Discussion:
The new National Party leader?
Add Reply
James Christophers
2020-05-20 21:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
/
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Which one is Todd Muller?
Crash
2020-05-21 21:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
leadership written by Tim Watkin:

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls

written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.

I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-05-21 22:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
The Pundit blog has consistently tried to provide well crafted and
internally supported articles - where there are opinions the reasons
for those opinions are given. Their success is illustrated by the lack
of comments - for most readers the articles are worth reading but
there is little to get upset about - the almost academic internal
justification of statements may lead to minor corrections or comments
extending the argument, but there is none of the dog-whistling of some
other blogs. Tim Watkin, one of the founders of Pundit, has been a
very good journalist for many years in both print and radio. Most of
the "Pundits" are relatively non-political - Wyatt Creech and Steve
Maharey having clear past connections, but they too write well
reasoned articles in that forum at least.
James Christophers
2020-05-22 03:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain, which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?

For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else. It's in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost without exception.

The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.

With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism, she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a long time in politics".

So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is several millennia.
Rich80105
2020-05-22 03:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain, which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else. It's in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism, she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense. I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
Tony
2020-05-22 03:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else. It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
John Bowes
2020-05-22 03:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else. It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
Sorry Tony but that oppinion is suppoerted by Richies standard mantra. You know the one that goes "Labour good, National bad
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)"
so you admit they'll peel votes away from Labour. Well done Rich you managed to suppress your stupidity for a second :)
James Christophers
2020-05-22 05:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else. It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you previously.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway? He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries, aye.

Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with cool heads behind it, and he knows it.

I now cite this excerpt from Muller's proposed addressing of the economy:

"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher, your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the economy National MPs are grounded in."

A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last incumbency.

Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."

Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote for. Every single time.

So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking, parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony
2020-05-22 06:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by Crash
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
John Bowes
2020-05-22 06:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by Crash
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony we all know Keith is a fair and unbiased commentator who works with the Keith (or whatever nym he's currently hiding behind) good, everyone else bad mantra....Very much like Rich.
Tony
2020-05-22 06:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should
be
the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the
persona -
that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered
delivery
at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is
that
to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this
sense
of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she
has
the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to
make
her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception
could
take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a
week
is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three
months
is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony we all know Keith is a fair and unbiased commentator who works with the
Keith (or whatever nym he's currently hiding behind) good, everyone else bad
mantra....Very much like Rich.
He uses his fading intellect as a weapon instead of a debating tool. Sad really.
He will soon respond with predictable abuse.
John Bowes
2020-05-25 02:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes
over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and
formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more
uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should
be
the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the
persona -
that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered
delivery
at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these
that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is
that
to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this
sense
of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she
has
the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to
make
her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception
could
take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done
thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a
week
is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three
months
is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony we all know Keith is a fair and unbiased commentator who works with the
Keith (or whatever nym he's currently hiding behind) good, everyone else bad
mantra....Very much like Rich.
He uses his fading intellect as a weapon instead of a debating tool. Sad really.
He will soon respond with predictable abuse.
Never realised ping pong balls were weapons of mass destruction :)
Rich80105
2020-05-25 02:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 24 May 2020 19:20:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly
long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes
over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and
formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more
uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should
be
the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the
persona -
that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered
delivery
at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these
that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is
that
to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this
sense
of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she
has
the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to
make
her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception
could
take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done
thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a
week
is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three
months
is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony we all know Keith is a fair and unbiased commentator who works with the
Keith (or whatever nym he's currently hiding behind) good, everyone else bad
mantra....Very much like Rich.
He uses his fading intellect as a weapon instead of a debating tool. Sad really.
He will soon respond with predictable abuse.
Never realised ping pong balls were weapons of mass destruction :)
So you couldn't identify anything positive Muller had to offer either
JoNoBow (or whatever name you care to use . . .). Far better to abuse
other posters than to address the subject of the thread and the lack
of anything other than the same lies Bridges failed to peddle . . .
John Bowes
2020-05-25 20:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 24 May 2020 19:20:25 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly
long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes
over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and
formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more
uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should
be
the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the
persona -
that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything
else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered
delivery
at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these
that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right
almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is
that
to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses
New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this
sense
of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she
has
the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore
needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to
make
her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception
could
take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done
thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded
realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a
week
is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three
months
is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at
every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise,
anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of
coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No
worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At
such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and
with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local
butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is
the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party
and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic
right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will
vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Tony we all know Keith is a fair and unbiased commentator who works with the
Keith (or whatever nym he's currently hiding behind) good, everyone else bad
mantra....Very much like Rich.
He uses his fading intellect as a weapon instead of a debating tool. Sad really.
He will soon respond with predictable abuse.
Never realised ping pong balls were weapons of mass destruction :)
So you couldn't identify anything positive Muller had to offer either
JoNoBow (or whatever name you care to use . . .). Far better to abuse
other posters than to address the subject of the thread and the lack
of anything other than the same lies Bridges failed to peddle . . .
Just following your lead Richie :)

Maybe one day we'll have a miracle on nzgen and you'll actually practice what you preach for once in your useless widdle Marxist life:)

Besides not abuse just a fairly accurate description of your buddy Keith/James/<newsman>.
Rich80105
2020-05-22 07:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 May 2020 01:13:31 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by Crash
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
Of course it was supported - it is based on what Muller actually said.
His outline of what National supported was remarkable. Your timid
attack on Todd Muller in effectively claiming that his description of
what National stands for is not remarkable is certainly surprising,
but then you probably don't know what the word means - try a
dictionary.

Of course I consider it remarkable because some of the claims were for
matters that no National government had shown any intertewst in since
probably the days of Holyoake, but other people may have thought them
remarkable for other reasons. Certainly it indicates either a
willingness to court those who have not traditionally supported
National; whether through dissembling or a genuine difference of views
with his colleagues remains to be seen. For the Nat-bots that post to
nz.general, there may have been dismay that he did not mention tax
cuts!
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
So yu admit your own fault for what you accuse others of - I am not
surprised, but you may be insufficiently self-aware to realise that is
what you were doing. Alternatively, you may be clinging to the Simon
Bridge-ism of just attacking for the sake of it - at least Muller only
spent part of his speech on such stupidities.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Probably the same script writers as were used by Bridges, with a
slightly different twist just to pretend there has been substantive
change.
Tony
2020-05-22 20:44:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 22 May 2020 01:13:31 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
/
Post by James Christophers
https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should
be
the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona
-
that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered
delivery
at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is
that
to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to
make
her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a
week
is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three
months
is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105
and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
Of course it was supported
That is a lie.
Post by Rich80105
- it is based on what Muller actually said.
His outline of what National supported was remarkable. Your timid
attack on Todd Muller in effectively claiming that his description of
what National stands for is not remarkable is certainly surprising,
but then you probably don't know what the word means - try a
dictionary.
I did not in any way attack Todd Muller, that is another lie.
Post by Rich80105
Of course I consider it remarkable because some of the claims were for
matters that no National government had shown any intertewst in since
probably the days of Holyoake, but other people may have thought them
remarkable for other reasons. Certainly it indicates either a
willingness to court those who have not traditionally supported
National; whether through dissembling or a genuine difference of views
with his colleagues remains to be seen. For the Nat-bots that post to
nz.general, there may have been dismay that he did not mention tax
cuts!
Don't be silly. Off topic and unsupported.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
Abuse removed.
You and everybody in this newsgroupd pen unsupported opinions from time to time
- that ias everybody, got it?
There is nothing wrong with that but you accuse me of doing so as if it is in
some way not acceptable -well Rich, whatever you really are, grow up and learn
some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105
I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?
Probably the same script writers as were used by Bridges, with a
slightly different twist just to pretend there has been substantive
change.
George
2020-05-22 20:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:41 -0500
Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz> wrote:

What is going to happen is the sequel to the pandemic shut down and all
the job loses.
These are going to affect liebor members mainly.
And all those small businesses going to the wall with people losing
houses and bankruptcy causing many small towns to almost disappear
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-22 20:55:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:41 -0500
What is going to happen is the sequel to the pandemic shut down and all
the job loses.
Did you mean losses or losers, George? The current government is
encouraging New Zealanders to support local businesses, and that does
seem to be happening. Are you saying that Muller will turn that
around? He would have to win an election first - do you think that may
happen?
Post by George
These are going to affect liebor members mainly.
Whover they are - but it would be good if the new National Party
leader could stop much of the lying that developed under Key/English /
Bridges - that would indeed be a new National Party!
Post by George
And all those small businesses going to the wall with people losing
houses and bankruptcy causing many small towns to almost disappear
That was certainly happening under Key/English, but Muller seems more
sympathetic to those small twns that servet he farming communities,
and he has indicated that he understands that National may need a
friend to get elected; perhaps he will get rid of the proven idiot
Matt King and do an "Epsom" deal with Winston in Northland.

Or are you saying that Muller will make no difference to National?
Nellie the Elephant
2020-05-23 04:17:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:41 -0500
What is going to happen is the sequel to the pandemic shut down and all
the job loses.
Did you mean losses or losers, George? The current government is
encouraging New Zealanders to support local businesses, and that does
seem to be happening. Are you saying that Muller will turn that
around? He would have to win an election first - do you think that may
happen?
Post by George
These are going to affect liebor members mainly.
Whover they are - but it would be good if the new National Party
leader could stop much of the lying that developed under Key/English /
Bridges - that would indeed be a new National Party!
Post by George
And all those small businesses going to the wall with people losing
houses and bankruptcy causing many small towns to almost disappear
That was certainly happening under Key/English, but Muller seems more
sympathetic to those small twns that servet he farming communities,
and he has indicated that he understands that National may need a
friend to get elected; perhaps he will get rid of the proven idiot
Matt King and do an "Epsom" deal with Winston in Northland.
Or are you saying that Muller will make no difference to National?
George does not read your crap dickshit. Don't you ever learn.
John Bowes
2020-05-25 02:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Thu, 21 May 2020 22:38:41 -0500
What is going to happen is the sequel to the pandemic shut down and all
the job loses.
Did you mean losses or losers, George? The current government is
encouraging New Zealanders to support local businesses, and that does
seem to be happening. Are you saying that Muller will turn that
around? He would have to win an election first - do you think that may
happen?
Depends on whether Ardern stops treating us like school kids Rich. He probably has a better chance than Jacinda had after the unions canned Little and still had to rely on bribing Winston to become PM :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
These are going to affect liebor members mainly.
Whover they are - but it would be good if the new National Party
leader could stop much of the lying that developed under Key/English /
Bridges - that would indeed be a new National Party!
As much chance of that happening as Labour being an open government and not lying or virtue signalling Rich!
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
And all those small businesses going to the wall with people losing
houses and bankruptcy causing many small towns to almost disappear
That was certainly happening under Key/English, but Muller seems more
sympathetic to those small twns that servet he farming communities,
and he has indicated that he understands that National may need a
friend to get elected; perhaps he will get rid of the proven idiot
Matt King and do an "Epsom" deal with Winston in Northland.
Only in your wet dreams Rich. NZPeters may have shat on the voters once to often he'll be lucky to get more votes than ACT :)
Post by Rich80105
Or are you saying that Muller will make no difference to National?
Loading...