Tuesday, 1 July 2008

What a character

National's Stephen Franks argues that judging a party's politicians is more important than judging a party's policies.  His position, to summarise, is that "policy should not be the first priority of a political party," and "assessing character is the much more important task for voters in an election."  Hence:

The people are right to be more interested in revealing gossip than serious policy pronouncements, because many politicians shuck policies like clothes.



  1. What's better, a weasel talking sense or a sound character talking crap?

    I guess that by it's nature, the weasel is still a weasel and will only talk sense while it suits him, but the sound character, by virtue of his character, can be made to see sense.

    However, it's no part of a good character to stay fixated on crap.


  2. Err - yeah, right. Is this going to be the standard Nat excuse for not having any policy alternatives to Dear Leader? I would have expected a lot better from Stephen - what a shame.

  3. Stephen is liked and respected and he is leaning on this (character) to keep the support of his ACT fans who can't stand National policies.

  4. Stephen is actually speaking sense.

    Character is what counts not policies.

    if a pollie is a flip flop than whatever he presents as policy won't necessarily be that.

    if he has character you can have more assurance that what he presents will happen.

    That of course works against Mr (flip flop) John Key.

    maybe Stephen is the man to keep him on the straight and narrow.
    Only time will tell.
    and by then it may be too late.
    history counts for a lot you see.

    if you are prepared to actually look at and ACT on it.


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Construct an argument, not a feud--build a mountain, not a molehill.
Spam will be removed , unless it's been asked for.
(Comment moderation is currently being reluctantly applied...)