- Date published:
10:10 am, June 30th, 2022 - 14 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, feminism, Media, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:
Fresh from his attempt to alienate the female vote by being equivocal on if a National Government would move to restrict access to abortions yesterday Christopher Luxon compounded things by purporting to speak for all women.
He declared that National is a party for women but then spoke for them rather than letting them speak for themselves.
From One News:
Women are most concerned at the moment around the cost of living crisis and where this country’s going. They’re deeply concerned about our health system that’s falling apart. They’re deeply concerned about an education system with poor attendance and academic achievement, and they’re deeply concerned about rising crime and gang violence.
The sensitivity is appalling. I cannot think of a comment by the leader of the opposition that has caused more derision since my old friend mucked up in saying that he was sorry for being a man.
But it was there to see. National which last election lost most of its liberal female MPs and whose current caucus is only a third female has a male leader who wants to speak for all women.
Twitter has had a field day.
1/3rd of your caucus is women & you think women in NZ are murderers
Jog on Spanky pic.twitter.com/Oo87017Ihw
— paul le comte 🇺🇦 (@five15design) June 28, 2022
oh man now he's telling women what they're worried about. this is a shambles. pic.twitter.com/DEfAmy7wyO
— David Cormack (@David_Cormack) June 28, 2022
My husband asked me what I'd like for my birthday. I said he needed to ask Christopher Luxon because he knows what women want better than I do.
— Fifi ⭕ (@FionaElliotFox1) June 29, 2022
This has been a bad week for National. May it be the first of many.
Can we just take this babbling loon off the table right now as a realistic candidate for any public office?
Why would the nats do that when they know how much the ill-informed public love him and will make him our next PM?
“So that's when I came up with the most ridiculous plan since I'd decided to take a witness statement from a ghost. It was a plan so stupid that even Baldrick would have rejected it out of hand.”—not however the natzos “Baldrick”…
C'mon Willis do your work.
Waiting for the nod from Luxon.
All the same, don't make the mistake of underestimating either him or the people doing their utmost to get him into Premier House.
He clearly was not ready for "Events dear boy" and did not have a "Piece of patter handy to distract. ''
Luxon probably consults TS to see where he's going wrong so he can decide what to say next. Next press release will say that he's not claiming to speak for women…
Shush binders full of em. Had to even have one in the leadership team. Women like wearing veils! And donating their labour unpaid to the church because supporting my leadership is the most noble thing they can do outside childbirth.
If I were a Nat MP (it's role-play, be kind) …
I would seriously ask if Luxon was getting any media training, and if so who/what. His babbling answers, in which he says too much and yet nothing much, and too fast, are a real problem. A gift to both media and opponents.
And if he didn't admit the problem and address that by the end of this year, I'd change the leader. That might seem unthinkable (yet another change!) but he could lose a winnable election.
I am wondering if Luxon needs a spiritual advisor, because his "Christian" approach to issues like this is just copypasta from the American right wing christian nationalists, who are about a million miles away from the original faith. As I rant about frequently on twitter.
Frankly I find all this "is he isn't he" and "will he won't he" questions about Chris Luxon increasingly pointless. Both main political parties have said publicly that the landmark court decision in the US will not have repercussions here, despite the private views of some individuals.
I don't sense a general political will to revisit our abortion laws here.