-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Now hes just got to stop being Catholic and he might pass
I'm not entering an abortion debate, but politically he has probably alienated a large group of voters by telling women what they can / can't do with their bodies. Didn't seem very wise on day one.
Does seem a bit odd when his opposition has appeal to the same 'market'.
Admittedly he didn't mince around the subject but a potential leader that straight out says that his faith/cult has a big influence on his decision making has some work to do to convince me that he isn't representing a minority at the cost of the majority.
He's is entitled to his faith and views but IMO the leader of a diverse country needs to show that they temper their own views. The PMs job should not be a conscience vote.
Maybe he understands this but it didn't come across as such yesterday. -
He has to vote one way or the other. On that or any number of issues. Either way he runs the risk of alienating a bunch of people who hold strongly opposing views.
How many people will have such strong opinions about a single issue they'll make their decision based on that alone?
I did read somewhere this morning that he is probably lucky that he hasn't had too many controversial decisions to defend.
And how his morality and ethics are shaped shouldn't be an issue, but if it is well and good. Along the same lines he shouldn't change who he is in order to appeal to a particular bunch of people who have a different view.
On a different note, given he apparently shepherded through the Zero Carbon Act I wonder how that equates with his biggest Fern fan and known Climate Change skeptic...
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other.
For sure, but it might have been better not to jump heap first into a political pile of shit on his first day, and as @crucial said moderate the message a bit. He missed an opportunity to say nothing, or avoid the issue as you would expect of a good politician.
As for voting on that issue alone? It does seem to be quite polarising for some.
-
@rotated Muller and Winston have both said they can work together.
Tough to tell what the impact on the vote that will have - no doubt some anti-NZ First votes are going National's way currently, but they might swing behind Labour or ACT to minimise Winston's influence.
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Muller and Winston have both said they can work together.
Strange isn't it.
Makes it quite difficult to vote if you don't want Winston in the mix. Obviously not NZ first, Labour teamed up with him this time, Nats might next time. Greens are getting better but still too left wing for a centrist voter . Weird situation where you can't actually vote for anyone because of the Winston factor.Edit: MMP might work better if the parties were forced to declare allegiances before the poll. At least we would know what we are voting for.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other.
For sure, but it might have been better not to jump heap first into a political pile of shit on his first day, and as @crucial said moderate the message a bit. He missed an opportunity to say nothing, or avoid the issue as you would expect of a good politician.
As for voting on that issue alone? It does seem to be quite polarising for some.
He is fully entitled to vote personally (as long as his constituents are OK with that).
The comment as you say @Snowy, was a bit politically naive. He should have taken the opportunity to differentiate between his job as leader and his personal conscience. he needs to understand that he has two hats now and adjust his answers accordingly. -
Farmers may be happy, but he's a socially conservative catholic who went to the states during the US Trump election and is already having to defend his MAGA memorabilia.
I don't see how he is going to appeal to enough voters to trip up Ardern, especially given his support for Abortion. I'm a staunch National voter and he will have a hard time with me.
Had they switched Kaye and him around, he might have been a good right brace and nod to the farmers for a centrist party, but this appointment will make it much easier to paint the Nats as 'far right' 'Trump supporters' etc. etc (whether that is true or not).
-
@gt12 said in NZ Politics:
I think he’s a poor choice.
National will get nowhere near Labor for a while.
I actually think he is a good choice, but needs some polish.
He will run a campaign on financial capability and ideas so if Labour are voted back he will be able to say 'told you so' every time something goes wrong because he laid out an alternate choice. In three years time it will pay off.He does have to establish those policies though. I don't see the argument of more capable ministers being that strong. If Brownlee is anywhere near things Labour can point at his earthquake recovery performance.
All said though, he will immediately attract back those with more 'capitalist' leanings if they think their pockets will be better off.
-
@Snowy agreed, it's a tough call. Something to consider is that a lot of centrist voters will be discovering that the safety net isn't actually much good (tough to qualify for, difficult to apply for, and miserly), and the Greens might appeal a lot more in that context.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other.
For sure, but it might have been better not to jump heap first into a political pile of shit on his first day, and as @crucial said moderate the message a bit. He missed an opportunity to say nothing, or avoid the issue as you would expect of a good politician.
As for voting on that issue alone? It does seem to be quite polarising for some.
He is fully entitled to vote personally (as long as his constituents are OK with that).
The comment as you say @Snowy, was a bit politically naive. He should have taken the opportunity to differentiate between his job as leader and his personal conscience. he needs to understand that he has two hats now and adjust his answers accordingly.See if he's religious and this is his belief, then how can he? If he's that devout it's not like being a Catholic is a hobby that he can just not do for a while. Otherwise what's the point of being a Catholic...
-
@Bones said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other.
For sure, but it might have been better not to jump heap first into a political pile of shit on his first day, and as @crucial said moderate the message a bit. He missed an opportunity to say nothing, or avoid the issue as you would expect of a good politician.
As for voting on that issue alone? It does seem to be quite polarising for some.
He is fully entitled to vote personally (as long as his constituents are OK with that).
The comment as you say @Snowy, was a bit politically naive. He should have taken the opportunity to differentiate between his job as leader and his personal conscience. he needs to understand that he has two hats now and adjust his answers accordingly.See if he's religious and this is his belief, then how can he? If he's that devout it's not like being a Catholic is a hobby that he can just not do for a while. Otherwise what's the point of being a Catholic...
Making it ok to like little boys?
-
Have to say that the social media messages from the new leaders is already streets ahead of Bridges and Bennett. For that reason alone they have been an improvement.
The previous two were pretty divisive and a bit unlikable. You have to work pretty hard to dislike these guys.
Hopefully that means we can back to polices instead of talking about personalities. Which I find amusing after years for cult of personality comments about Key.
It’s pretty much all Labour have, Arden is a very likeable empty suit.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
Have to say that the social media messages from the new leaders is already streets ahead of Bridges and Bennett. For that reason alone they have been an improvement.
The previous two were pretty divisive and a bit unlikable. You have to work pretty hard to dislike these guys.
Hopefully that means we can back to polices instead of talking about personalities. Which I find amusing after years for cult of personality comments about Key.
It’s pretty much all Labour have, Arden is a very likeable empty suit.
Spot on. This phenomenon has taken over politics worldwide to new extremes and is both illogical and infantile. It's also a great indicator of opinions that are worthless🙂
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other. On that or any number of issues. Either way he runs the risk of alienating a bunch of people who hold strongly opposing views.
How many people will have such strong opinions about a single issue they'll make their decision based on that alone?
I did read somewhere this morning that he is probably lucky that he hasn't had too many controversial decisions to defend.
And how his morality and ethics are shaped shouldn't be an issue, but if it is well and good. Along the same lines he shouldn't change who he is in order to appeal to a particular bunch of people who have a different view.
On a different note, given he apparently shepherded through the Zero Carbon Act I wonder how that equates with his biggest Fern fan and known Climate Change skeptic...
I have no problem with him voting based on his beliefs. It is up to his constituents to make it clear if they have a problem with that.
My point was that, as leader, he also has a responsibility to steer and promote policies (potentially) for the whole country. He has to be open to things outside of his personal beliefs to do that job well otherwise we are beholden to the beliefs of his cult without voting for that.
If he wants to be the 'Catholic' or 'Christian' party he can start one or join something existing that has clear policy that provides mandate. People voting for economic leadership are not voting for catholic beliefs.
He probably does actually realise this as he used to work for Jim 'Spud' Bolger who handled the same situation well. He just didn't make that very clear the other day. He has a bit to learn in political skills and communication. -
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other. On that or any number of issues. Either way he runs the risk of alienating a bunch of people who hold strongly opposing views.
How many people will have such strong opinions about a single issue they'll make their decision based on that alone?
I did read somewhere this morning that he is probably lucky that he hasn't had too many controversial decisions to defend.
And how his morality and ethics are shaped shouldn't be an issue, but if it is well and good. Along the same lines he shouldn't change who he is in order to appeal to a particular bunch of people who have a different view.
On a different note, given he apparently shepherded through the Zero Carbon Act I wonder how that equates with his biggest Fern fan and known Climate Change skeptic...
I have no problem with him voting based on his beliefs. It is up to his constituents to make it clear if they have a problem with that.
My point was that, as leader, he also has a responsibility to steer and promote policies (potentially) for the whole country. He has to be open to things outside of his personal beliefs to do that job well otherwise we are beholden to the beliefs of his cult without voting for that.
If he wants to be the 'Catholic' or 'Christian' party he can start one or join something existing that has clear policy that provides mandate. People voting for economic leadership are not voting for catholic beliefs.
He probably does actually realise this as he used to work for Jim 'Spud' Bolger who handled the same situation well. He just didn't make that very clear the other day. He has a bit to learn in political skills and communication.You're all over the place on this post. And suggesting something which only a fool leader would do. That is promote something that he or she doesn't agree with (but you do). The best option in a situation like this is allow a conscience vote. And also as he's just been elected leader stress that youy deputy has an opposing viewpoint (which I'm fairly sure he did)
-
https://stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121607160/how-todd-muller-took-simon-bridges-by-surprise
If the article is mostly accurate it suggests Muller is a very savvy operator in the background but is also a guy who can connect with people, who was able to convince his fellow caucus members to come over to his side with no bloodshed whatsoever. Keeping Goldsmith on, knowing he is a Bridges supporter sends a strong message that he doesn't need yes men and values high character people. His message appears to be on point right now, and if Mrs CF is in anyway representative of many Nats voters, she is happy that Simon is gone and likes the inclusion of Kaye
-
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other. On that or any number of issues. Either way he runs the risk of alienating a bunch of people who hold strongly opposing views.
How many people will have such strong opinions about a single issue they'll make their decision based on that alone?
I did read somewhere this morning that he is probably lucky that he hasn't had too many controversial decisions to defend.
And how his morality and ethics are shaped shouldn't be an issue, but if it is well and good. Along the same lines he shouldn't change who he is in order to appeal to a particular bunch of people who have a different view.
On a different note, given he apparently shepherded through the Zero Carbon Act I wonder how that equates with his biggest Fern fan and known Climate Change skeptic...
I have no problem with him voting based on his beliefs. It is up to his constituents to make it clear if they have a problem with that.
My point was that, as leader, he also has a responsibility to steer and promote policies (potentially) for the whole country. He has to be open to things outside of his personal beliefs to do that job well otherwise we are beholden to the beliefs of his cult without voting for that.
If he wants to be the 'Catholic' or 'Christian' party he can start one or join something existing that has clear policy that provides mandate. People voting for economic leadership are not voting for catholic beliefs.
He probably does actually realise this as he used to work for Jim 'Spud' Bolger who handled the same situation well. He just didn't make that very clear the other day. He has a bit to learn in political skills and communication.You're all over the place on this post. And suggesting something which only a fool leader would do. That is promote something that he or she doesn't agree with (but you do). The best option in a situation like this is allow a conscience vote. And also as he's just been elected leader stress that youy deputy has an opposing viewpoint (which I'm fairly sure he did)
I'm not all over the place at all. I think you are just failing to understand.
I haven't suggested that he promote anything. The conversation was around whether he potentially alienated a group of voters as leader because he didn't answer the question in a way that showed the his personal opinion in a conscience vote is different to his task as leader which may be to allow the vote in the first place.
It is a subtle difference but an important one.
I'm also not saying he is wrong just that he didn't communicate well. -
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
He has to vote one way or the other. On that or any number of issues. Either way he runs the risk of alienating a bunch of people who hold strongly opposing views.
How many people will have such strong opinions about a single issue they'll make their decision based on that alone?
I did read somewhere this morning that he is probably lucky that he hasn't had too many controversial decisions to defend.
And how his morality and ethics are shaped shouldn't be an issue, but if it is well and good. Along the same lines he shouldn't change who he is in order to appeal to a particular bunch of people who have a different view.
On a different note, given he apparently shepherded through the Zero Carbon Act I wonder how that equates with his biggest Fern fan and known Climate Change skeptic...
I have no problem with him voting based on his beliefs. It is up to his constituents to make it clear if they have a problem with that.
My point was that, as leader, he also has a responsibility to steer and promote policies (potentially) for the whole country. He has to be open to things outside of his personal beliefs to do that job well otherwise we are beholden to the beliefs of his cult without voting for that.
If he wants to be the 'Catholic' or 'Christian' party he can start one or join something existing that has clear policy that provides mandate. People voting for economic leadership are not voting for catholic beliefs.
He probably does actually realise this as he used to work for Jim 'Spud' Bolger who handled the same situation well. He just didn't make that very clear the other day. He has a bit to learn in political skills and communication.You're all over the place on this post. And suggesting something which only a fool leader would do. That is promote something that he or she doesn't agree with (but you do). The best option in a situation like this is allow a conscience vote. And also as he's just been elected leader stress that youy deputy has an opposing viewpoint (which I'm fairly sure he did)
I'm not all over the place at all. I think you are just failing to understand.
I haven't suggested that he promote anything. The conversation was around whether he potentially alienated a group of voters as leader because he didn't answer the question in a way that showed the his personal opinion in a conscience vote is different to his task as leader which may be to allow the vote in the first place.
It is a subtle difference but an important one.
I'm also not saying he is wrong just that he didn't communicate well.I have to wonder if you even saw him answer the question. He was asked by the team on The Project to answer some questions with Yes or No answers. The questions were then “Abortion?”, “Legalising Marijuana”, etc and when he attempted to answer with anything more than Yes or No, or clarify his answer he was jeered. The presenters knew perfectly well what they were doing. They gave him no room for context or communication outside their terms. I’ve said before I’m not a fan of his style, but you’re arguing a straw man here.
NZ Politics