Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

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

Forums › Politics › Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2120460 5-Nov-2018 19:06

GV27:

gulfa:

GV27:

Even if there are confidential agreements which may be in place. It does not mean you cannot be accurate with the number involved. I have no sympathy for JLR and the sooner he disappears of the radar the better.

(I am not wishing ill of him) I am not going to justify whether I have or have not dealt with mentally ill people. This is not about me. This is becoming more about people with closed minds. I have made my opinion clear you don't have to agree with it but don't try getting personal, deal with the issues at hand. I am sick of being accused of having low standards, having voted a particular way etc As I have said before some here have very closed minds. I have made my position very clear about SB and his prospects of becoming PM. I am now out of here which I am sure will please some of you with closed minds

How am I getting personal? I am questioning the standard to which you and others are holding Bridges to. It is, frankly, unrealistic given that this has never happened before in New Zealand politics. It's also a higher standard than anyone else in politics seem to be held to, given events earlier this year.

By the way, you've used the words 'closed minds' three times in that post. Am I right in inferring that anyone who disagrees or challenges your view is 'close minded'? Because that seems a better label for someone who gets challenged on what they're saying and decides to have a sook.

This is a reason why I can't be bothered posting here. It cuts both ways. Its a political thread so posts will have inherent biases, thats ok. If a biased post was made, its a waste of ink. If an objective post was made, but the poster is known to be Blue or Red its perceived as nothing more than bias. More wasted ink. So, its difficult to discuss as invariably its only ever Side A vs Side B. Now, there are objective posts, but they get lost. If Side A did a good thing, lets not comment. If they did a bad thing lets exaggerate. Also cuts both ways.

IMHO, there is not a lot on either side. Its easy to argue for and against both sides. A bit like the ol' Apple vs Android threads. In those old days I could argue for Apple as I use them but easily also criticise them, and comment negatively about Android, but also show their positives. But that will rarely happen here, although it does from time to time.

It could be quite a fun and lively thread, but in essence its an A vs B thread, no holes barred.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2120462 5-Nov-2018 19:16

networkn:

It's not an anti SB thing, it's an anti National thing. Strangely, when the PM was less than transparent over a number of issues and has been evasive answering questions on any number of the scandals Labour have caused themselves, there was no howling of a similar nature for accountancy and how unsuited to lead she was.

I get that. Its anti National, but the other side is anti Labour. There haven't been that many transparency issues, or that many evasiveness, or a raft of scandals. There have been a solid number of mis steps. The current scandal with National they have got through it by focusing on JLR and therefore insulating SB, so they came out fine, IMO.

I see JA and SB as very similar. Young, inexperienced, and have blundered. I'd rather have either than an old school leader, times have changed. SB has a clear disadvantage, he is in no position to easily recover as National are not calling the shots, they can only disagree on everything as Opposition does. So, I cut them both a lot of slack, for the same reasons. If JC took over, thats curtains for National as the people dont want loud and aggressive, they want a leader, and I feel that JC is gunning for it. Its there for the taking.

Let JA and SB learn. Both parties will benefit.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2120468 5-Nov-2018 19:35

We will have to agree to disagree on the number and severity of the issues Labour has faced/caused in their year in power. I can't recall a worse first year for bumbling and nonsense in my memory. It's been most disappointing, but not surprising to me.

The issue I have with JA's leadership is her "failures" are likely to occur again, because she thinks she did the right thing in each case.

SB could have handled this a little better, but in a situation like this, there aren't any winners, only trying to limit by how much, each involved party (not political) loses. He has done a pretty reasonable job in that regard. To his credit he owned his poor choice of words (In regard to JLR), apologised and I don't think it would happen again. I think his comments toward his other MP were pretty poor.

I wouldn't want all my conversations recorded and then played back, I am sure they at times wouldn't reflect well on me, even though I consider myself a decent human being. Could you imagine things that Winston has said that he wouldn't want seeing the light of day?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2120469 5-Nov-2018 19:39

tdgeek:

I see JA and SB as very similar.

I don't.

JA is ideologically focussed - which costs her when ideological goals face inevitable hurdles with implementation.
They talk about stardust - perhaps more correctly starstruck - I don't think she ever expected to be PM.
If she wasn't a politician - would I like her (and her partner)? Yes - I think I would. She seems like a very decent person.

SB OTOH, strikes me as someone who's got no ideology, he's trying to cater to the god-squad conservatives, to the libertarian faction, and to the Trumpist hard-liners and haters like Collins etc. on a "career path" to be PM.
It's not going to work - he's doomed.
If he wasn't a politician - would I like him (and his partner)? Nope. I can't stand wishy-washy evasive nonsense. He won't answer a question straight - for fear that getting it wrong will damage his career / anger the factions.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2120503 5-Nov-2018 19:52

networkn:

SB could have handled this a little better,

Master of understatement. LOL.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2120518 5-Nov-2018 20:08

Fred99:

tdgeek:

I see JA and SB as very similar.

I don't.

JA is ideologically focussed - which costs her when ideological goals face inevitable hurdles with implementation.
They talk about stardust - perhaps more correctly starstruck - I don't think she ever expected to be PM.
If she wasn't a politician - would I like her (and her partner)? Yes - I think I would. She seems like a very decent person.

SB OTOH, strikes me as someone who's got no ideology, he's trying to cater to the god-squad conservatives, to the libertarian faction, and to the Trumpist hard-liners and haters like Collins etc. on a "career path" to be PM.
It's not going to work - he's doomed.
If he wasn't a politician - would I like him (and his partner)? Nope. I can't stand wishy-washy evasive nonsense. He won't answer a question straight - for fear that getting it wrong will damage his career / anger the factions.

JK never answered a question straight either. Smiles, evaded, avoided. But he is a good person, he doesn't need politics, and he had no negatives to cater for. We accepted his response, no question. BE the same but much less accomplished. Or a too big a shoe to fill.

SB, I'd give him time, although the tape was a very poor shallow look. Not go there again.

JA I dont feel is all ideology. Some of her policies are overstated or under detailed, but I'd rather have lofty ideas than no ideas, which is why they are in power, and now hold a lead over National one on one. As others have said they cant fix everything in one term, and fix everything is the campaign, but its going in the right direction. Year 3 will tell all.

What I did like was the big surplus. Its not a big surplus at all, but even then they are being conservative. We could spend it, but we will hold on, just in case. Thats prudent. A perfect example of how centre they are. If Labour campaigned on a tax cut, thats the typical Labour lolly scramble, but they campaigned against that, and that was a big risk, so I give her credit for the right thing which was not the voting way to go. I dont see it all as ideology, its just not what we are used to

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2120525 5-Nov-2018 20:15

networkn:

It's not an anti SB thing, it's an anti National thing. Strangely, when the PM was less than transparent over a number of issues and has been evasive answering questions on any number of the scandals Labour have caused themselves, there was no howling of a similar nature for accountancy and how unsuited to lead she was.

No one needs to be anti-Bridges to hear for themselves that this so called man of integrity (he described himself that way on quite a number of occasions - I am sure there are parrots somewhere which aren't LOLing at that) dangled before JLR the possibility of promotion to incentivise JLR to do what was perceived as the least politically damaging for National, notwithstanding supposedly having evidence of JLR's disloyalty and alleged harassment of women (which Bridges claimed were not of the more serious sort later revealed by the media). Now he's either got terrible judgment or was obviously being highly disingenuous and dishonest. Sorry but how has any of this nonsense got anything to do with Bridges' need to handle JLR's issue sensitively, which has been your primary defence of his behaviour in this instance? Bridges was purely looking out for himself and National.

If this guy is a man of integrity, then so is Donald Trump.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2120527 5-Nov-2018 20:25

networkn:

We will have to agree to disagree on the number and severity of the issues Labour has faced/caused in their year in power. I can't recall a worse first year for bumbling and nonsense in my memory. It's been most disappointing, but not surprising to me.

The issue I have with JA's leadership is her "failures" are likely to occur again, because she thinks she did the right thing in each case.

SB could have handled this a little better, but in a situation like this, there aren't any winners, only trying to limit by how much, each involved party (not political) loses. He has done a pretty reasonable job in that regard. To his credit he owned his poor choice of words (In regard to JLR), apologised and I don't think it would happen again. I think his comments toward his other MP were pretty poor.

I wouldn't want all my conversations recorded and then played back, I am sure they at times wouldn't reflect well on me, even though I consider myself a decent human being. Could you imagine things that Winston has said that he wouldn't want seeing the light of day?

Whatever you may think, you clearly have a strong bias against Labour and for National. Nothing wrong with that. It is your good right. But it does influence your comments. If JA does something overwhelmingly correct, you will grudgingly concede the fact, but you are much quicker to jump on any possible excuse to criticise her while doing everything possible to minimise Bridges' missteps. Whatever you may think, you are not in any way objective about this. It is politics all the way.

As I have previously pointed out, recent polls do not agree with your opinion of JA's performance. Labour has gone up, National has gone down, and a majority of people like the way the country is headed. Of course you can assume that everyone who feels this way is dumber than you, but that doesn't change the fact that people do feel this way.

Politics aside, I agree with Fred that JA seems genuinely nice and I would look forward to dinner with her and Clarke. I can't say the same for Simon Bridges.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2120551 5-Nov-2018 21:15

Being a deplorable human being (e.g. Bill Clinton and what he did in the Lewinsky affair) might be survivable as a politician if you are actually competent and shrewd. Simon Bridges on the other hand manages to be consistently despicable, dishonest, disingenuous, and unable to articulate the simplest of concepts without sounding like a squeaky wheel in need of a major overhaul. By my background (bar my very socially liberal nature) as a political moderate who has only ever casted a party vote in favour of National and a lawyer who's sympathetic towards people who are inherently cautious and perhaps not the most plainly spoken, I nonetheless find him utterly insufferable. If the polls and general anecdotes are anything to go by, it seems most in NZ share the same sentiment.

I wish he would get lost already.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2120999 6-Nov-2018 18:07

Jesus mate tell us what you think :D

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2121171 6-Nov-2018 22:00

Rikkitic:

I don't think there can be any question that Labour is in government because of the leader. As has been pointed out, the policies didn't change when the leader did. At most it was just a change of emphasis. Of course the ideal situation is good policies combined with a charismatic leader. I'm glad Labour got in but I'm not blind to how it happened.

A lot of National voters seem to get confused by this and think the only reason Labour's polling went up pre-election was all because of JA, policies be damned. I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case over voters liking the policies but not liking Andrew Little.

networkn:

I think you mean as long as Winston continues as leader of his party.

He is the only reason she is PM and Labour are in power..

Another National voter fallacy. If Winston had gone with National, he would be the only reason Bill English would be in power. Why is it National and its supporters STILL don't understand how MMP works? Heading for another election loss in 2 years without a coalition partner!

Fred99:

SB OTOH, strikes me as someone who's got no ideology, he's trying to cater to the god-squad conservatives, to the libertarian faction, and to the Trumpist hard-liners and haters like Collins etc. on a "career path" to be PM.

SB is himself a god-squad conservative so that part should be easy. It's funny how he and Bill English both keep that bit as low key as possible lol.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2121224 7-Nov-2018 06:42

bmt:

Rikkitic:

I don't think there can be any question that Labour is in government because of the leader. As has been pointed out, the policies didn't change when the leader did. At most it was just a change of emphasis. Of course the ideal situation is good policies combined with a charismatic leader. I'm glad Labour got in but I'm not blind to how it happened.

A lot of National voters seem to get confused by this and think the only reason Labour's polling went up pre-election was all because of JA, policies be damned. I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case over voters liking the policies but not liking Andrew Little.

IMHO, the issue was National, not Labour. The usual time for a change mentality is part of it. The underfunding of health and education is another part (although denied by National people), and the pre election tax cuts which smacks of a vote catcher bribe. I dont get how we can underfund key sectors, then give $2000 p.a. away to everyone, many of whom dont need it. Thats a Labour trick. That Labour voters went with no tax cut says something. More so, NZ wasnt keen on National, but there is no one else, until JA replaced AL, which turned Labour from a mash mash of leadership, into something well worth considering. Not a rock solid party like National, but with discontent with National, Labour became well worth considering, which was enough, to join an MMP race. And probably why Peters went with them.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2121275 7-Nov-2018 09:16

tdgeek:

bmt:

Rikkitic:

I don't think there can be any question that Labour is in government because of the leader. As has been pointed out, the policies didn't change when the leader did. At most it was just a change of emphasis. Of course the ideal situation is good policies combined with a charismatic leader. I'm glad Labour got in but I'm not blind to how it happened.

A lot of National voters seem to get confused by this and think the only reason Labour's polling went up pre-election was all because of JA, policies be damned. I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case over voters liking the policies but not liking Andrew Little.

IMHO, the issue was National, not Labour. The usual time for a change mentality is part of it. The underfunding of health and education is another part (although denied by National people), and the pre election tax cuts which smacks of a vote catcher bribe. I dont get how we can underfund key sectors, then give $2000 p.a. away to everyone, many of whom dont need it. Thats a Labour trick. That Labour voters went with no tax cut says something. More so, NZ wasnt keen on National, but there is no one else, until JA replaced AL, which turned Labour from a mash mash of leadership, into something well worth considering. Not a rock solid party like National, but with discontent with National, Labour became well worth considering, which was enough, to join an MMP race. And probably why Peters went with them.

LOL, rock solid? hmmmm ummmmm no. And I voted for them, silly me.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2121294 7-Nov-2018 09:26

MikeB4:

tdgeek:

bmt:

Rikkitic:

I don't think there can be any question that Labour is in government because of the leader. As has been pointed out, the policies didn't change when the leader did. At most it was just a change of emphasis. Of course the ideal situation is good policies combined with a charismatic leader. I'm glad Labour got in but I'm not blind to how it happened.

A lot of National voters seem to get confused by this and think the only reason Labour's polling went up pre-election was all because of JA, policies be damned. I haven't seen any evidence of that being the case over voters liking the policies but not liking Andrew Little.

IMHO, the issue was National, not Labour. The usual time for a change mentality is part of it. The underfunding of health and education is another part (although denied by National people), and the pre election tax cuts which smacks of a vote catcher bribe. I dont get how we can underfund key sectors, then give $2000 p.a. away to everyone, many of whom dont need it. Thats a Labour trick. That Labour voters went with no tax cut says something. More so, NZ wasnt keen on National, but there is no one else, until JA replaced AL, which turned Labour from a mash mash of leadership, into something well worth considering. Not a rock solid party like National, but with discontent with National, Labour became well worth considering, which was enough, to join an MMP race. And probably why Peters went with them.

LOL, rock solid? hmmmm ummmmm no. And I voted for them, silly me.

They were. JK, then BE, it was rock solid. I didn't on that occasion, but as a party they were rock solid then

quickymart

13925 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2123540 11-Nov-2018 11:51

And now we have Judith Collins calling Kiwibuild a waste of time. But I didn't see her Government do anything about the housing crisis while they were in power? In fact I seem to recall John Key saying there wasn't a housing crisis?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12158247

1 | ... | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37