A pretty disappointing Leader of the Opposition

I’ve been busy on other things so have only seen bits of the political circus this week, but my impressions of the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, tend almost all towards cringe.

He has done nothing to give me any confidence in his ability to be a credible leader. Actually, this week he has reduced my confidence (it was already quite low).

Sure Bridges and his team and some supporters may think he has scored some political hits, but I don’t think he will have impressed many voters, especially voters who matter for electoral success. I think more likely the opposite.

There is an often quoted saying that the Leader of the Opposition is the hardest job in politics, but I think that’s a cop out. It can’t be that hard to not keep looking like a childish jerk.

Leave a comment

36 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  31st May 2019

    Hard to argue with that. There’s something about Bridges in full attack mode that reminds me of John Cleese.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  31st May 2019

      The Treasury had resigned some months back!

      Reply
    • John Armstrong is a respected political journalist and commentator, but I don’t think he sees things like the average voter.

      Do you think Bridges has looked good this week? Do you think he has been effective in the eyes of the non-political public?

      I’ve only had negative feedback from non-political acquaintances.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  31st May 2019

        Yes . seems to have a blind eye about 8 years of Key. ( he was too tight with Key)
        I get his point about cyber security , but it catches out even the most careful.

        Reply
    • Gezza

       /  31st May 2019

      While I agree with a lot of that & there’s no doubt Bridges scored a massive hit on Robertson, the Treasury’s patently woeful lack of even basic cyber security on their own website, & that Mahklouf in some less enlightened societies would be facing a firing squad by now – there’s just something totally uninspiring about how Bridges goes about exploiting opportunities like this. I think it’s the endless over-acting, repitition, faux concern, & inability to connect with ordinary people. Just my personal opinion. I had more time for Bill English.

      Reply
      • adamsmith1922

         /  31st May 2019

        Broadly I agree with you. I much preferred English. Bridges does not resonate with me personally.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  31st May 2019

          That’s because they wanted ‘counter programming’ to Jacinda….young, millennial…you have the rest……oh and he had Jami Lee Ross as part of his team
          Wasn’t there some dodgy things going on with donations solicted by Bridges?

          What a surprise Bridges is involved in a form of computer hacking of budget numbers.
          He seems to have the same principles as JLR too

          Reply
      • Blazer

         /  31st May 2019

        ‘ Bridges scored a massive hit on Robertson,’…missed it…what was it ?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  31st May 2019

          Never mind. It doesn’t matter that you missed it.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  31st May 2019

            because there was not one…right.

            Robertson is the Minister of Finance.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  31st May 2019

              Robertson is the Minister of Finance.
              I didn’t think he was the Housing Minister!

            • Blazer

               /  31st May 2019

              back again…so what was this ‘massive hit’?

            • Gezza

               /  31st May 2019

              A smarmy plonker like Bridges managed to upstage & embarrass Robertson for the best part of Budget Week.

  2. Noel

     /  31st May 2019

    Budget data leak?
    Simon said he did not have to reveal his sources because he was somehow covered by the same rules as journalist. Sorry Simon you are not covered just like Arrange.

    Reply
  3. Patzcuaro

     /  31st May 2019

    If you leave your door unlocked and a person comes to your door, finds that you have forgotten to lock it, enters and takes something it is still theft. A third person who receives the item is still in possession of stolen goods.

    Reply
    • adamsmith1922

       /  31st May 2019

      They were not stolen,they resulted from a search request on the Treasury public web site.As I understand it the documents were not marked as confidential or classified.As they resulted from a search on a public website I do not accept that they were stolen.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  31st May 2019

        National and its MP’s are fully aware of confidentiality re the budget….can you accept…that?

        Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  31st May 2019

        They might not have been “stolen” but they obtained/received documents they weren’t entitled to be in possession of at that point in time.

        National could have reported the weakness to Treasury (the look good responsible option).

        As it is they scored a few political points but look slightly unpatriotic, more self interest over New Zealand interest.

        Reply
        • adamsmith1922

           /  31st May 2019

          Unpatriotic, seriously. They are the Opposition. BTW Labour have form in this area as well. So I do agree with you. But each to their own.

          Reply
          • adamsmith1922

             /  31st May 2019

            Sorry,I meant to write ‘I do not agree with you ‘

            Reply
          • Blazer

             /  31st May 2019

            ‘Labour did it too’….National acolytes default ,puerile answer.

            Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  31st May 2019

            It is the nature of opposition to try and score points off the government but Bridges may have been able to gain more by taking the high road, pointing out the weakness. When one starts throwing mud, you often get covered in it yourself.

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  31st May 2019

          No they didn’t. They performed a legal search on a facility provided for the public by Treasury and it served up information (not documents) in response. That was clearly a publication of that information by the department even if unintentional in timing.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  31st May 2019

            ” BTW Labour have form in this area as well.”

            You mean it was National party people snooping around Labours confidential data by exploiting a security weakness.
            Legally , since data is property , just because you can see something from the road doesnt mean you can then take it for your own use – which is what Slater did with the scrambled DB he found on the labour website.

            Speaking to media this afternoon Labour leader David Cunliffe said: “The Labour Party is today releasing correspondence from the National Party, dated 2011, which confirms that at least one of its staff were involved in infiltrating the Labour Party’s website.”
            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11309931
            Since it was Ede, who was working in the Beehive but was ‘technically working for the party’. Slater got wind of this and did his own hack

            is national perfect on its own data security policy?
            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/352790/national-apologises-for-mass-database-sign-up
            or Even Bridges own ‘mistake’ over donations to his electorate. I guess we will hear more of ‘mistakes’ when the JLR fund raising story plays out.

            Reply
    • Gezza

       /  31st May 2019

      The problem is they didn’t take it. They left it there. They just recorded & publicly reported what they found. And it shouldn’t have been findable. And the Secretary of the Treasury shouldn’t have so blatantly misrepresented what happened. And shouldn’t have suckered the Finance Minister into believing him. Might be considered unethical by some but the odious Bridges had nearly all week to get the political limelight & make things uncomfortable as hell for the government before, & even on, & probably still after, Budget Day.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  31st May 2019

        Its hardly blatantly misrepresented…. it was still hacking even if it didnt rise to the level of an offence according to police.
        The nats ‘freeloading’ of Eminems music wasnt an offence either but it was legally wrong.

        The nats releasing of Peters private Super information wasnt an offence either but was legally wrong.

        To you see where Im going?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  31st May 2019

          It was only hacking to an arrogant computer illiterate like you, Duker.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  31st May 2019

            We both understand how they did it.
            The Crimes Act covers taking of data quite broadly…maybe they didn’t cover that for your tutor job?

            ..that what was taken was confidential and used for their own purposes…..if they just said “look what we can see” and left it at that or told everyone else there is a flaw in the security , all would be good.
            But no they USED it, thus an offence is comitted.

            Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
            (1)
            Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
            (a)
            obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
            (b)
            causes loss to any other person.
            (2)
            Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
            (a)
            to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
            (b)
            to cause loss to any other person.
            (3)
            In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).

            Rember back when the journalist left his microphone on a table , not knowing that Key and Banks would sit exactly there and with the device in plain sight chatter away for the benefit of the media.?
            Who were the people who complained to the police?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  31st May 2019

              Fails at the first clause. It was neither dishonest or by deception.

              Try harder [deleted]

  4. Zedd

     /  31st May 2019

    Bridges just looks increasingly like an angry little dog… barking at every passing car.
    Is this really what the majority want as an alternative PM ?

    Well maybe the staunch Tories do, but some would likely vote for Mickey Mouse if he had a Natl party rosette on ?! 😀

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  31st May 2019

      When Bridges came out stroppy this week I’m sure his stocks rose. He raised his voice and came on all dog. Suddenly people who thought he was weak saw something they wanted.

      When Andrew little raised his voice he became ‘Angry’ Andrew and it’s an epithet he still gets.

      That’s how the game is played.

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  31st May 2019

        there is a difference..
        Bridges is constantly ‘barking at passing cars’… lacking any real credibility, as a leader :/

        Mr Little only ‘barks’ when he sees fit.. & he saw fit to pass the leadership mantle to Jacinda 🙂

        Reply
    • duperez

       /  31st May 2019

      A pretty senior member of the media mob suddenly seeing the shallowness of the political debate and how shallow it actually is? Maybe it’s reasonable to blame the new(ish) kid on the block, social media, but it didn’t drive itself to this pretty pass by itself.

      Those like Barry Soper drove it here with flourish, demanded and licensed by their bosses. The newbies joined the swill with it being the only game in town while the wallowingist ones like Hosking are indeed like pigs in shit.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  31st May 2019

      Hickey is been in the bubble himself…he just listened to RNZ talk to schoolkids in Auckland?
      Get out away from your computer man..

      I notice he knows nothing about Auckland…he says the CRL is an ‘aspiration’ when its about 1/3 complete, and the traffic rerouting is driving Aucklanders in the city nuts.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s