-
27-04-2024, 04:41 PM
#2811
Originally Posted by Daytr
So many times you just post stuff out of Balance's arse being the sycophant you are.
Just catching up on stuff and man, you really went for me there hey!
-
27-04-2024, 07:48 PM
#2812
Originally Posted by Balance
Quite a number of positive comments from political analysts about Luxon moving two poor performing ministers on.
As usual, …...
Yes. The question I have is how were they ever appointed to those positions, especially ML ? Serious error of judgement, clearly not capable.
-
28-04-2024, 10:13 AM
#2813
Originally Posted by RTM
Yes. The question I have is how were they ever appointed to those positions, especially ML ? Serious error of judgement, clearly not capable.
"Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error." Cicero 43 BC
That's the huge difference between Luxon (with his real world corporate background) vs Clueless Ardern & Hysterical Hapless Hipkins (with their background in student politics & academia) - being prepared to act decisively when mistakes are made.
Note the difference between Luxon and Clueless Cindy & Hysterical Hapless Hipkins:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...K7LAGV4WIKOJM/
paywalled
"Christopher Luxon’s brutal despatch of Broadcasting Minister Melissa Lee and Disabilities Minister Penny Simmonds after just 149 days is to be commended. It’s probably the Prime Minister’s most important decision so far. If he sticks with this political heresy that ministers can be removed so quickly on performance grounds – and especially if it becomes doctrine for future governments – it could be enough on its own to establish a Luxon legacy. It’s often best to let people fail fast."
"How much better off might the previous Government have been – and New Zealand – had Jacinda Ardern applied the same rigour to, say, the problem of Phil Twyford, her first Minister of Housing and also Transport? s early as March 2018, just months since it too had been sworn in, experts in the property industry were saying that the Ardern Government was going about KiwiBuild all wrong. That was the moment to sack Twyford. Instead Ardern waited another 15 months before sacking him as Housing Minister. By then, her signature policy lay in ruins, having become a laughing stock. Ardern then let Twyford struggle on for another 16 months before sacking him as Transport Minister, but not before he had turned her other signature policy, light rail, into an even worse fiasco."
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com...less-show.html
"Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has surprised everyone with his ruthlessness in sacking two of his ministers from their crucial portfolios. Removing ministers for poor performance after only five months in the job just doesn’t normally happen in politics. That’s refreshing and will be extremely well received. The public will perceive this unprecedented move as a sign that Luxon has very high standards for his government and is determined that his ministers actually deliver results."
"Luxon’s show of strength is a massive contrast with the last government: “What's happened today will shock a lot of people, because over the last few years we've got used to Prime Minsters just putting up with their ministers doing a bad job or behaving badly in public. Kiri Allan, Phil Twyford, Michael Wood, Clare Curran, even Nanaia Mahuta - the Foreign Minister who didn't like international travel. It took forever for Hipkins or Ardern to demote the under-performers, and they suffered for it – public opinion of them was tainted.”
Last edited by Balance; 28-04-2024 at 11:02 AM.
-
28-04-2024, 11:50 AM
#2814
Originally Posted by RTM
Yes. The question I have is how were they ever appointed to those positions, especially ML ? Serious error of judgement, clearly not capable.
I agree. I never understood how she was given positions of responsibility even back under John Key, despite the controversies early on in her Parliamentary career. I hope she wasn't given these portfolios for ethnic and diversity reasons.
-
28-04-2024, 11:54 AM
#2815
Originally Posted by iceman
I agree. I never understood how she was given positions of responsibility even back under John Key, despite the controversies early on in her Parliamentary career. I hope she wasn't given these portfolios for ethnic and diversity reasons.
Of course ethnic and diversity were big factors in considering her. There are rich veins of votes to be tapped into with the Asian electorates.
My Labour Party insider told me that Indians used to vote Labour until the last election. The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese typically vote National.
Last edited by Balance; 28-04-2024 at 12:14 PM.
-
28-04-2024, 12:54 PM
#2816
Peter Dunne going on about how Luxon govt repeating Muldoon’s Think Big ..maybe not for the better of nz
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/26/go...rian-excesses/
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
28-04-2024, 02:35 PM
#2817
Jobs for the girls...
I have never understood how Paula Bennett rose to anything.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...ard-chair.html
-
28-04-2024, 03:13 PM
#2818
-
28-04-2024, 06:38 PM
#2819
Originally Posted by Balance
Same way you cannot understand how Labour under Clueless Cindy & Hysterical Hipkins never built 12,000 new homes?
Or the same way National somehow managed to decrease the number of state houses over nine years.
I mean seriously how tone deaf were they?
Didn't Bennett grow up in a State House?
Key as well I think.
Incredible that they didn't think others deserved shelter & a chance.
Keep it coming buddy.
No new material, but same audience doesn't make you a comedian, it makes you a clown.
-
28-04-2024, 06:56 PM
#2820
Originally Posted by Daytr
That won't surprise anybody.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks