Discussion:
Some good points from Pundit.
Add Reply
John Bowes
2020-10-13 12:43:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs

Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Rich80105
2020-10-13 19:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.

But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion. So read the comments . . .
Tony
2020-10-13 19:51:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he
bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion. So read the comments . . .
Virtually all of which are real unsupported opinions. While the article is
thorough and full of important questions. You miss the point that this article
is not about facts, it is about intent and performance (both actual and
anticipated) and therefore cannot identify all that much support. It is about
politics, you know, lies, damn lies and much worse.
Having said that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with unsupported opinion -
something that you provide with alacrity on a daily basis.
John Bowes
2020-10-13 22:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he
bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion. So read the comments . . .
Virtually all of which are real unsupported opinions. While the article is
thorough and full of important questions. You miss the point that this article
is not about facts, it is about intent and performance (both actual and
anticipated) and therefore cannot identify all that much support. It is about
politics, you know, lies, damn lies and much worse.
Having said that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with unsupported opinion -
something that you provide with alacrity on a daily basis.
Rich once again proves he's a fucking imbecile with ZERO comprehension skills :)
James Christophers
2020-10-13 22:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion.
We get not just opinions but also the reasoning behind them together with the facts of the scenario on which both are based. Looks very much like 'support' material to me. In fact such supporting material runs right through the piece and it is this fact-based thinking and opining that give it its essential substance whether the reader agrees with the writer or not.

OK, doubtless Collins would be a "good" PM in her own right. But this counts for little unless there she has - **right now** - a strong and fully experienced team to back her, and I don't think she does. Experience - what little was left of it after English had retired gratefully to his milking stool - saw the writing National's Party wall, and prepared to clear their desks to make a hasty retreat to the exit the moment Bridges set the skittles tumbling.

Comparisons may well be odious, but comparisons are exactly what elections are about. So there is one significant factor concerning character 'front' that so far has not been touched on but that sharply distinguishes Collins from Ardern: Collins lacks all self-doubt (think Johnson, think Trump). Again, as if channelling Johnson and Trump, she appears to believe an excess of immodest self-esteem, bombast and clever-dick repartee are what it takes to be a leader, whereas Ardern shows little if any need of any of them. Collins opts for negatives - divisiveness and conflict: Ardern chooses positives: collegiality and concurrence. Consistent in both cases.

Collins is not yet done with making it appear she is the crème de la crème of New Zealand politicians - a latter-day Mrs Bouquet in gumboots but bereft of class? Had she even a smidgeon of self-awareness and bothered to do a little self-examination from time to time, she would have long ago come to know that, in terms of character alone, the cream must always rise 'til it sours.

Not so Ardern, I think.
Crash
2020-10-14 02:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion.
We get not just opinions but also the reasoning behind them together with the facts of the scenario on which both are based. Looks very much like 'support' material to me. In fact such supporting material runs right through the piece and it is this fact-based thinking and opining that give it its essential substance whether the reader agrees with the writer or not.
OK, doubtless Collins would be a "good" PM in her own right. But this counts for little unless there she has - **right now** - a strong and fully experienced team to back her, and I don't think she does. Experience - what little was left of it after English had retired gratefully to his milking stool - saw the writing National's Party wall, and prepared to clear their desks to make a hasty retreat to the exit the moment Bridges set the skittles tumbling.
Comparisons may well be odious, but comparisons are exactly what elections are about. So there is one significant factor concerning character 'front' that so far has not been touched on but that sharply distinguishes Collins from Ardern: Collins lacks all self-doubt (think Johnson, think Trump). Again, as if channelling Johnson and Trump, she appears to believe an excess of immodest self-esteem, bombast and clever-dick repartee are what it takes to be a leader, whereas Ardern shows little if any need of any of them. Collins opts for negatives - divisiveness and conflict: Ardern chooses positives: collegiality and concurrence. Consistent in both cases.
Collins is not yet done with making it appear she is the crème de la crème of New Zealand politicians - a latter-day Mrs Bouquet in gumboots but bereft of class? Had she even a smidgeon of self-awareness and bothered to do a little self-examination from time to time, she would have long ago come to know that, in terms of character alone, the cream must always rise 'til it sours.
Not so Ardern, I think.
Collins, as the wannabe PM who needs to ensure that National top
Labour in party vote support, is yet to explore Labour's greatest
weakness.

Labour under Ardern is good at talking up ideas but not good on
delivery of measurable forward progress. Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.

Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government. They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-10-14 03:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion.
We get not just opinions but also the reasoning behind them together with the facts of the scenario on which both are based. Looks very much like 'support' material to me. In fact such supporting material runs right through the piece and it is this fact-based thinking and opining that give it its essential substance whether the reader agrees with the writer or not.
OK, doubtless Collins would be a "good" PM in her own right. But this counts for little unless there she has - **right now** - a strong and fully experienced team to back her, and I don't think she does. Experience - what little was left of it after English had retired gratefully to his milking stool - saw the writing National's Party wall, and prepared to clear their desks to make a hasty retreat to the exit the moment Bridges set the skittles tumbling.
Comparisons may well be odious, but comparisons are exactly what elections are about. So there is one significant factor concerning character 'front' that so far has not been touched on but that sharply distinguishes Collins from Ardern: Collins lacks all self-doubt (think Johnson, think Trump). Again, as if channelling Johnson and Trump, she appears to believe an excess of immodest self-esteem, bombast and clever-dick repartee are what it takes to be a leader, whereas Ardern shows little if any need of any of them. Collins opts for negatives - divisiveness and conflict: Ardern chooses positives: collegiality and concurrence. Consistent in both cases.
Collins is not yet done with making it appear she is the crème de la crème of New Zealand politicians - a latter-day Mrs Bouquet in gumboots but bereft of class? Had she even a smidgeon of self-awareness and bothered to do a little self-examination from time to time, she would have long ago come to know that, in terms of character alone, the cream must always rise 'til it sours.
Not so Ardern, I think.
Collins, as the wannabe PM who needs to ensure that National top
Labour in party vote support, is yet to explore Labour's greatest
weakness.
Labour under Ardern is good at talking up ideas but not good on
delivery of measurable forward progress.
Many weeks ago I heard Collins saying exactly the same thing on Katherine Ryan's RNZ morning show - something like, "Jacinda (her wording) is good on ideas but not even close to good when it comes to delivery".
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will. And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'weaknesses you identify? My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through, workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on increased **real** per worker productivity.

What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and Janet Voter.

Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National, the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also - crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members, all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of international finance, investor and creditor alike.
Rich80105
2020-10-14 03:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 05:43:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/5reasonsvotingfornational?fbclid=IwAR0K_775TFtv0O5fr-q38lOBoyTPBnv7FFPD5Qy2PQ4LBYpJCj5TPciw-Vs
Interesting post from Pundit. Considering how often Rich quotes them (when he bothers to cite) I'll be interested in seeing how fool spins this :)
Pundit posts seldom get many comments - they are often so well argued
that there is little dispute about accuracy.
But this is an unusual post for that site - it is largely unsupported
opinion.
We get not just opinions but also the reasoning behind them together with the facts of the scenario on which both are based. Looks very much like 'support' material to me. In fact such supporting material runs right through the piece and it is this fact-based thinking and opining that give it its essential substance whether the reader agrees with the writer or not.
OK, doubtless Collins would be a "good" PM in her own right. But this counts for little unless there she has - **right now** - a strong and fully experienced team to back her, and I don't think she does. Experience - what little was left of it after English had retired gratefully to his milking stool - saw the writing National's Party wall, and prepared to clear their desks to make a hasty retreat to the exit the moment Bridges set the skittles tumbling.
Comparisons may well be odious, but comparisons are exactly what elections are about. So there is one significant factor concerning character 'front' that so far has not been touched on but that sharply distinguishes Collins from Ardern: Collins lacks all self-doubt (think Johnson, think Trump). Again, as if channelling Johnson and Trump, she appears to believe an excess of immodest self-esteem, bombast and clever-dick repartee are what it takes to be a leader, whereas Ardern shows little if any need of any of them. Collins opts for negatives - divisiveness and conflict: Ardern chooses positives: collegiality and concurrence. Consistent in both cases.
Collins is not yet done with making it appear she is the crème de la crème of New Zealand politicians - a latter-day Mrs Bouquet in gumboots but bereft of class? Had she even a smidgeon of self-awareness and bothered to do a little self-examination from time to time, she would have long ago come to know that, in terms of character alone, the cream must always rise 'til it sours.
Not so Ardern, I think.
Collins, as the wannabe PM who needs to ensure that National top
Labour in party vote support, is yet to explore Labour's greatest
weakness.
Labour under Ardern is good at talking up ideas but not good on
delivery of measurable forward progress.
Many weeks ago I heard Collins saying exactly the same thing on Katherine Ryan's RNZ morning show - something like, "Jacinda (her wording) is good on ideas but not even close to good when it comes to delivery".
Exactly the argument used by Key after the GFC.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will. And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'weaknesses you identify? My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through, workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on increased **real** per worker productivity.
What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and Janet Voter.
I suspect there is no way they can find any credible position while
the rest of the world sinks into another wave of Covid infection
having followed the aggressively promoted ideas of the National Party
who wanted to put profits before lives.
Post by James Christophers
Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National, the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also - crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members, all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of international finance, investor and creditor alike.
It is now becoming clear that Labour is the party that is the better
economic manager - over 20 years of evidence now.
Gordon
2020-10-14 07:09:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning
her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will.
And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or
effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'
weaknesses you identify?
There is a thought that the poltical landscape is changing, neo-liberisam is
on the wane. There is a more inclusive approach on the ascent. End of the
Rogernomics cycle is about to start.

Jacinda has done well with Covid and has done it in a kind, and inclusive
way. Now Crusher Collins is no actor, so here she is thumping her chest and
firing off shots in an agressive way. People are tired of this, they see the
kind way as effective and it saves all the bluster that politicans are known
for.

In short Judith is the wrong person for the job at this time.





My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered
Post by James Christophers
far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and
slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through, workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on increased **real** per worker productivity.
What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and Janet Voter.
Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National, the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also - crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members, all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of international finance, investor and creditor alike.
Tony
2020-10-15 00:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning
her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will.
And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or
effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'
weaknesses you identify?
There is a thought that the poltical landscape is changing, neo-liberisam is
on the wane. There is a more inclusive approach on the ascent. End of the
Rogernomics cycle is about to start.
Jacinda has done well with Covid and has done it in a kind, and inclusive
way. Now Crusher Collins is no actor, so here she is thumping her chest and
firing off shots in an agressive way. People are tired of this, they see the
kind way as effective and it saves all the bluster that politicans are known
for.
Kindness is only of value when promises are kept in politics. In other words it
is a sham, make believe in this case.
Post by Gordon
In short Judith is the wrong person for the job at this time.
My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered
Post by James Christophers
far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and
slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through,
workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a
wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room
to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the
indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on
increased **real** per worker productivity.
What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty
because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those
point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and
Janet Voter.
Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they
really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National,
the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical
departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only
when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during
what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also -
crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as
well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this
country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members,
all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of
international finance, investor and creditor alike.
John Bowes
2020-10-15 01:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning
her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will.
And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or
effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'
weaknesses you identify?
There is a thought that the poltical landscape is changing, neo-liberisam is
on the wane. There is a more inclusive approach on the ascent. End of the
Rogernomics cycle is about to start.
Jacinda has done well with Covid and has done it in a kind, and inclusive
way. Now Crusher Collins is no actor, so here she is thumping her chest and
firing off shots in an agressive way. People are tired of this, they see the
kind way as effective and it saves all the bluster that politicans are known
for.
Kindness is only of value when promises are kept in politics. In other words it
is a sham, make believe in this case.
Post by Gordon
In short Judith is the wrong person for the job at this time.
My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered
Post by James Christophers
far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and
slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through,
workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a
wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room
to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the
indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on
increased **real** per worker productivity.
What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty
because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those
point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and
Janet Voter.
Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they
really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National,
the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical
departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only
when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during
what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also -
crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as
well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this
country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members,
all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of
international finance, investor and creditor alike.
We need a PM who has no problem with expecting her Ministers to preform. Not a weak one who refuses to act against Ministers not preforming! One who makes targets and meets them. Not one who makes targets and ignores them till they just become an embarrassment like Kiwibuild and all the other failures!
Crash
2020-10-15 04:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas. Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government.
All the more surprising, then, since Collins makes negative campaigning
her forte. It's in her nature - always has been, always will.
And why haven't any other National hopefuls been far more forceful and/or
effective in driving home to the electorate those self-evident Labour'
weaknesses you identify?
There is a thought that the poltical landscape is changing, neo-liberisam is
on the wane. There is a more inclusive approach on the ascent. End of the
Rogernomics cycle is about to start.
Jacinda has done well with Covid and has done it in a kind, and inclusive
way. Now Crusher Collins is no actor, so here she is thumping her chest and
firing off shots in an agressive way. People are tired of this, they see the
kind way as effective and it saves all the bluster that politicans are known
for.
In short Judith is the wrong person for the job at this time.
I would argue that the message Collins is presenting is the wrong one.
The message should be that Labour are all mouth, time to elect a
Government with vision and a track record of delivery. Then she has
to convince the voters that National has what it takes to do this.

It aint happening. It looks like we will get another 2-term
Labour-led government, the only positive being the absence of NZF.
Post by Gordon
My own suspicion is that Collins has squandered
Post by James Christophers
far too much of her already limited political capital dissing and
slighting her opponent rather than presenting diligently thought-through, workable, fundable alternatives. Worse still, with a bungling albatross of a wannabe finance minster hanging around her neck she has been left with no room to crow, let alone manoeuvre, on the basis of sound financial management - the indispensable key to future national prosperity based as it can only ever be on increased **real** per worker productivity.
What price credibility?
Post by Crash
They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
IOW, they can't consolidate their position(s) to the point of certainty because, I think, they have not found a way of clearly defining whatever those point of certainty are **and** lucidly, convincingly conveying them to John and Janet Voter.
Again, whatever the differences between personalities and policies, are they really sufficiently significant to warrant the voter taking a punt on National, the party that has so ineptly laid itself wide open to failures and critical departures among its top ranks? Not a good look I'd have thought, and not only when it comes to the crying need for stability and continuity of purpose during what promises to be a very long-drawn-out economic recovery; and also - crucially - when the eyes of international finance and investment are on us as well. Under Ardern's stewardship these people together continue to regard this country and this government as an object of envy to our partner OECD members, all of it endorsed by the ratings agencies and the entire gamut of international finance, investor and creditor alike.
--
Crash McBash

Gordon
2020-10-14 06:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Collins, as the wannabe PM who needs to ensure that National top
Labour in party vote support, is yet to explore Labour's greatest
weakness.
Labour under Ardern is good at talking up ideas but not good on
delivery of measurable forward progress. Labour's 2017 mantra was
'Lets do this' and they talked a lot about what to do. They are still
talking about it, claiming 3 years is only enough to get started in
some areas.
This is true. Lets face it Covid has blind sided the best laid plans of mice
and wo/men.

However it is my concern that all National are saying is trust us to get the
job done, fix the economy. How, is missing as much as it is in Labour.

Labour made some really stupid on the fly "promises" after they got into
Government, and seem to have largely not got to grips with what the plan is.

National at least have rolled out Judith's rolling maul of policies, which
soon vanished into the vastness of space. They hinted at the old way, old
National ideas.

So, to me this election is one of I have voted L/N/NZF/G/or whatever, I
think they do a good job so I'll vote for them. Sad really.



Their mantra in this election is 'Lets keep moving' - a
Post by Crash
variation on 'Lets keep doing this'.
Collins and National are simply failing to nail the lack of
achievement of the current Labor Government. They are doing a
reasonable job of providing an alternative way forward with different
ideas, but cannot land the telling blow that it is time for a change
back to National go get stuff done.
--
Crash McBash
Loading...