J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › J Adern, How will she affect the election, and is she a good leader?

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 45

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860643 8-Sep-2017 07:42

freitasm:

tdgeek:

He should have not used the 11B smear campaign which was known to be false. Busted. The message should have been quiet, genuine and concerning about her economic experience, hammer that continually, mud sticks. But the 11B issue backfired, caught out. People dont like that

"Quiet and genuine" from a politician that is on the (perceived) losing side?

Nope, not happening.

My take is to have the public percieve that he is genuinely worried, so the public will worry. As I gather from the debate last night JA went down the track of less risk with her, he should have done that. By avoiding the smear campaign, people would be more likely to believe him. But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1860678 8-Sep-2017 09:06

tdgeek:

Read this today. I agree. If I was National PR, I would use JA lack of experience as my target. But, Joyce failed. he could have said, I am really concerned that she has little experience, it really bothers me. We are a 3 term Govt and vulnerable, but it really bothers me. Rinse and repeat daily. The public perception is wow, yes, it is a worry, a risk. But, as he, and others of both parties have done, they got dirty. The masses see the bitchiness, and people dont like that. Factor in, that JA comes across (more perception) as transparent, genuine and honest. That perceives a bigger gap between "nice and honest" and "experienced" aka making up stuff to denigrate the other.

An election should be about the qualities and policies, but while psychology is always there, this time round it will bite the Nats. They should have seen JA as nice, honest and transparent (as she says every 8th word), and taken her on, by being honest, caring and worried. Then the masses who will know National and trust them, will trust their words. But if they perceive dirty tactics, they will vote accordingly.

Im not saying this as a supporter of either, this is my view from the fence. These threads contain A vs B, but it helps to look at it with no rose coloured glasses on.

Should Labour win, IMHO, it will be due to National losing, tactics wise. Thats a democratic pity.

Fully agree with this, and the Newsroom article. That quote from Joyce at the end is particularly ironic because it sums up their current position perfectly. National have grown so used to being in power and their opposition to being a laughing stock that they were completely blind to the growing mood for change.

What's striking is how closely this parallels the end of Helen Clark's government. They had one of the strongest economic records of any government and were lead by a well-known, proven and reliable team. They were up against a newcomer with a very short history in politics and no experience of running a country. They couldn't believe they could lose from that position. When it became clear that they might, all they could do was attack Key and insult the intelligence of those who wanted to vote for him. They talked much more about National than they did about themselves. It didn't work then, and it's not working now.

Fred99:

Not sure what all the hate on Joyce is about. IMO he's one of the more competent pragmatic and hard-working of the Nat's cabinet.

Politics is a funny business. So much negativity about Labour's lack of depth, but I never liked BillE, then there's the Paula, Judith, Gerry, Jonathan, and Nick show.

There's depth there all right - "plumbing it".

While I don't share your faith in Joyce, I agree with you about the lack of depth in National. I actually like Bill English, and I grudgingly respected John Key. But the rest of the lineup is a shambles. The fact that Nick Smith and Judith Collins are not only still in parliament, but cabinet ministers, is all the proof you need of that.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1860750 8-Sep-2017 11:10

Had a chuckle when I saw this.

Seems Jacinda also has a problem with Maths.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1860757 8-Sep-2017 11:13

Can't see a problem with that

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1860759 8-Sep-2017 11:15

MikeB4:

Can't see a problem with that

3 X 3 = 9

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860762 8-Sep-2017 11:23

MikeB4:

Can't see a problem with that

Same, a 10 year plan. Not a 3 term plan. Same if she had a 15 year plan

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1860766 8-Sep-2017 11:34

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Can't see a problem with that

3 X 3 = 9

Where did she say 3 terms or 4 terms?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1860775 8-Sep-2017 11:45

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Can't see a problem with that

3 X 3 = 9

Where did she say 3 terms or 4 terms?

10 years will require 4 terms. Then she may have said 12 years.. Just saying, lets not get too technical about it. Made me smile and I thought it was an unusual number to use.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1860793 8-Sep-2017 11:54

Yes why would she use a nice round number people can easily understand? Also it is common for councils, businesses and all kinds of organisations to have 5, 10 and 15 year plans. But yes let us pick up on it not matching cleanly with the electoral cycle. Seems you are looking to attack and nitpick for the sake of it.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1860794 8-Sep-2017 11:56

Varkk:

Yes why would she use a nice round number people can easily understand? Also it is common for councils, businesses and all kinds of organisations to have 5, 10 and 15 year plans. But yes let us pick up on it not matching cleanly with the electoral cycle. Seems you are looking to attack and nitpick for the sake of it.

Your comment makes no sense because the signboard itself refers to 3 years for the opposition. Why is that? Clearly its referring to an election cycle.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860800 8-Sep-2017 12:06

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Can't see a problem with that

3 X 3 = 9

Where did she say 3 terms or 4 terms?

10 years will require 4 terms. Then she may have said 12 years.. Just saying, lets not get too technical about it. Made me smile and I thought it was an unusual number to use.

A 10 year plan is a common term

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860802 8-Sep-2017 12:06

I saw a summary of policies in the Herald and interestingly Labour's transport policies in terms of improvements seemed to entirely benefit Auckland...! Not sure if that is actually the case or lazy summarising by the Herald.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860805 8-Sep-2017 12:10

Wiggum:

Varkk:

Yes why would she use a nice round number people can easily understand? Also it is common for councils, businesses and all kinds of organisations to have 5, 10 and 15 year plans. But yes let us pick up on it not matching cleanly with the electoral cycle. Seems you are looking to attack and nitpick for the sake of it.

Your comment makes no sense because the signboard itself refers to 3 years for the opposition. Why is that? Clearly its referring to an election cycle.

He is right. Who said the 3 years means an election cycle? National is only looking 3 years ahead, they should look further ahead. Some projects may need 3 years, 5 years, 20 years. JK stated that the target of 100% renewables is 2050, was he planning National to be in power that long? No, that particular project is long term,. many are longer than an electoral term. Labour cannot guarantee they will be in power in 10 years, but they feel its important to have a long term plan rather than a bitsa short term plan

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860810 8-Sep-2017 12:20

Handle9:

tdgeek: I'm not at home but just saw the new poll. A bit surprised. I saw an ebb to JA, a flow to BE last debate and was a bit dubious how the 11b hole would go. In his then her favour but I'm a bit shocked

It's not really surprising. Labour clearly has the momentum. It also explains why National has gone so negative. They haven't been able to show why their policies are good for New Zealanders so they are resorting to going relentlessly negative. This thread has also gone the same way to be honest, those supporting National can only point to why Labour is bad, not all the good work National is going to do. Being a third term government is hard as inevitably things go wrong and you run out of new ideas.

This article is really interesting showing the links to the last 3 governments and how they are going down the same road.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@politics/2017/09/06/46421/three-terms-and-a-hail-mary

I can't get on board with this. You are stating that National has no plan, I say they have a plan. They are releasing policies all the time, the same as Labour is. I don't see Labours plans being more "innovative" than National. What do you see Labour has an advantage of in policies?

They are negative on points they feel are negative. I feel pointing out JA's lack of experience and financial expertise, and the lack of details in the policies which even after 3 debates she hasn't managed to improve, isn't unreasonable by any stretch.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1860815 8-Sep-2017 12:28

I don't get all the stuff about Jacinda Ardern having no expertise, the argument is a smoke screen. If one was to follow the logic a PM or would be PM would have to be expert in Finance, Health, transport, Defence, Justice, Foreign Affairs, Law, Welfare, Agriculture, all disciplines of science, Manufacturing, statistics and so on. On that basis no one ever would qualify to be PM. We have advisors a government departments for this reason.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 45