The Christchurch Press features a pretty damning editorial about National and its recent performance ending with..... it should act like a party which says what it means and means what it says.
That, I feel, is asking the impossible. National doesn't know what it stands for. It is now so philosophically compromised it doesn't know "what it means". It is starting to resemble the Green Party with lots of members with their own agendas. I also suspect that despite their morale-boosting run with the polls they are not particularly cohesive. You only have to ask yourself the question; how could an MP who had been happy under Don Brash's leadership be equally happy under John Key's?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree ,but any Port in a storm of socialism ,it would be nice to just get rid of Clark and her hangers on.
Even another red port flying under blue colours?
Each country get the government it deserves.
There are little difference between the two main parties at the moment, but wait until the time for the big bribes arrive. The sheeple will love it.
Yes, vis a vis the first post above, I don't agree at all. National under Key/English is a very dangerous red wolf in sheeps clothing. Under Brash they did stand for a recognisable philosophy (although even then they were problematic from the point of view of the likely changlings under him), under Key I wouldn't touch them with the wet bus ticket they are, so they force me to vote ACT/Libertarianz.
Mark Hubbard
Oh, regarding the foreign policy they announced yesterday (HA!), they should be ashamed. Turncoat rabble.
Post a Comment