NZ Politics



  • @canefan said in NZ Politics:

    @rotated said in NZ Politics:

    Does this change the calculus re: NZ First? I saw Bridges came out early saying there would be no coalition, but could that be revisited now or is that a hardline party position?

    It is tough to see National getting anywhere near a majority, but with a bounce could they not easily achieve the inverse of the result at the last election and broker some sort of deal?

    I hate to say it, but assuming Winnie is up for another run they need to be a little more practical this time. Based on his performance this term, basically cockblocking every really bad idea the Greens and Labour cooked up, the Nats could make a case that he has been a responsible part of the government and that warrants consideration as a coalition partner this time. Unlike Key's administration, the Nats don't have the luxury of the Maori Party/ACT/United Future bloc as coalition partner. Winnie is in the box seat again, assuming he makes the threshold (as I expect him to do)

    Rationally, I get that. But how do you go into coalition talks with someone who secretly filed papers sueing you the day before entering into good faith talks? There are still a few months to go to the election ... hammering the SFO, the links ot racing and fishing donors all go away if he's a potential coalition partner. I'd be very very concerned, but can't see a way back without him.

    Glad I'm not in charge of that decision .... and who's to say he won't do the whole kingmaker shtick again and screw National again?



  • @nzzp oh yeah. He LOVES the drama and theatrics of being kingmaker. And if he gets above the threshold, he's the only one who could do it. ACT will only have one seat. The Greens are hemorrhaging support and may not make 5%. The other minor parties are margin of error territory at best. (This of course assumes Muller can claw back support so the gap isn't so big.)



  • Despite Winnie's antics around election time he has actually done a pretty good job over the years (on both sides). He usually only demands one palatable payback piece for his supporters.
    People I know that have had to deal with him on a professional/govt level usually say good things about him. Say that, unlike some other politicians (cough Brownie) he actually reads and asks questions about briefings and will accept expertise around policy.
    He is very good in a Foreign role (apart from the odd misplaced lip shoot) as he appreciates that he is representing NZ and not himself. Of course 'playing the charmer' at get togethers is right up his alley.
    I don't mind him being our government temper to be honest. He hasn't caused any great damage and ruling parties know that they can't get too extreme.
    I am no fan of his political style or message but he has learned how to wield his 'power' well. I actually think we will miss him when he is gone.



  • @Crucial Winston is currently the voice of reason protecting us against excesses of the government. Crazy world



  • @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.



  • @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.



  • @Snowy @Crucial

    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.



  • I think he’s a poor choice.

    National will get nowhere near Labor for a while.



  • @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.



  • @gt12 hes a poor choice..based on what..?



  • @Steven-Harris

    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:

    @Snowy @Crucial

    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:

    @Snowy @Crucial

    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:

    @Snowy @Crucial

    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:

    @Snowy @Crucial

    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.



  • @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.



  • @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.

    And gain others. The left is amply served by Labour and the Greens, no problem consolidating other people. We are not requiring group think yet.



  • @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

    https://www.businessinsider.com/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-four-day-workweek-help-economy-tourism-2020-5

    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

    https://www.businessinsider.com/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-four-day-workweek-help-economy-tourism-2020-5

    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.



  • 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.



  • @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.


Log in to reply