-
@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.
-
@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
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.
NZ Politics