Is John Key the man to lead NZ?

[ellipsis]

...pointy sticks'd be far better and probably more fun...

[Robert Taylor]

It's well known fact that if Iraq had had a dozen or so Squawks there is no way Bush would have invaded. The reason the US wouldn't let us sell our old ones was because they knew any military that got their hands on them would be invincible.

I think its also payback for that horrible piece of work we had as a priminister for 9 long years. There is no place having a pacifist as a priminister.

[caspernz]

OK, so is there anyone who resembles a better leader than John Key? By nature I favour Labour, but as much as we may have questioned Helens' sex at birth, I have similar doubts about Phil....

Anyway, democracy is it's own worst enemy. Think about it, in order to make the hard decisions to run the country you need to remain in government, yet to remain in government you need to stay popular.

Also, I would venture that not even half of all eligible voters would pass a basic 'are you qualified to vote' exam based on some simple questions....so an election is just a glorified popularity contest.

[Hinny]

Of course not, but what really sucks is we show absolutely no intent to defend ourselves. What also sucks is we effectively freeload off the Australians.

The Australians free-loaded off us when we took the US to the world court to protect our trade by enforcing trade deals.

I think it should be obvious that it is a lot more important to protect our trade than help support US business.
Their business - war.
They like war.
They are a war-like people.
And why do they like war?
Because it is good business.

What party works to protect and develop our trade interests.
What party engages in illegal wars and criticises the other party for not doing the same.

[ellipsis]

...I'd like to see jonkeys style, with a pointy stick...wonder what form the smile would emerge as...he's a very adaptable man...he would handle it, I'm sure...in a word, to the question...no...he's just a tool to his bizzo mates...then again the other one's just a tool...shit

[mashman]

so an election is just a glorified popularity contest.

Aye... and the best part about it, is that it doesn't matter how strong the PM is, contrary to popular belief, they still have a set of policies and a WHOLE team behind them. Why the need for strength? It's nothing more than the perspective that the guy/gal at the top knows what he's doing (I chuckled a little). Fine way to justify ticking a box.

All I've gleaned from the political threads is that JK seems to be a stronger character than PG. Whoopdeefuckindoo.

In response to the question in the OP: Why do we need a strong leader? Surely who the "backroom" team are should matter more?

[Hinny]

It's well known fact that if Iraq had had a dozen or so Squawks there is no way Bush would have invaded. The reason the US wouldn't let us sell our old ones was because they knew any military that got their hands on them would be invincible.

Interesting comment.
I thought Saddam Hussein spent a lot of money on his air force. It had Soviet and French jet fighters and all the necessary infrastructure to keep them combat-ready.

[ellipsis]

....there's being ready, and then there's, being ready...

[rainman]

OK, so is there anyone who resembles a better leader than John Key? By nature I favour Labour, but as much as we may have questioned Helens' sex at birth, I have similar doubts about Phil....

Good question (well, apart from the bit about gender - I'd happily have a green-skinned mutant transgender islamo-pastafarian cross-dresser as PM if they were any good at the job). So let's drill into that a bit, shall we? What are the uncontroversial attributes of leadership?

1. Vision - not seeing a lot of this from Key other than vapid "aspirational for NZ" nonsense, and not as much of that lately, even.
2. Passion - yeah, nah, he's akshullly totally relaxed about things. Charismatic though, but that isn't that useful.
3. Integrity - not by a long chalk. Slipperier than a slippery thing. Would you buy a used electricity company from this man?
4. Accountability - totally relaxed, no goals to measure him against, dodges when caught out (e.g. fiscally neutral tax cuts, excuse for going back on raising GST...), no accountability for terrible child health stats, exodus to Aussie, etc.
5. Prepared to take the tough decisions - No, rather kick the can down the road - except for asset sales (which is a dumb idea). Compare to Phil with CGT and raising the retirement age - not popular but the right thing to do.
6. Disciplined - "Loose lips" Key? Not so much.
7. Instil hope in your followers - not working for the 100,000 that have gone off to Aussie.
8. Deliver a better outcome for your followers - poor economic growth, asset sales vandalism, increased borrowing. So that would be a no.

Now Goff has some weaknesses too, lest you think I'm a little one-eyed. (I'm not even a Labour supporter, and have grave misgivings about some of their approaches to things, but politics is pragmatism, and Phil is the least worst PM option this time).
1. Vision - check. Extra points if in coalition with the Greens, who also want to lift wages and create better jobs than just dairying.
2. Passion - a bit quiet, not so showy, but can build up a good head of steam. If you include charisma here , Phil's a bit weaker, but flash ain't everything.
3. Integrity - not perfect but pretty good for a polly. Straight up country dude, even.
4. Accountability - also not perfect, but has fronted up re historical asset sales for example.
5. Tough calls - CGT, retirement age
6. Disciplined - some lapses in keeping the party within electoral advertising guidelines and the like. Reasonably effective response to internal discipline issues - Chris Carter etc.
7. Hope - I'd rather own strategic assets and work towards lifting the country out of the poverty it's slipping into rather than the alternative on offer thanks. And I'm relatively well-off - the poor would see no hope from National, and at least some from Labour.
8. Better outcomes - Proof is always in the pudding, but left governments tend to deliver better economic growth and better social outcomes, so based on past experience he's a safer bet...

I'm confused why people hate Goff so much. Sure he's a bit staid and not as "dennamic" as Key, and has less money (dunno about the obligatory grouse ute and the hot missus), but he's a competent, experienced, safe pair of hands compared to JK. Plus he's from the right of the party so won't be pushed along by the lefty lunatic fringe, and will take care of things like trade, crime, health, education etc. He's proposing further tax cuts (first $5000 tax-free), and I wouldn't be surprised to find him sorting out some welfare reform too, although not in the Key/Brash slash-burn-and-punish style. He doesn't follow a failed ideology (neoliberalism/free trade/austerity doesn't work other than in very constrained circumstances, none of which apply here).

He's got the makings of an OK team: Cunliffe is well-read and smart and would be a great FM, Shearer is good too, Nash is great, Parker, Robertson and Ardern are OK, and there are a few others - although also some deadwood. And they have a better choice of coalition partners, notably the Greens who I'd pick over Act any day purely on grounds of having a bit of a clue when it comes to science. Both parties need a bit of a refresh, but that's next election's job.

I'm struggling to see any talent in the National bench though - English? Puhleeze. Smith? (Lockwood's OK, Nick less so), Gerry? Murray? Collins? Tolley? Bennett? Pfft, they've all failed to deliver. Ryall - not terrible but neither wonderful. Finlayson had promise but he's been a disappointment. Power was OK but he's gone. Joyce? Naah, I trust him less than Key.

Where is the skill we need to actively run the place in these trying times?

[oldrider]

Brilliant comment. And yet the sheeple here will still vote for "the successful Mr Key". Like lambs to the slaughter.



There's no need to invade, we're so easily bought.



What I want to know is, how can you and others like you who defend this move, stomach the assault on property rights that this so clearly is? We the people of NZ own these assets, and Key and his bunch of wide boys are going to thieve them and redistribute the proceeds to pay election bribes and sustain unsustainable tax cuts that reward the wealthy; all the while slashing social spending. The rest of us will just get stuck with the debt, the higher prices, and have to bail the new owners out when they inevitably come crawling back to the government tit.

This should be anathema to any right thinking libertarian, but only davereid has the balls to tell it how it is. There is a moral dimension to this that transcends tribal politics, and the unwillingness of much of the right to speak out on this is telling.

Wipe your chin rainman, I was supporting asset sales (done properly), at no time did I say I supported John Key or any other current political wannabe carrying it out!

The NZ electorate let them assume too much authority and allow them too much freedom to act with an open mandate on our behalf, FFS!

They need their collective little wings clipped in my opinion!

[rainman]

Wipe your chin rainman, I was supporting asset sales (done properly), at no time did I say I supported John Key or any other current political wannabe carrying it out!

The NZ electorate let them assume too much authority and allow them too much freedom to act with an open mandate on our behalf, FFS!

They need their collective little wings clipped in my opinion!

So you support some theoretical ideal of the asset sale concept, but not the one that you'll actually get if you vote National? Be fascinating to know how you would vote then - not that it's any of my business of course - but I'd suggest that if you don't support their approach to asset sales it would be hard to vote for them in good conscience, knowing you'd get exactly that approach if they win. Act just echoes their policy on asset sales, UF stands for nothing, and I don't see you voting left - but feel free to surprise me!

It's pretty binary:
- vote Nat/Act = sell assets badly, can't be easily undone;
- vote Lab/Green/NZF/Mana (go on you know you wanna... ) - keep assets, can be easily undone.
(And vote other minor parties with no chance of getting in = waste/protest vote).

What other means do you have to "clip their wings" other than vote them out on Saturday?

[Brian d marge]

boredy boredy bordy , shit load of fat old 40 + , wanking themselves into a lather

solution , v simple .

pop head over next door fence and talk to them

thats it ....................... oh my god , hes a coon and beats hes baby , I just cant talk to heem ...............

get off your individualistic puritan high horse and just talk ( which also means listen, as in listen, ,,,,,not what you want to hear.................. but what they actually saying )

then act , ( this the easy part , ...here have some extra bread I just baked ......

leave the actual money earn t , for the essentials such as th BIG SCREEN TV AND MOBIKES


idiots

Stephen

[shrub]

I think its also payback for that horrible piece of work we had as a priminister for 9 long years. There is no place having a pacifist as a priminister.

Or one with brains and balls - thank God we have moved on and now have John Key.

On the subject of pacifists, my father was a pacifist. He served in WW2 and was awarded the Military Medal at El Alamein, was wounded twice in action and mentioned in dispatches. After the war he lived in Kenya and Tanzania until 1970 and established a coffee plantation and a pyretherum farm. We had to walk off our farm in Africa with what we could pack in suitcases, and at the age of 53 he started from scratch and had a freehold orchard within 10 years. You may very well look down on him for being a pacifist, but he was one of the toughest, most intelligent and wisest people I have ever met.

George W Bush wasn't a pacifist leader and damn near bankrupted the USA in 8 years as well as starting 2 wars that have achieved nothing and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. He's out of work - would you like him in charge?

[MisterD]

Presently, we're seeing a dividend of over $800m being returned from just some of those assets which will be on the block. Selling down to 51% means that the government will be losing almost $400m in dividends -- in return for a savings of $200m on interest otherwise payable.
That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

There's a huge assumption there, that these utilities are being well run at present (and their prices seem to be higher than some listed competitors...) and that there is no opportunity to grow as businesses.

On the first point, we will at least be able to find out if they are being well run under stock market discipline and on the second, I'd rather they raise funding for (say) overseas investment on the stock market, than ask the government for taxpayers money. There's an opportunity here for the goverment to end up with 51% of a bigger entity.

[Robert Taylor]

The Australians free-loaded off us when we took the US to the world court to protect our trade by enforcing trade deals.

I think it should be obvious that it is a lot more important to protect our trade than help support US business.
Their business - war.
They like war.
They are a war-like people.
And why do they like war?
Because it is good business.

What party works to protect and develop our trade interests.
What party engages in illegal wars and criticises the other party for not doing the same.

Maybe so and they aint perfect. Generally I dont much care for Americans myself and its not a favoured destination. But we owe people like Nimitz and a whole heap of dead marines for saving us from Japanese invasion.