Paul1977:

 

tdgeek:

 

Paul1977:

 

I think making Simon Bridges leader of National was a reaction to Jacinda Ardern.

 

I personally don't like him, to me he comes across as a bit smarmy and not very genuine. But I obviously don't know the man, so my assessment from just seeing him on TV may be way off base.

 

It does seem true that all he, and National as a whole, offers is opposition for oppositions sake. I know this is nothing new, but isn't the point of fresh leadership to offer something new?

 

I'd be far more inclined to support an opposition party (or any party for that matter) who is willing to admit when the other party does something well or has a good idea.

 

Again, this is nothing new, but I'd just like to see our politicians be more concerned with the welfare of the country than simply staying in power, or trying to get back into power.

 

 

Bolds

 

1. I agree

 

2. Can't do that as public will stick to the current party

 

3. Yep, that's always an issue. rarely will you see, "you wont like this. you wont want to vote for this, but we have to"  and the usual pre election bribes. If we found a true statesman, who doesnt need the vote buying strategy, it could happen then, but thats very rare

 

 

I disagree. You can (and should) give credit where credit is due, and still oppose other policies that you have valid reasons to oppose.

 

 

 

I disagree as well, but that's what happens. If SB agreed with many things that JA did, lets just vote for JA. But SB will disagree with almost everything. National and Labour, who lets say have 100 policies. There is no way that for the other party who say that 99 are bad, is correct. But they will