In 'The Art of War' Sun Tzu writes "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." Helen Clark knows her enemy right down to their spineless marshmallow roots. Said Clark yesterday:
"I think the way National's behaving they are leaving room for ACT because the National Party doesn't stand for anything, the National Party only stands for power and people in ACT at least have things they believe in ..."
Mostly true, yes? Asks Liberty Scott, who reflects on Clark's comment: "What does the National Party stand for that is consistently different from Labour?" Can you give him or Helen an answer?
5 comments:
For once I agree with Mrs Davis! lol
I think ACT are going to do very well at the General Election, and show the National party up sufficiently to, ironically, see Labour get more votes and therefore a fourth term...(something I have long predicted)
But Johnny Key is such a nooice young man he's such a gentle politician and so nooice and that. And one time he was really really nooice to some dude's daughter and took off with her to Waitangi and he was really really nooice about it and that. And one time he was on the TV and he smiled at me. Well not me exactly but he smiled and that. And it was nooice. And he was a nooice man then too.
Some meanies keep asking him about questions about what he'd do and what he stands for and he is so nooice. He's too nooice to actually say much but he smiles at everyone and looks kinda wan and washed out. But he smiles and that's kinda nooice. Sorta sweet if youse like that kinda thing.
What would Helen know about being nooice. She's the PM fer chrissakes. That aint about being nooice and she aint. She mean and tough and know what she want and what she represents. She know what she is.
Little poor wee Johnny, he nooice and pleasant and that. But once you seen him doing the contortions you seen it all. He sure can't dance worth a poo. That aint nooice.
Come to think about it, he aint nooice really. He's just pretending to be. Or rather trying to pretend. And pretending is about all he do. And he aint good at it cause he aint really nooice. Shit-oh-dear!
LGM
National would have to really mess up to lose the election simply because they're a change. Voters are fickle they realised that National were terrible and voted them out in 1999 and went to Labour. Now the cycle has come around, Labour are the terror and National look good. See this repeat again and again and again through political history. The reality is they are both terrible. They both have a pretty much identical philosophical basis for their politics and unsurprisingly end up doing very similar things. The differences you can peg down to slight differences in management style but very little else.
On the subject of ACT (and my apologies if this might seem off the topic) I was browsing Elijah Lineberry's bizarre blog as I occasionally do for light relief and came across this:
"I would now be prepared to wager $1000 the ACT party gets 130,000 votes in October."
Mr Lineberry, I would like to take you up on your offered wager - I'm 100% serious. PC has my private contact details - please contact me ASAP.
DenMT
Ha ha, with regards to the wager...'done'!
You are the third person in the last 24 hours to take me up on it.
If, the day after the General Election, you are a bit short of readies..no need to panic, just buy me a drink sometime. :)
I do want to make it clear, however, the wager relates to the ACT party receiving 130,000 party votes on the final figures declared by the Chief Electoral Officer, not necessarily the 'Election Night' total prior to the counting of Special Votes.
Post a Comment