Post by James ChristophersPost by TonyPost by Rich80105On Thu, 21 May 2020 20:01:39 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James ChristophersPost by CrashOn Wed, 20 May 2020 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers/
Post by CrashPost by James Christophershttps://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/1263204466771103745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Which one is Todd Muller?
The link did not work for me. To me, as an outsider looking in, I
care not who he is unless and until he becomes leader. I found a very
insightful article on the current state of the National Party
Post by James ChristophersPost by Crashhttps://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pharaoh-bridges-swamped-by-pestilence-and-poor-polls
written after both recent political polls were published. It assesses
Bridges leadership qualities (or lack thereof) and then turns to
Muller and Kaye.
I don't often find a journalist writing an article that I completely
agree with - in fact I cannot recall if there has ever been one until
now.
Agreed, as far as it goes. But Watkins has spent, I think, an unduly long
time on Bridges who is already past history. With Watkins Muller comes over as
little more than a stop-gap while National takes time to restore and formulate
its attitudes and policies in a global climate that couldn't be more uncertain,
which is pretty well all it can do. In the minds of evey voter should be the
question: so what would Muller do any better than Ardern during the
continuation and unknown aftermath of Covid-19?
For me, there is as yet nothing to Muller that inspires, and it is
inspiration - that clearly expressed sense of inspiration in the persona - that
fuels political force and credibility more than just about anything else.
It's
in the eyes, in the gesture, in the inflection, in the considered delivery at
the podium, in the physical comportment. And it is every one of these that an
articulate, informed and intuitive Ardern instinctively gets right almost
without exception.
The other point that Ardern had twigged even before she took over is that to
her New Zealand is not so much a nation as a community. She addresses New
Zealanders both as community, and by consistently maintaining this sense of a
common "leveller" that bonds both government and the electorate, she has the
whole country (in the main) thinking along with her. She therefore needs
neither faux posturing nor fakery, neither hubris nor demagoguery to make her
case despite the easy pot shots anyone with an ounce of perception could take
with ease - and with good reason. Even then, in such extraordinary
circumstances it somehow feels not decent, not good form, not the done thing.
With this solid "cred" behind her and with her sense of grounded realism,
she's fair set to make it through the next election. But even so, "a week is a
long time in politics".
So even though Muller is as yet virtually a complete unknown, three months is
several millennia.
I think he spoke very well this afternoon - he rejected the knee-jerk
automatic opposition to everything the government ever does that
destroyed credibility for Bridges; he talked about working with the
Green Party (which incensed a lot of National people), and he is
probably the first Nat politician to recognise that there is no
benefit in bashing parties that National may need to work with
sometime. Yes his talk was filled with unsupported opinions
You mean like the one that stated that this government have failed at every
major measure they set themselves (not his actual words perhaps).
Post by Rich80105and some
remarkable claims about what National stands for
That is an unsupported opinion.
So what? You're no different with your unsupported opinions which you insist
you are entitled to make as Crash has unequivocally made clear to you
previously.
So what? You do the same interminably.
Post by James ChristophersPost by TonyPost by Rich80105, but he was clear,
articulate, and handled the press reasonable well. Thre were no hard
questions, and the internal fighting for a winnable position will be
intense.
There were a couple of hard questions which he closed down strongly and
politely.
Post by Rich80105I think National could get up to say 40% by the time of the
election based on that single decision to get rid of Bridges / Bennett
(and Bridges got her name right for once!)
I've just read an RNZ verbatim transcript of his stated objectives when
interviewed on the hoof. Essentially, they differ not one iota from Ardern's
and her administration's. At this juncture, how could it be otherwise, anyway?
He also states that NZ First is included in his potential choice of coalition
partners should the general election go his way. OK, then, when it comes to
moral flexibility, no different from any past National government. No worries,
aye.
Taking the middle ground as he has is his best ploy at present but this
stymies his wish to claim any distinguishing USPs or of his potential to make
any significant difference to the way things are being done as now. At such a
time as this, few want radical - most want consistency with a big 'C' and with
cool heads behind it, and he knows it.
"But not the economy that bureaucracy talks about, it'll be the economy you
live in. The economy in your community, your job, your main street, your
tourism business, your marae, your local rugby league club, your local butcher,
your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families. And this is the
economy National MPs are grounded in."
A little self-awareness would have been in order here since, with its
unintended double-entendre, the very final sentence defines almost to the
letter the whole problem with National as managers of an economy they have
doggedly kept mired in stultification over the whole nine years of their last
incumbency.
Minimally re-jigged it goes: "And this is the economy National MPs have kept
the entire nation grounded in for their entire nine-year administration."
Absolutely no vision, no plan, no strategy because to a man and as a party and
as a philosophy there has never been evidence of any intellectual force or
energy about them or their actions. Intellectual lassitude and
self-satisfaction could be writ no larger. It's chronic and its systemic right
down the party's deepest root-ends. But this is what National voters will vote
for. Every single time.
So, what better does Muller **really** offer or, indeed, can he when so
irrevocably inculcated with the same blinkered, parochial, inward-looking,
parish-pump mindset as his masters?