On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz
> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
> No-one here does that.
> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
with your view point, and that is okay.
>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>to undecided voters.
Arden, having come out of "nowhere" and being "new" along with Covid thrown
in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.
In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
Many are not.
>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>implementing ideas . . .
The point here is that we are on the wrong road. In a democracy free speech
is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.
National needs to show that it understands that a democracy is about free
speech. At the present time there is a great deal of mistrust in the
Government and politicians in general. Which is fuel for the VFF sites.