From Newsgroup: nz.general

The rummors are rife. National on 28% and Luxon asked to make a resignation speech over the weekend.

Comments are also being made that Luxon has behaved like a corporate boss and not a leader, which I think is true. There needs to be a different style between the two.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

The rummors are rife. National on 28% and Luxon asked to make a resignation >speech over the weekend.

Comments are also being made that Luxon has behaved like a corporate boss and >not a leader, which I think is true. There needs to be a different style >between the two.

I understand your point Gordon but just to be clear, competent corporate bosses
are always good leaders.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 19:26:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

The rummors are rife. National on 28% and Luxon asked to make a resignation >>speech over the weekend.

Comments are also being made that Luxon has behaved like a corporate boss and >>not a leader, which I think is true. There needs to be a different style >>between the two.

I understand your point Gordon but just to be clear, competent corporate bosses
are always good leaders.

I used to think this way but I am coming to the realisation that Luxon
is proving to be the exception to the norm that John Key established.
I would suggest that in the case of Luxon, competent corporate bosses
are not always good political leaders. In fact, the reverse is more
likely that good political leaders come from failed corporate leaders.

Luxon is a political incompetent, amply demonstrated by his recent communication bomb-outs over the legality of the USA/Israel military intervention with Iran. Their management of economic issues since
they were elected is a further indictment of Luxon's leadership.
Imagine if Luxon won the 1990 election - would the
mother-of-all-budgets that was absolutely necessary have happened?
No!!
--
Crash McBash
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 19:26:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

The rummors are rife. National on 28% and Luxon asked to make a resignation >>>speech over the weekend.

Comments are also being made that Luxon has behaved like a corporate boss and
not a leader, which I think is true. There needs to be a different style >>>between the two.

I understand your point Gordon but just to be clear, competent corporate >>bosses
are always good leaders.

I used to think this way but I am coming to the realisation that Luxon
is proving to be the exception to the norm that John Key established.
I would suggest that in the case of Luxon, competent corporate bosses
are not always good political leaders. In fact, the reverse is more
likely that good political leaders come from failed corporate leaders.

Luxon is a political incompetent, amply demonstrated by his recent >communication bomb-outs over the legality of the USA/Israel military >intervention with Iran. Their management of economic issues since
they were elected is a further indictment of Luxon's leadership.
Imagine if Luxon won the 1990 election - would the
mother-of-all-budgets that was absolutely necessary have happened?
No!!

I don't disagree about Luxon, but was he a competent corporate leader? I don't actually know. But in general terms I believe what I wrote, based on personal experience and observation.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On Sun, 8 Mar 2026 19:14:57 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 19:26:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

The rummors are rife. National on 28% and Luxon asked to make a resignation >>>>speech over the weekend.

Comments are also being made that Luxon has behaved like a corporate boss and
not a leader, which I think is true. There needs to be a different style >>>>between the two.

I understand your point Gordon but just to be clear, competent corporate >>>bosses
are always good leaders.

I used to think this way but I am coming to the realisation that Luxon
is proving to be the exception to the norm that John Key established.
I would suggest that in the case of Luxon, competent corporate bosses
are not always good political leaders. In fact, the reverse is more
likely that good political leaders come from failed corporate leaders.

Luxon is a political incompetent, amply demonstrated by his recent >>communication bomb-outs over the legality of the USA/Israel military >>intervention with Iran. Their management of economic issues since
they were elected is a further indictment of Luxon's leadership.
Imagine if Luxon won the 1990 election - would the
mother-of-all-budgets that was absolutely necessary have happened?
No!!

I don't disagree about Luxon, but was he a competent corporate leader? I don't
actually know. But in general terms I believe what I wrote, based on personal >experience and observation.

Luxon had a successful corporate career. However that is not moving
into his political career, where leadership capability is far more
demanding.
--
Crash McBash
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2