-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC I did see it and he answered an emphatic no and commented that his faith was important to him.
Absolutely he answered on the personal level. Most leaders would have deliberately prevaricated.
Despite being honest, it showed a hint of lack of political nouse. Most leaders avoid getting sucked in.
It isn’t a major thing just an aside discussion.
It just had potential to alienate some.God damn (pun intended) that honesty ...
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC I did see it and he answered an emphatic no and commented that his faith was important to him.
Absolutely he answered on the personal level. Most leaders would have deliberately prevaricated.
Despite being honest, it showed a hint of lack of political nouse. Most leaders avoid getting sucked in.
It isn’t a major thing just an aside discussion.
It just had potential to alienate some.God damn (pun intended) that honesty ...
You could say he was transparent!
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC I did see it and he answered an emphatic no and commented that his faith was important to him.
Absolutely he answered on the personal level. Most leaders would have deliberately prevaricated.
Despite being honest, it showed a hint of lack of political nouse. Most leaders avoid getting sucked in.
It isn’t a major thing just an aside discussion.
It just had potential to alienate some.God damn (pun intended) that honesty ...
You could say he was transparent!
I saw right though him.
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
I can't remember where the article was but Cindy thinks a four day working week is something to consider. Spoken like someone whose closest thing to a real private sector job was her after school stint with the Morrinsville fish and chip shop
She's hardly developing a new theory there, but it's one which I'm in agreeance. I've long been irritated by the concept of presenteeism.
The last time I was in the financial sector my work hours varied considerably with the benefit that unless I had to be in front of a client, I could work from anywhere. Only problem was the 60-80 hour weeks...
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
I can't remember where the article was but Cindy thinks a four day working week is something to consider. Spoken like someone whose closest thing to a real private sector job was her after school stint with the Morrinsville fish and chip shop
She's hardly developing a new theory there, but it's one which I'm in agreeance. I've long been irritated by the concept of presenteeism.
The last time I was in the financial sector my work hours varied considerably with the benefit that unless I had to be in front of a client, I could work from anywhere. Only problem was the 60-80 hour weeks...
It depends what sector you are in, and what the KPIs are. Obviously retail has to focus on hours worked, if your work is project based, I suppose it is okay to leave early/ come and go as you please as long as the work is done
-
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
-
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
Nah. This is now blown out of all proportion.
I have been sucked into responding to every question here and the original point of the discussion is lost.
It is quite simple. He was politically naive by sounding proudly anti-abortion.
Whether right or wrong or honest or whatever, the point was that he may well have chalked a little mark against his name with some people because of that. -
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Being honest is good. Being anti-abortion is polarising. Given the law has changed, it shouldn't cost many votes as long as there are no plans to revisit.
I don't recall him saying that if he got into power it would be an issue his party would pursue. He said it but didn't exactly go Izzy Folau about it. And the media didn't even blink in the wake of his interview
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
Nah. This is now blown out of all proportion.
I have been sucked into responding to every question here and the original point of the discussion is lost.
It is quite simple. He was politically naive by sounding proudly anti-abortion.
Whether right or wrong or honest or whatever, the point was that he may well have chalked a little mark against his name with some people because of that.A vote you never had is not a vote lost.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
Nah. This is now blown out of all proportion.
I have been sucked into responding to every question here and the original point of the discussion is lost.
It is quite simple. He was politically naive by sounding proudly anti-abortion.
Whether right or wrong or honest or whatever, the point was that he may well have chalked a little mark against his name with some people because of that.A vote you never had is not a vote lost.
Sir, that is the epitome of Fern pithiness!
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Being honest is good. Being anti-abortion is polarising. Given the law has changed, it shouldn't cost many votes as long as there are no plans to revisit.
Pro or anti abortion is irrelevant. Having an unhealthy obsession with abortion either way is electorally polarizing.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
Nah. This is now blown out of all proportion.
I have been sucked into responding to every question here and the original point of the discussion is lost.I don’t think it has, I think it is the point of the discussion. You think he’s naive. I think maybe he’s smarter than we give him credit for. Isn’t that the point?
It is quite simple. He was politically naive by sounding proudly anti-abortion.
Whether right or wrong or honest or whatever, the point was that he may well have chalked a little mark against his name with some people because of that.He says things you don’t agree with. It’s perfectly fine that you don’t agree. But he’s not going to win you over no matter what he says, because he’s on the wrong team, so tempering what he says to fit your politics would be quintuply stupid:
He would fail to win over many converts because being pro abortion is not a differentiator,
He is unlikely to lose any votes he would otherwise have had because his Catholicism is well known (and incidentally no different to boring old Bill English, who you may remember won more votes than Jacinda Ardern) so pretty well flagged up,
He would have lost votes because of his lack of a spine and hypocrisy,
He would lose the votes of those voters who agree with him on abortion, and there are a lot of them,
He no doubt is aware that the average National voter understands that the leader doesn’t get to decide abortion policy unilaterally anyway. -
@rotated said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Being honest is good. Being anti-abortion is polarising. Given the law has changed, it shouldn't cost many votes as long as there are no plans to revisit.
Pro or anti abortion is irrelevant. Having an unhealthy obsession with abortion either way is electorally polarizing.
Have to disagree. It doesn't really matter how "pro" or "anti" you are. Welcome to 2020.
-
National shared a snippet of Tamati Coffey and his exchange with a business owner, I think of a bar.
Incredibly patronising, lacking of empathy, and highlighting Labour’s lack of any understanding of how businesses work.
No wonder Cindy had to gag her ministers.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@JC said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial Who the fuck would vote for someone who prevaricated and used their political nous to avoid answering the hard questions? Who would vote for someone who would say anything to win power, who didn’t have the integrity to stand by their principles because they weren’t popular.
You?
I disagree with a fair few things Muller apparently believes, but I’ll vote for someone with honesty and integrity that I don’t agree with before a chancer anytime. And there may be more of us than you think.
And why should he have held his tongue anyway? Be honest, if he’d done what you said you’d have caned him for being a hypocrite (and you’d have been right too), he’d have lost the respect of the right and literally gained zero votes from the left. Hmm, it’s almost like he must have thought about that. at some stage. Politicians, eh? Can’t trust ‘em. 😉
Nah. This is now blown out of all proportion.
I have been sucked into responding to every question here and the original point of the discussion is lost.
It is quite simple. He was politically naive by sounding proudly anti-abortion.
Whether right or wrong or honest or whatever, the point was that he may well have chalked a little mark against his name with some people because of that.A vote you never had is not a vote lost.
True, but an undecided or 'swing' vote is one you want to capture.
Those are the ones that 'count double'
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Being honest is good. Being anti-abortion is polarising. Given the law has changed, it shouldn't cost many votes as long as there are no plans to revisit.
Being pro-abortion is also polarising, particularly to the point of celebrating it right up to birth. It's probably always going to be a polarising subject so it doesn't really matter which way you answer - you are going to piss people off. I know Seymour absolutely copped it from his core base when he came out as supporting it.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
Being honest is good. Being anti-abortion is polarising. Given the law has changed, it shouldn't cost many votes as long as there are no plans to revisit.
Being pro-abortion is also polarising, particularly to the point of celebrating it right up to birth. It's probably always going to be a polarising subject so it doesn't really matter which way you answer - you are going to piss people off. I know Seymour absolutely copped it from his core base when he came out as supporting it.
So did Labour, particularly from the ethnic community and some of the church groups. Agree that it's a polarising issue either way, but if neither National nor Labour have any appetite for change, it's only going to be relevant if it comes up as a coalition agreement negotiation. I'm not seeing anything to suggest New Conservatives are getting any traction, so it's unlikely, but 4 months is a long time.
-
She's pretty good at keeping her cool.....
-
Looks like Adams is not retiring. Apparently Brownlee will be campaign manager, so while Bridges has a ministry if he wants one, Paula Bennett seems to have dropped a bit.
Looks a decent line up - the struggle will be convincing voters that they want what National is offering. Doesn't look like it currently:
NZ Politics