Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

12 Comments

  1. I like that Winston “Smacked” down the “moral” argument as to who to go with. Shit, I would love Winston to stir up the business world, the neoliberal world and Nationals world of power and protection.

  2. Good stuff Robert thanks very much for this.

    Winston would get knived in the back as soon as hecrosses the floor to jion the national mob unfortunately, as they have been so badly contorlled by the corporations and the banks now so a new administration is required.

    Did you read or hear what the ‘Property Chief said today about Winston’s plan to change the NZ Finance Act and the Treasury Act?

    These are central planks of his plan for reform to bring back smalll bussiness and jobs.

    I guess when he met SS Joyce on the flight down today this may have been mentioned during the flight?

    Winston does not like Joyce either as we all don’t, he is a creep.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11927019
    He just said ‘it wont haopen but a small twinkng may happen.

  3. At the end of the day, New Zealanders want a strong and stable government with proven, sensible economic management. A goverment led by Bill English and Paula Bennett will provide this and Winston knows it. His other choice is a rag tag bunch of hippies and communists with leaders who are brand new to politics and who have no background in economics. In fact it isn’t even a choice. Winston will 100% side with National, mark my words.

    1. As the voting count shows, most New Zealanders don’t want National because they have been a corrupt and freestyle government whose economy has only ever favoured the top 10%.
      Winston knows this and will punish them to “make our country great again”. That is why there is no choice, and will go with Labour all day, mark my words.

    2. Oh look! A Crosby-Textor bot!

      “At the end of the day…”

      Meaningless padding phrase made popular by John Key.

      “… New Zealanders want a strong and stable government…”

      A conservative key message spouted in a number of recent elections, for example by the likes of David Cameron and Theresa May in the UK. You could say that Kim Jong-Un provides “strong and stable” government for North Korea. Is this really a valid criteria for governing a democracy? What about “principled and responsive”?

      “with proven, sensible economic management.”

      Clark/ Cullen; 3 terms of budget surpluses and reduced national debt. Key infrastructure created or bought back including KiwiBank, the railways, and 80% of AirNZ.

      Key/ English; 3 terms of budget deficits and increased national debt. Key infrastructure sold off including a chunk of AirNZ and a number of electricity generation and distribution companies.

      If I was rich enough to hire a housekeeper, and they consistently spent more than the budget I gave them, sold off a bunch of my stuff, and still left my household deep in debt, I doubt I would give them a bonus for their achievements in economic management.

      “[Winston’s] other choice is a rag tag bunch of hippies and communists”

      When lacking any real arguments or facts to defend your position, resort to vague, irrelevant smears. I guess “queers, pinkos, and front-bums” might have been a bit too obvious.

      “with leaders who are brand new to politics”

      Jacinda has been in parliament for 10 years, and most of her work prior to that was also in political positions.

      “…and who have no background in economics.”

      Prior to entering parliament in 2014, James Shaw worked for the international auditing firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Also see above comments about the economic management record of the last two governments.

      “In fact it isn’t even a choice.”

      No actually it is. I know you and other Nat supporters are in deep denial of this reality, but it remains the case that Winston can choose to govern with Labour and the Greens.

      “Winston will 100% side with National, mark my words.”

      Even if he does, as Robert wrote in the article you are commenting on, his caucus will still vote against the Nats on almost everything other than supply and confidence. Or, they will vote against what they promised in their manifesto and their voters will punish them for that betrayal in 2020, delivering a clear majority for a Labour-Greens government. Either way, checkmate.

    1. Weird ass reference, I know.

      But what of the Americans, I ask you, hostile readers. What of them and the evidence. What of the election, and other elections…

  4. Hey, can the Author point to or produce anything that helps to explain these notions of parliament and legislation in terms of the executive, mmp and coalition formation – but really simply, like using a diagram / video / for dummies guide? I think it is crucial that people understand the benefits and functions of these things, but I’ve not come across any tools to help explain them to the common voter.

  5. There is also the issue of seats they manipulated and lied about to keep there majority. The sabin seat up North and the barclay seat down south take those away and they wouldn’t have had the majority they needed to pass their draconian laws. Very dishonest and undermining indeed.

Comments are closed.