New Zealand National party has racist new leader.

[bilateralrope]

The National party is the main opposition party. Since the last election they were led Simon Bridges, until his criticism of the governments handling of Covid19 caused too much backlash and the National party decided they couldn't win with him as leader. So they replaced him with the new leader, Todd Muller on May 22.

Now that they had a reason to pay attention to Tod Muller, the media quickly noticed he was displaying a MAGA hat in his office.

Here's how the National party tried to defend that

Don't read too much into Todd Muller's 'MAGA' hat - Nikki Kaye
25/05/2020
Dan Satherley


New deputy leader of the National Party Nikki Kaye doesn't think her boss holds the same views as US President Donald Trump, despite having a 'MAGA' hat on display at his office.

Todd Muller took the reins of the party on Friday, but rather than spend the first weekend introducing himself to the nation, the relative unknown found himself defending his ownership of the iconic red hat. Many see the hat - frequently seen worn at far-right protests - as an icon of white nationalism, sexism and other negative traits associated with Trump and his administration.

"We can't ignore the substance behind MAGA and how terrifying it is if that shrill bullying ethos becomes casually mainstream in NZ politics," Green MP Golriz Ghahraman tweeted on Sunday, one of many shocked a Prime Ministerial hopeful would not only own a MAGA hat, but have it on display.

Muller told Newshub Nation it was just a souvenir from his trip to the US in 2016, where he attended rallies for both the Republican and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

"I got one of those, and I got a Hillary Clinton badge,' he said. "I've got them both in my office. But for some reason, the Hillary Clinton badge never gets looked at. Everyone sees the MAGA cap and somehow reaches a conclusion that perhaps is where my sympathies lie."

Further eyebrows were raised on Sunday when he told Magic Talk's Sunday Cafe "both sides" in the US were responsible for the growing partisanship in US politics - echoing a phrase Trump used in 2017 after a white nationalist killed a left-wing activist in a protest in Charlottesville, Trump saying there were "very fine people" on "both sides" of the confrontation.

Asked on The AM Show if she liked Trump, Kaye said while she respects "the office of the President", she doesn't agree with "all of Donald Trump's views".

Asked if the former reality TV star - who once boasted his fame allows him to grab women "by the p***y" without consequence - is sexist, Kaye declined to answer.

"I'm very conscious of the role that I'm in and actually from my perspective I respect the role of President. Sure, some people will say [he's sexist]. I don't want to cause any diplomatic issues by criticising the President of the United States on one of my first days as deputy of the National Party."

As for Muller's MAGA hat, she said her boss is "absolutely focused on how we rebuild the country, not on hats".

"I don't believe he [endorses Trump's views]. I think Todd is absolutely focused on rebuilding New Zealand, and we shouldn't read too much into souvenirs on his desk."

In comments published by NZME on Monday morning, Muller appeared to toughen his stance on Trump, compared to his statements at the weekend.

"I've been asked directly, do I support President Trump's style, and I say 'not at all'. I find his style of politics appalling... My collection of political paraphernalia doesn't in any way seek to align myself to any particular political positioning of any individuals offshore."

He quickly decided that he wasn't going to keep it on display in his new office.

Then there is the matter that everyone on the front bench of Muller's National party is white, which they say is because they have a moral obligation to win.

NEWSHUB NATION
Nikki Kaye explains how National's 'moral obligation' to win the election led to its Māori-free front bench

06/06/2020
Dan Satherley

National has a "moral obligation" to win the upcoming election, says deputy leader Nikki Kaye - and that's why they chose the controversial front bench they did.

National's shadow Cabinet is all-Pākehā, with the woman Kaye replaced - Paula Bennett - the highest-ranking Māori at #13.

The party's new leader Todd Muller has been in Parliament for less than six years and has no ministerial experience. He outranks the vastly more-experienced Kaye, Amy Adams (3rd) and Judith Collins (4th) all of whom have been in Parliament for at least twice as long as he has, all with ministerial experience.

Asked on Saturday why she and Muller rolled Bennett and former leader Simon Bridges - also Māori - Kaye told Newshub Nation they "have a moral obligation to do something because New Zealand needs a National Government".

She disputed host Tova O'Brien's assertion Muller was lacking in political experience, pointing out he worked in then-Prime Minister Jim Bolger's office for a few years in the 1990s.

"Todd is extraordinary. He has got a huge amount of business experience, but he has also got a lot of political experience - he started off in Bolger's office... Judith and Amy are incredible, they have huge ministerial experience... You name another political lineup where you've got three out of four strong women who would be leading the country."

As for the Māori-free front bench, Kaye said there were "only a certain number of spots" and she was proud of National's caucus diversity, which includes Korean and Indian MPs.

"We have a number of MPs representing different ethnic communities... the reality is there is only a certain number of spots that we have, and we accept as a leadership team we have to own that representation issue."

Kaye last week mistakenly identified finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith as being Māori, which was news to Goldsmith.

"My great-grandfather had European wives and Māori wives and so I've got lots of relatives across the Ngāti Porou - I don't claim to be Māori myself," he said.

Kaye said the wrong information came from 'someone reasonably reliable in the building".

"I made a mistake. The reality is we do need to do more as a country in terms of diversity and representation, but we have been very clear that we need to have the most competent group of people, and we have made decisions on that... We are fighting hard to win an election, and we have to have the best team put forward on that."

As for LGBTQ+ representation, Kaye said there was "no one who has identified themselves at this point" as being from that community, which Statistics NZ says makes up about 3.5 percent of adults.

If this is the visible racism, how bad is in in private ?

What else is going to go public before our election later this year ?

[bilateralrope]

53 days as party leader and he resigns.

Ahead of the New Zealand election, Todd Muller's resignation is a National nightmare – and a sign of a toxic political culture

Richard Shaw
13:21, Jul 14 2020

ANALYSIS: And then there was none.

Early this morning the National Party caucus awoke to a nightmare. Todd Muller, their newly minted leader of some 53 days, had resigned his position.

This is not just another leadership spill, coup or change. In fact, nothing about this is routine.

First, Muller has been National’s leader for just less than two months, and will now go down as the shortest serving leader of the party since its formation in May 1936.

Second, the New Zealand National party faces an election in just under ten weeks.

And third, whoever leads the party into the election will be up against Jacinda Ardern, one of the most popular political leaders New Zealand has ever produced.

It is an inauspicious time to be changing the brass plate on the door of the leader’s office.

WHY DID MULLER GO?

In his statement Muller acknowledged he was not the right person for the position. Given his background, which included time as an adviser to former National Party leader and Prime Minister Jim Bolger, it can’t be said he came to the job uninformed of the unique pressures that come with leadership of the country’s most electorally successful party.

He also alluded to the toll the job was taking on his own health and that of his family. It would seem that what was once only theory regarding the physical, psychic or emotional toll political party leaders and their families pay has become all too real.

If so, I imagine most people might be inclined to say: good call, mate.

However, it’s unlikely that sentiment is dominating the thoughts of National’s caucus. Having just been through a divisive leadership change when Muller replaced former leader Simon Bridges on May 22, they will privately be furious about the nature and timing of Muller’s announcement.

National now has to scramble, and fast.

A POISONED CHALICE?

The first task is to find a new leader. Muller’s deputy, Nikki Kaye, is now acting party leader but tainted by her association with Muller. Various other caucus heavyweights – including Judith Collins, Gerry Brownlee and perhaps Amy Adams – are also in the frame.

But it is difficult to think of a more challenging set of circumstances in which to take over leadership of any political party: a hugely popular prime minister; a global pandemic; a divided party that leaks disastrously and has trouble identifying its own people’s ethnicity; and a timeframe that is not so much tight as suffocating.

National’s campaign strategy (and the inner circle around the leader responsible for it) also needs tweaking, if not a complete reset.

The party has long trumpeted its credentials as a competent economic manager, but it becomes very difficult to see how the word “competent” can now be part of the party’s rhetoric without triggering widespread guffaws.

And quite apart from the big picture considerations there are myriad operational particulars that need to be changed (at no small expense), not the least being the campaign hoardings (some of which are already up on fences) and pamphlets that feature Muller and Kaye.

WHO BENEFITS MOST?

For the Labour Party it is difficult to think of a better time for this to happen. Yesterday the papers, websites and social media feeds were full of the news that the Serious Fraud Office has launched an investigation into donations to Labour before the 2017 election (to go with the ones already underway on the National and New Zealand First parties). Today’s news is wall-to-wall Muller.

It may be, too, that National’s disarray proves a godsend to the two other centre-right parties in the parliament, New Zealand First and ACT. Both stand to gain should soft National supporters decide to take their political preferences to other parts of the centre-right spectrum.

Alternatively, the soft right might continue to find refuge in Ardern’s Labour, as recent polls suggest has been happening.

WHY IS OUR POLITICS SO TOXIC?

And so the feeding frenzy commences. In amongst the sound and fury, though, perhaps we should keep sight of one thing: Todd Muller made his captain’s call in the interests of his own health and that of his family.

So before we scramble on to the next leader, the next strategy, the next whatever ephemera of politics it is that catches our eye, we would do well to pause and reflect on the nature of politics.

What is it about the way we do this most human of activities that can cause someone this level of distress? What price do we expect people who put themselves forward for public office to pay? Is our politics broken?

[mr friendly guy]

But it is difficult to think of a more challenging set of circumstances in which to take over leadership of any political party: a hugely popular prime minister; a global pandemic; a divided party that leaks disastrously and has trouble identifying its own people’s ethnicity; and a timeframe that is not so much tight as suffocating.

How the hell does that one even work?

[bilateralrope]

But it is difficult to think of a more challenging set of circumstances in which to take over leadership of any political party: a hugely popular prime minister; a global pandemic; a divided party that leaks disastrously and has trouble identifying its own people’s ethnicity; and a timeframe that is not so much tight as suffocating.

How the hell does that one even work?

One MP claims that another MP is of a specific ethnicity when it would be politically convenient for that to be true. The MP in question then says "no I'm not".

National MP Amy Adams apologises for wrongly claiming party candidate Catherine Chu is Chinese

National MP Amy Adams has apologised for wrongly claiming a party candidate, Catherine Chu, was Chinese.

Adams was interviewed on Magic Talk on Monday morning and, asked about who represented the Chinese community in the National Party after MP Jian Yang announced his retirement on Friday, said Chu was Chinese.

Chu, the Banks Peninsula candidate for the 2020 election, is Korean. She told Stuff in January her parents moved to Christchurch from Korea.

“I got that wrong. I had thought Catherine was Chinese but I was mistaken. I have spoken with Catherine and apologised fully for my error," Adams said in a statement.

Chu said Adams had called to apologise as soon as she realised the error, and it was understandable that there would be confusion about her ethnicity.

“I was born and raised here in Christchurch and my parents are from South Korea. I can understand where the confusion came from.

“My ancestors immigrated from China to Korea a few hundred years ago and I’ve been really proud as a Kiwi of my multicultural background and have embraced my Korean and Chinese heritage.

“Which is why I eventually graduated university with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Chinese.”

Adams is the second senior National Party MP to wrongly declare the ethnicity of a colleague.

Deputy leader Nikki Kaye in May wrongly described the party's finance spokesman Paul Goldsmith as Māori, when defending the diversity of the party's front bench.

"Paul Goldsmith is of Ngāti Porou," Kaye said, and then listed him as one of three Māori MPs in the shadow-Cabinet.

This was news to Goldsmith, who told journalists minutes later that while his family had "Māori connections" but he was not Māori himself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I'd tend to assume any party with the word "National" in its name is run by and composed of racists.

[Zaune]

Honestly, I'd tend to assume any party with the word "National" in its name is run by and composed of racists.

I know of one rather prominent exception, and there are likely others, but as a general rule it's a reasonable supposition.

[Lord Revan]

Honestly, I'd tend to assume any party with the word "National" in its name is run by and composed of racists.

I know of one rather prominent exception, and there are likely others, but as a general rule it's a reasonable supposition.

I suppose it also works best for English language political movements as "national" may mean a different thing in the native language (in terms of emphasis that is). For example the "National Coalition Party" for Finland (while technically their official name is "Kansallinen Kokoomus" of which the English name is pretty close translation, that's pretty much never used their most commonly used name being just "Kokoomus" to point I didn't even know that wasn't their official name) and they've not shown any great inclination towards racism (that "honor" belongs to the True Finn (or what ever they're calling themselves atm) and some minor (read:irrelevant) cracktop parties.

EDIT:Of the major parties it was the Social Democrats(mostly due to one person) and the True Finns who had the most issues with politicians making racist (or just bigoted) comments.

[bilateralrope]

Honestly, I'd tend to assume any party with the word "National" in its name is run by and composed of racists.

Fair enough assumption. Anyway, some other updates:
- Nkiki Kaye, the person who claimed that National had a moral obligation to win to justify the lack of Maori MPs near the top of the list, has also resigned from parliment. So the two obvious racists are gone.
- The current National leader is now Judith Collins. She has been in politics a while, so her voting record is well established:

Now Judith Collins is at the helm of the National Party, she'll come face-to-face with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in September's General Election.

The leaders' debates in the run-up to the election will provide a more in-depth look at major party policies, but where do the pair personally stand on other issues?

Here's a look at Ardern's and Collins' stances on same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia and cannabis.

Same-sex marriage
Both Collins and Ardern voted in favour of a Bill in 2013 allowing same-sex marriage.

Ardern said at the time the answer for her "had always been yes" when voting for marriage equality.

"The fact that, whether this bill passes or not, my rights and my privileges as a heterosexual woman will continue. I can choose to marry, or not. I can choose to enter a civil union, or not," she said.

"I am not the one who has experienced limitations on my rights or freedoms, and yet here I am, privileged enough to have a vote to determine whether that right should be extended to others."

Collins told GayNZ.com she had no problem with same-sex marriage or allowing same-sex couples to legally adopt children.

"Frankly it would be really nice if we could look at people as human beings rather than always saying 'you can't do that because you're gay' or whatever."

Collins voted against the 2004 Bill creating civil unions, "not because of any sort of homophobic views" but because it created "a parallel form of marriage".

"This Bill is a sop to gay couples, in which they are being told that they can have second best. That is not good enough. Either people are entitled to look at themselves as married, and to get married, or they are not," she said during the first reading.

She also voted for the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill in 2005, which would have defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. This failed in its first reading.

Abortion
Both Collins and Ardern also voted in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill that removed abortion from the Crimes Act.

Ardern said she was asked during the 2017 election campaign whether there needed to be abortion law reform, and she had an instinctive answer.

"At that point, for me it was a simple, intuitive reaction: yes. Abortion should not be a crime in this country," she said during the Bill's first reading in 2019.

"I am one who takes a very simple perspective: that, in spite of those personal views, who am I, who is this House, to determine anyone else's reproductive rights? So, in my view, you can have a deeply held personal view… and I will always defend your right to hold that view, but I will draw a line when holding that view then impedes on the rights of others."

Collins said at the time she supported the Bill not because she was pro-abortion, but because she understands the reality of life for many women.

"This is not a pro-abortion move, in my opinion. This is about a reality check. I would personally rather that abortions, if they must occur, occur very early on in a pregnancy. I would much rather have that happen," she said during the first reading.

"These things happen. We women have dealt with it for generations, for hundreds of years. It is not a nice place for anyone to be with any pregnancy that is unwanted. But I do think we have to understand the reality. We have to support women when they're going through this, and we have to have abortions, if they must be, early - as early as possible - and with the least trauma as possible."

Euthanasia
Similarly with abortion reform, Ardern said she supported the 2019 End of Life Choice Bill because she doesn't want to stop others being able to access it.

"My view is the best way that I can allow people to make their own decisions is actually giving them access to that choice. At the moment there is no access to that choice because of the law.

"I would like others to have their own choice and that means voting in favour of the Bill."

Despite Collins voting against the 2003 Death with Dignity Bill and also the first reading of the End of Life Choice Bill in 2017, she voted in favour of it in its final vote in 2019.

During a debate on the proposed assisted dying law last year, she held back tears as she gave an emotional speech about her father, who died from terminal bone cancer.

Collins said her father was in "terrible pain" in hospital and needed morphine. He was given the morphine and "died without losing his dignity", she said.

"I have always been opposed to euthanasia as of right on the basis that people like my dad got to essentially tell everybody when they wanted to go - and I thought that was available to everybody... it's not available to everybody," she said.

"It's not available for people like my dad who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and without a family saying, 'You give my dad everything he needs'."

Collins said she used to be opposed to assisted dying, but now believes giving people the choice to die with dignity is the right thing to do.

"I am on the right side now - everybody deserves some dignity in their lives. I would do it again, it's the right thing to do, and it preserved his dignity."

Cannabis
Ardern has remained tight-lipped on how she'll vote in the upcoming cannabis referendum.

In 2018, the Government passed the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, which allows terminally ill people to possess and use cannabis.

But although she's never confirmed or denied her support, when asked by NZME in 2019 if she's ever used cannabis, she gave a coy response.

"I've openly acknowledged in the many times that I've been questioned as a Member of Parliament - and which most Members of Parliament would be asked exactly the same thing - I was raised Mormon and then I was not Mormon. I let other people determine what that means."

Collins says she's never smoked marijuana, but has often shared research on cannabis.

In 2009 Collins voted against Metiria Turei's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, which would have allowed cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes.

In 2018, National said it supported the concept of medicinal cannabis and it introduced an alternative Bill at the same time as the Green Party's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill 2018 progressed through Parliament. National voted against this.

Appearing on The AM Show in October 2018, Collins declined to say whether she'd be likely to vote in favour of legalising recreational use of marijuana, although she acknowledged that personal use will "probably" end up legalised soon.

"I can see that there's not a lot of point, and police certainly have stopped prosecuting people for possession... There are 70 percent fewer prosecutions than there were 20 years ago.

"The problem is once you say something's decriminalised or it's fine and we're going to have it sold in pharmacies and shops, people think it's okay. We say that with so-called synthetic cannabis - it was actually completely able to be sold in various places, and it just took off.

"We're parents, and we don't want to send messages to our kids and other people's kids that something's just perfectly fine. Actually, it's not perfectly fine."

But in an interview on Wednesday with The Project, she said she didn't want marijuana legalised.

"I think that a lot of people are very happy with medicinal cannabis, but not so happy with recreational use," she said.

I'm probably voting Labour or Greens due to policy reasons.