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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 45

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1849880 21-Aug-2017 15:37

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

Jacinda has NO experience at leading anything yet. <snip>

Neither did John. At least she's been in the Government system, he hadn't. <snip>

No experience except winning his electorate seat in a General Election three times before being made PM. (Something that Ms. Adern has not once managed to achieve)

...oh, that and the two years spent as the Opposition's Spokeperson for Finance before being promoted to Opposition leader where he spend a further two years developing the National party into an entity that could beat Helen Clark's Labour Government and sustain level of support from voters that has never been achieved in any MMP framework ever.

Yeah - that's roughly about the same as Labour's spokesperson for Children who was left holding the parcel when the music stopped 8wks out from the Election.

National has always been the dominating party, thats a huge help. Its won more elections than Labour by a wide margin. Labour under Clarke had got very tired. Its hardly a fair comparison.

I don t understand what you are saying...........Labour were in Government for 9 years and during that time National reinvented itself massively. Labour has been in opposition for 9 years and changed leader about 5 times...and thats about it. National have let some things slip in the last 8 years including their own image and may well pay for that this time.

I do remember the 9 years of Labour government very well, where NO new roads were built or no new trains were purchased, or hospitals built for that matter. The size of the civil service grew approx 40% to achieve what? Sure strong leadership but whatelse...

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1849884 21-Aug-2017 15:53

tdgeek:

National has always been the dominating party, thats a huge help. Its won more elections than Labour by a wide margin. Labour under Clarke had got very tired. Its hardly a fair comparison.

I'm really struggling to reconcile your posts with facts, history or logic. It's nothing personal, but you're categorically wrong.

Over the past 34years of Government, it's been 18years of National-lead and 16years of Labour lead governments. That hardly amounts to domination, it's a difference of less than a single electoral cycle.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849890 21-Aug-2017 16:07

Pumpedd:

tdgeek:

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

Jacinda has NO experience at leading anything yet. <snip>

Neither did John. At least she's been in the Government system, he hadn't. <snip>

No experience except winning his electorate seat in a General Election three times before being made PM. (Something that Ms. Adern has not once managed to achieve)

...oh, that and the two years spent as the Opposition's Spokeperson for Finance before being promoted to Opposition leader where he spend a further two years developing the National party into an entity that could beat Helen Clark's Labour Government and sustain level of support from voters that has never been achieved in any MMP framework ever.

Yeah - that's roughly about the same as Labour's spokesperson for Children who was left holding the parcel when the music stopped 8wks out from the Election.

National has always been the dominating party, thats a huge help. Its won more elections than Labour by a wide margin. Labour under Clarke had got very tired. Its hardly a fair comparison.

I don t understand what you are saying...........Labour were in Government for 9 years and during that time National reinvented itself massively. Labour has been in opposition for 9 years and changed leader about 5 times...and thats about it. National have let some things slip in the last 8 years including their own image and may well pay for that this time.

I do remember the 9 years of Labour government very well, where NO new roads were built or no new trains were purchased, or hospitals built for that matter. The size of the civil service grew approx 40% to achieve what? Sure strong leadership but whatelse...

If you look at the election history, National dominates. Labour has had one 3 term period under Clarke, a good leader. National has had 5. Labour gets in when its time for a change, and they cant hold onto it. National clearly dominates. So if your and up and comer, its far far easier to be a blue up and comer. Your already well over halfway there.

Your right about the last 9 years. Nats have been steady, Labs have been weak, no argument there

Did we have immigration then as we do now and the blowout in housing and roading? No

I actually read an article this morning about costs, National hasn't been containing civil servant numbers at all, that I believe was part of the policy or at least goals.

My sentiments I see often repeated in articles. Nats have been fine. Steady, but too steady, letting things slide. Opting out off the housing crisis. Its not a case of what they have done, its what they haven't. Now we are getting big hospital and roading promises. Maybe they saw a strong set of books as being a good idea, but many arent happy. Ohariu is a seat that is not in the Labour demographic, they arent happy either, even with a long term loyal MP. IMO its being seen as not doing a bad job, but not doing a great deal of good either, and roads and housing affects many.

Having said all that, there are many variables. Typically there are pros and cons when assessing the incumbent and the opposition. Trade offs. But it seems that every duck is lining up the same way for the same party. JE going, Bill is a bit meh, Greens, Little out. Emotions over housing being left and so on. Its a little bizarre to be honest. So, its down to safe and steady, nit a great deal will change, or risk a new vibrant leader who may end up as just ok, lots of promise, delivered a little, but was just ok, or became a top leader. IMO people are looking at that risk and saying, NZ is in OK shape, its not great, its not bad, its fine. Worth taking a risk maybe.

Or it could be as simple as the 3 term itch

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849900 21-Aug-2017 16:17

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

National has always been the dominating party, thats a huge help. Its won more elections than Labour by a wide margin. Labour under Clarke had got very tired. Its hardly a fair comparison.

I'm really struggling to reconcile your posts with facts, history or logic. It's nothing personal, but you're categorically wrong.

Over the past 34years of Government, it's been 18years of National-lead and 16years of Labour lead governments. That hardly amounts to domination, it's a difference of less than a single electoral cycle.

I have 16-10 National to Labour, I excluded the war as thats when life was only the war. Looking at the list, its 5 terms of 3 or 4 to National, one 3 term for Clarke, one 2 term for Lange, thats it. When National is in it 3 terms or more, always. When Labour is in its 1. Almost always, only 2 exceptions. To me, thats dominant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1849914 21-Aug-2017 17:00

Well - seeing as you put it that way ;-)

...I'll concede that I was limiting my assessment to "recent" history. (Mostly under our "current" electoral framework)

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1849937 21-Aug-2017 17:45

6FIEND:

Well - seeing as you put it that way ;-)

...I'll concede that I was limiting my assessment to "recent" history. (Mostly under our "current" electoral framework)

Fair call. A lot has changed also. It used to be the workers vs the well off and business. Thats still the general theme but far diluted these days.

While its turning into an ever changing ride, its been good to see opposing leadership calling out gutter comments, such as the lipstick comment. It washed off her back, and Bill and Paula chimes in, thats quite a good thing. Im sure some political capital to be gained, but even so. Most politicians want the best for NZ. Ive watched state elections in the US, thats all an insult fest. Here they fight hard and pretty fair. Good kiwi stuff

networkn

Networkn
32260 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851030 23-Aug-2017 09:49

Interesting article:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11909160

Parts I found particularly true after watching her "job interview" yesterday:

Capital gains tax? Let's form a working group. Again.

A republic? Let's start the conversation. Again.

TPP? Say whatever you want as the thing is in limbo. So let's make it about housing, not trade.

Immigration? She doesn't like to fixate on numbers and she assured business that they'd have the migrants their industry would need.

It was a masterclass in saying nothing at all, while seeming to be confident and ready to lead.

Remember, she has a degree in communications and PR, and she's pretty good at it.

Ardern realises the moment she confirms a policy the hyenas will be in to strip her bones.

As inferred, by me earlier, they are going to make this up as they go along. They don't really have a proper grasp on the numbers, or the practical skills to execute a good quality Government. I suspect the infighting isn't over yet either.

I say let them show actual numbers.

On the flip side, I felt Bill English missed an opportunity during his interview to make an admission they didn't handle housing as well they should have. He could have make an admission without looking negligent (for the record I don't think they were negligent but I know there is some sentiment they were).

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851086 23-Aug-2017 10:46

Adern is doing a great job of following the 2008 John Key playbook.

National's policy was exceptionally vague and non-committal. Don't commit to anything except "change". It's a proven formula and it's working.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851095 23-Aug-2017 11:02

Handle9:

Adern is doing a great job of following the 2008 John Key playbook.

National's policy was exceptionally vague and non-committal. Don't commit to anything except "change". It's a proven formula and it's working.

Agree, its often like that with him. Conversely, its a sound approach to be non committal until your ok with it progressing

Re @networkn Ill read later, but I follow what you mean. They probably don't have a hard plan numbers wise, and werent the books just opened the other day?

Clearly what Little was going to offer has been changed, so whether its been rush city to be a new leader and start over with policy costs, or not getting a handle on the books if they were recently opened, its hard to know. They have an opportunity to get details, so will see what eventuates.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851096 23-Aug-2017 11:02

Handle9:

Adern is doing a great job of following the 2008 John Key playbook.

National's policy was exceptionally vague and non-committal. Don't commit to anything except "change". It's a proven formula and it's working.

Agree, its often like that with him. Conversely, its a sound approach to be non committal until your ok with it progressing

Re @networkn Ill read later, but I follow what you mean. They probably don't have a hard plan numbers wise, and werent the books just opened the other day?

networkn

Networkn
32260 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851099 23-Aug-2017 11:05

Agree, its often like that with him. Conversely, its a sound approach to be non committal until your ok with it progressing

I disagree with your sentiment it's ok to be non-committal. They are not holding back on what they are promising (They WILL do this and they WILL do that!), just how they intend on delivering it.

In an attempt to come across as "strong" JA to me, came across as shrill and prickly. I would also say my overarching opinion on her is she has little to no economics knowledge. She will have advisors, sure, but the buck stops with her.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1851101 23-Aug-2017 11:09

networkn:

(cut)

As inferred, by me earlier, they are going to make this up as they go along. They don't really have a proper grasp on the numbers, or the practical skills to execute a good quality Government. I suspect the infighting isn't over yet either.

I say let them show actual numbers.

Sorry, but I think you're talking out of your proverbial; I've noticed so much of this same line recently, as if Labour's policies have not been costed and accounted for in their alternative spending plan. The reality is it's just easier to play only on the surface - stick with superficial generalisations.

Also, my understanding is that the airy-fairy pluck-a-policy-and-cost-out-of-the-air spending promises that may have been common in previous times is just not the way things are done for now, and Labour in particular have been far more rigorous with their costing and budgeting of policies.

For example, Treasury issues guidelines on the costing of political parties' policies; I understand this can include the use of govt departments to help cost policies.

Further, Labour released its fiscal plan only last month, which is constructed around a number of budget responsibility rules agreed to between Labour and the Greens (I believe). The numbers in this plan have been checked by BERL (the economic forecasting agency, which includes "benchmark(ing)" against the May '17 BEFU (budget economic and fiscal update) data (page 6 of the plan).

I really wonder how many people have bothered to even peer behind the headlines and actually read the details of the very policies (and associated costings) they're so busy criticising? But that wouldn't help this narrative - that Labour are economic ignoramuses who can't be trusted with the NZ economy, which is just so going gang-busters by the way, thanks to the excellent stewardship of National over the past nine years.

Labour were in power for nine years, and the general consensus is they did a pretty good job with the country's finances; while those individuals responsible for this may no longer be there, it's not like they've simply abandoned the same relatively safe (and economically conservative - let's be honest, it's not like the Clarke government did a 180 on the post-1984 neo-right orthodoxy) approach.

I'm not a Labour Party stooge - in fact, I've never (yet) voted for them - but I give them a little more credit in terms of their fiscal management skills than others here clearly do. Indeed I start from the reasoned assumption they can be trusted to not financially mismanage this country, and focus on which party's policies I believe will be best for NZ's future.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18612 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1851105 23-Aug-2017 11:13

networkn:

In an attempt to come across as "strong" JA to me, came across as shrill and prickly. I would also say my overarching opinion on her is she has little to no economics knowledge. She will have advisors, sure, but the buck stops with her.

If she was a man she would be strong. Because she's a woman, especially a youngish one, she is shrill.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32260 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851106 23-Aug-2017 11:14

jonathan18:

Labour were in power for nine years, and the general consensus is they did a pretty good job with the country's finances; while those individuals responsible for this may no longer be there, it's not like they've simply abandoned the same relatively safe (and economically conservative - let's be honest, it's not like the Clarke government did a 180 on the post-1984 neo-right orthodoxy) approach.

I'm not a Labour Party stooge - in fact, I've never (yet) voted for them - but I give them a little more credit in terms of their fiscal management skills than others here clearly do. Indeed I start from the reasoned assumption they can be trusted to not financially mismanage this country, and focus on which party's policies I believe will be best for NZ's future.

Labour did "well" for NZ financially largely of Clarkes own admission that world wide pretty much everyone else was too. They had no huge challenges in their time in office that I can recall that put NZ under big financial or resource strain.

networkn

Networkn
32260 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1851107 23-Aug-2017 11:15

Rikkitic:

networkn:

In an attempt to come across as "strong" JA to me, came across as shrill and prickly. I would also say my overarching opinion on her is she has little to no economics knowledge. She will have advisors, sure, but the buck stops with her.

If she was a man she would be strong. Because she's a woman, especially a youngish one, she is shrill.

Oh, this old chestnut! No, she is shrill because she is shrill. I couldn't care less if she is a woman or a man. Andrew Little is Male and I found him overly aggressive and defensive as did MANY other people which is why he has the moniker Angry Andrew.

I care that 6 months ago she categorically stated she did not want the PM job under any circumstances.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 45