I watched the questions by James Shaw to Christopher Luxon and disagree with your portrayal of that.
Luxon clearly had very limited knowledge of the Genocide Convention or of the interim decision of the International Court of Justice and was just making incorrect statements.
That is not seeking refuge in the fine-print, it is commonly called lying.
Confirmed by his statement shortly after correcting himself.
Yes, I think the appeal of right-wing populist male "strong leaders" is in part to young men who interpret feminism as an attack on masculinity - and to conservative Christians who fear homosexuality and diverse gender identities. So "the personal is political" (the feminist slogan of the 1970s) has come to pass: people are voting along sexual-political lines. Here in Australia it's been fascinating to see the Liberal and National parties' coalition rejected in the last general election, in part because "Teal" independent women candidates kicked the Liberals out of a number of traditional seats in inner suburbs of major cities. The Teals attacked the Coalition's appalling record on the environment, and their failure to engage and respect women. And the Coalition seems unable to increase their proportion of women candidates - they're bogged down in the perception that only men make strong leaders - they can't stomach the obvious, practical solution of introducing quotas of women candidates. (How that would improve the quality of their candidates!) So quite minor issues (transsexual women in women's sports; drag queens reading to children in libraries) attract extraordinary amounts of right-wing attention and outrage - because gender issues are CENTRAL to politics at present. To put it another way, traditional gender roles now have their backs up against the wall - they really feel threatened - and so they're fighting for what they perceive as their lives.
Excellent points thank you, Kai. At the moment, NZ is revolving around its Treaty issues, but one can see the issues you raise are waiting in the wings. And NZ National isn't all that well equipped to deal with them. Oddly, it's Seymour who'd be more nimble here, as he has an instinctive liberalism akin to John Key. NZ Green candidates could, arguably, pull off something like what the Teals did in Australia. Perhaps that's in part what Chloe achieved Auckland Central, previously held by Nats.
But would Greens women appeal to voters in safe Nats seats, or would moderate right independent women candidates like the Teals here be more likely to take those seats?
Good point. Greens won't win in safe Nat seats. Auck Central was always only marginally Nat. Indeed, Jacinda lost to the Nat candidate in Auck C. But, since the 1940s in NZ, it's almost impossible for independents to win in local electorates. It would take an outstanding candidate.
I watched the questions by James Shaw to Christopher Luxon and disagree with your portrayal of that.
Luxon clearly had very limited knowledge of the Genocide Convention or of the interim decision of the International Court of Justice and was just making incorrect statements.
That is not seeking refuge in the fine-print, it is commonly called lying.
Confirmed by his statement shortly after correcting himself.
It appears that Luxon wasn't at all well briefed on that one.
It was great to follow up with Pat and Chewie on BHN to discuss these topics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lfp-yoycwA&list=PLKzyMX9pCGMsRt0GFmPwIGlRgDjkiTRO3&index=1
Yes, I think the appeal of right-wing populist male "strong leaders" is in part to young men who interpret feminism as an attack on masculinity - and to conservative Christians who fear homosexuality and diverse gender identities. So "the personal is political" (the feminist slogan of the 1970s) has come to pass: people are voting along sexual-political lines. Here in Australia it's been fascinating to see the Liberal and National parties' coalition rejected in the last general election, in part because "Teal" independent women candidates kicked the Liberals out of a number of traditional seats in inner suburbs of major cities. The Teals attacked the Coalition's appalling record on the environment, and their failure to engage and respect women. And the Coalition seems unable to increase their proportion of women candidates - they're bogged down in the perception that only men make strong leaders - they can't stomach the obvious, practical solution of introducing quotas of women candidates. (How that would improve the quality of their candidates!) So quite minor issues (transsexual women in women's sports; drag queens reading to children in libraries) attract extraordinary amounts of right-wing attention and outrage - because gender issues are CENTRAL to politics at present. To put it another way, traditional gender roles now have their backs up against the wall - they really feel threatened - and so they're fighting for what they perceive as their lives.
Excellent points thank you, Kai. At the moment, NZ is revolving around its Treaty issues, but one can see the issues you raise are waiting in the wings. And NZ National isn't all that well equipped to deal with them. Oddly, it's Seymour who'd be more nimble here, as he has an instinctive liberalism akin to John Key. NZ Green candidates could, arguably, pull off something like what the Teals did in Australia. Perhaps that's in part what Chloe achieved Auckland Central, previously held by Nats.
But would Greens women appeal to voters in safe Nats seats, or would moderate right independent women candidates like the Teals here be more likely to take those seats?
Good point. Greens won't win in safe Nat seats. Auck Central was always only marginally Nat. Indeed, Jacinda lost to the Nat candidate in Auck C. But, since the 1940s in NZ, it's almost impossible for independents to win in local electorates. It would take an outstanding candidate.