Inexperience as an MP is not the same as inexperience. And even then I personally believe we overvalue experience over talent.
Absolutely. Chlöe stands out regardless of age. As with a lot of stuff recently our lack of a comprehensive civics education feels like an impediment to youth engagement. Eg. The first vote I cast was for The Communist Party. I had a vague inkling that I should vote for what I believed in but had in no way grasped how a vote can meaningfully influence change. I didn’t bother voting the next election. In the election following that I voted as instructed. It wasn’t until years later that I finally began taking the process seriously enough to dig a little deeper into policy. I was never apoliical, but certain connections between the political machine and life had never been made clear to me.
Yes but where are they on the list?
You could argue that putting Chloe Swarbrick at 13 and Golriz Ghaharaman at 15 is a carrot for young voters, but really it could have been much better.
Same problem with Labour, the list position favours the “experienced MPs” aka old ones.
May I very hesitantly suggest that your thinking here does somewhat hinge on the idea that young voters will be as ageist as their elders. My impression – at least of the shining examples – is that the younger generation are more focused on the big idea and less prone to prioritising elections as the only means for change.
This thread is steeped in oppositional binary, the left/right framing at the expense of the authoritarian/libertarian dimension - encumbering visualisation - followed by the old/young binary at the expense of a whole range of intersections and other considerations.
To imply that party policies offer little to youth, to me, is a characterisation of youth as having no foresight towards adulthood (housing/water/mental health) , in which case how valuable might their vote be to achieving your vision for the country?
How appealing has inexperience ever been in an MP?
In terms of ‘Big Ideas’, this quote has stuck with me:
My take has been that this (same-sex marriage) is both easy and popular (relatively). And doing it, as someone has said previously in this thread, makes doing the hard things easier. Whereas if you say you have to do the hard things first, the easy stuff never actually gets done. And it sucks, it absolutely sucks, to be basically saying to people that when it comes to their personal happiness and security (and even basic safety) they should wait.
This year, compelled in part by that fuck in the WH, we have seen a resurgence in calls to address women’s issues. We’ve seen cases made for the funding of feminine hygiene products, calls to decriminalise abortion, calls for equal pay. Obviously the timing of the latter coincided with Jan Logie’s bill.
Being an election year, we can expect a raft of issues to rare their heads. However what both interested and troubled me is that rather than sticking with a single issue as suggested above – and sticking with it until the desired result is achieved – we have seen the momentum built for each issue displaced as the next has been prioritised in its place.
To my mind one of these issues is not like the other. Yes pay inequality must be addressed, but it is an intersectional problem in that Pākehā women earn more than Māori, Pacific and Asian men in New Zealand. Furthermore it’s an issue that requires action by private enterprise as well as the Government and will require changes over a long period to both legislate and enforce.
With Emma’s quote in mind, it’s the criminilisation of abortion which is the easiest and most popular of these issues at this juncture, and I’d hesitantly admit to feeling a certain degree of disappointment at what might be construed as neoliberal appropriation in the way #mybodymychoice has been outmaneuvered by economic concerns in the popular discourse. To someone whose never had a job I imagine it’s seen as an irrelevancy.
Mybodymychoice on the other hand is a call for recognition of fundamental human rights to people on both the left and the right. Addressing structural discrimination implies the need for a structured approach, in order to ‘makes doing the hard things easier’. Once abortion legislation is fixed, there remain in its shadow many other mybodymychoice issues including disability issues, abuse of children in state care, Government sanctioned Intersex genital mutilation, medical intervention contingent trans ID, euthanasia, drug prohibition etc.
In recent years humans rights in ANZ – rather than improving – are being eroded (privacy being the most obvious example), currently the NZ Government is in contravention of a number of UN recommendations.
So that’s my attempt at a contribution to a Big Idea: a renewed focus on human rights, on the sovereignty of our bodies above all; with a suggestion that we attempt to tackle these issues with a singular focus as opposed to a month of cheerleading every couple of years before returning mybodymychoice to the back-burner where it structurally buries other mybodymychoice issues.
Virtue signalling? Perhaps we’re signalling too virtuously.
I’m thinking ‘a clutch’
captures the ergonomics fittingly.
Well, if we're using bananas as a metric, then a hand?
Naturally I defer to you on matters of this nature.
Submission: a comb of dildo (adhesion req.).
The more you sound like you’re engaging in a tit for tat war with the Nats (or Winnie, or whoever), the more defensive you sound, and the less assured you seem about the intrinsic merit of your solutions.
That’s exactly the feeling I had reading this. One minute we were focused on the dire need to fix our mental health system – nek minute defending an activist group. Hook, line and sinker.
But I want a country where everyone can feel safe, no matter their race or sex or orientation or gender identity.
Until New Zealand actually recognises gender identity – not contingent on spending hundreds of dollars – not contingent on undergoing medical procedures – not contingent on fronting up to gatekeeper shrinks who have allegedly been bequeathed the necessary attributes to both identify and as such define gender – i.e basic recognition that we exist by our own account – accompanied by a strident public awareness campaign – safety will continue to feel like a secondary concern.
Steps aside as trans allies fall over themselves clamoring to assist trans people in fighting structural discrimination.
2. The genuinely-held views of Andrew Little – who’s not exactly up with the research
Which raises alarm bells for those hoping to change the Government to a group whose policies - one hopes - are more evidence based (across the board) than the current lot.