We seem to be presented with an organisational overhaul that means all things to all people.
Federalism can mean all things to all people.
Then it can mean all things to all people.
Let us not try to make it all things to all people.
It was certainly all things to all people, so anything that he said would have been both in order and in line with his policy.
That word can mean all things to all people—one thing to one individual and something else to another person.
It is important to raise those issues because in many ways the treaty is all things to all people.
Can he explain that contradiction, or is he just a politician running scared of the electorate and trying to be all things to all people?
