island.  I'm university educated, not that that nessacrily makes me any smarter than anyone else. I've had an interest in politics from a young age, that became more prominent while at university,  when I realised others listened to what I had to say sometimes. This developed into studying Politics at university to understand it a bit deeper. I'm right of centre on most issues,  but also pragmatic. A good argument is a good idea no matter where it comes from and will win out over playing the man every time. Voters are smarter than politicians give them credit, most of the time.
I dealt with mental health issues while at university,  which has helped shape me into who I am. Not define who I am.
My main area of expertise is Human Resources (HR) which I will comment on regularly from a practitioner's point of view.

I hope you'll enjoy reading the blog and giving me your feedback. I don't suffer fools gladly though, so political topics may have comments moderated if they get out of hand in personal attacks, or become party political statements without engagement.