https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:thinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:thinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation fromNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well done!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowesthinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation fromNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well done!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led >government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition >government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), John BowesWow 9 lies in one sentence.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John BowesNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well >>done!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>> >> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>> >> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>> >> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>> >> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>> >> to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>> >> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. >>> >Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting
targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline
staff needing thinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground >>> >shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the >>> >Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's
needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood in the public service! Something we
won't get from Labour because they'll be busy building it to even more
monumental proportions as they've been doing ever since Labour was formed! >>> But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation from
from the party leader.
You and Tony are well suited John Boy - you are both rude, arrogant,
lacking in simple comprehension, susceptable to any stupid suggestion,
loyal to a political party you do not understand, believers in stupid >speculative theories with no scientific evidence, and totally out of
your depth most of the time.
New Zealanders deserve to have a clear idea of what each politicalAbsolute nonsense.
party has as its priorities, and know what they will do. Asking all
parties will improve our knowledge, and also show up those parties
that appear to have no policies except expediancy.
I am sorry that your disabilities so handicap you John, an that TonyHmmm. I think your political future is shot to hell for at least 7 years. We shall see, my future is well assured but you have no way of knowing anything at all about it or about me - you are a fraud.
is no help to you or anyone else. I foresee great disappontments in
both your futures.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You speak for me a lot Tony. Unlike the ever stupid cockalorum Rich who has the comprehension skills of a slug :)
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John BowesNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation from
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>> >> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as >>> >> this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led >>> >> government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>> >> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>> >> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >>> >> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >>> >> more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >>> >> that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do >>> >> however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >>> >> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition >>> >> government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >>> >> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>> >> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct.
Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting
targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline
staff needing thinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground
shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the
Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's
needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood in the public service! Something we
won't get from Labour because they'll be busy building it to even more >>> >monumental proportions as they've been doing ever since Labour was formed!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
done!
You and Tony are well suited John Boy - you are both rude, arrogant, >lacking in simple comprehension, susceptable to any stupid suggestion, >loyal to a political party you do not understand, believers in stupid >speculative theories with no scientific evidence, and totally out ofWow 9 lies in one sentence.
your depth most of the time.
I do not speak for John, but apparently you have the arrogance to think that you speak for us. You don't and I do not suppoart any political party - I never
have and doubt that I ever will.
But you cannot begin to understand why that is so and why I believe that all people would be better off if they thought the same way.
New Zealanders deserve to have a clear idea of what each politicalAbsolute nonsense.
party has as its priorities, and know what they will do. Asking all >parties will improve our knowledge, and also show up those parties
that appear to have no policies except expediancy.
I am sorry that your disabilities so handicap you John, an that TonyHmmm. I think your political future is shot to hell for at least 7 years. We shall see, my future is well assured but you have no way of knowing anything at
is no help to you or anyone else. I foresee great disappontments in
both your futures.
all about it or about me - you are a fraud.
And you are showing just how much you are hurting - great, you have richly (no
pun intended) earned that pain.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowesthinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >> >> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >> >> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >> >> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >> >> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >> >> more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >> >> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >> >> that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >> >> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >> >> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >> >> to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >> >> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
We're nothing like you Rich. Because you've just once again described yourself to a 'T'!You and Tony are well suited John Boy - you are both rude, arrogant,But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation fromNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well done!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
lacking in simple comprehension, susceptable to any stupid suggestion,
loyal to a political party you do not understand, believers in stupid speculative theories with no scientific evidence, and totally out of
your depth most of the time.
New Zealanders deserve to have a clear idea of what each politicalCorrect. However the political party you blindly support is very good at refusing to answer any question (just like you) not just the hard ones..
party has as its priorities, and know what they will do. Asking all
parties will improve our knowledge, and also show up those parties
that appear to have no policies except expediancy.
I am sorry that your disabilities so handicap you John, an that TonyYou'll be sad to discover that as usual your way of the mark and we may very well have brilliant futures once we get rid of the totalitarian, lying and secretive Labour/Watermelon politicians currently destroying our country...
is no help to you or anyone else. I foresee great disappontments in
both your futures.
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This >shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part
of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if >they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >suprises.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) waters, the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to the election.
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This >>shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part >>of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if >>they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a
Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need
to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>suprises.
parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being
felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need
for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid
demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been
badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and
supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate
market structures.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and
the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I
don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises
for a very long time.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) waters, >the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to the
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the
largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously
policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have
to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from
the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are
more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This >>>shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part >>>of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if >>>they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>>> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised
that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be
asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or
make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>>> to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>>suprises.
parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being
felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need
for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid
demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been
badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and >>supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate
market structures.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and
the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I
don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises
for a very long time.
election.
And every one causing serious damage, in some cases damage to our democracy.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I
believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:37:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Chris Finlayson, but wit the support of Key / English. The health restructure was a result of the enormous debts most DHBs offered - the structure was resistant to cooperation, and we found that greater cooperation was led primarily due to the Covid experience - Labour
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) waters,
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>>> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led >>>> government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>>> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>>> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >>>> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >>>> more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This
shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part
of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if
they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>>> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >>>> that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >>>> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition >>>> government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >>>> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>>> to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>>suprises.
parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being >>felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need
for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid
demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been
badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and >>supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate >>market structures.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and
the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I
don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises >>for a very long time.
the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to the
election.
And every one causing serious damage, in some cases damage to our democracy. Co-governance was well established by National led on that issue by
were less comfortable with post code discrmination in health services
than the previous government. 3 waters (I don't know what you mean by
5 waters) was started many years ago, possibly under Labour, but
development continued throught he Key/English years. Problems with widespread non-compliance with water quality standards, and the need
for emergency supplies (largely in North Auckand) have mean that the
time was right for all that planning to come to fruition.
Some other issues such as the need to review public broadcasting, are
partly driven by internal NZ issues, but also driven by the rise of
other broadcasting suppliers and methods.
Are there any more in the "some others'' referred to above ? Certainly
the sell off of state assets by National were seldom forecast in pre-election manifestos - indeed I am not sure if National had a
manifesto before the last election - perhaps Judith is still drafting
it . . .
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>>> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:37:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) >>waters,
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>>>> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>>>> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>>>> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >>>>> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >>>>> more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This
shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part >>>>of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if >>>>they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>>>> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >>>>> that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >>>>> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >>>>> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>>>> to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>>>suprises.
parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being
felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need
for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid
demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been
badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and >>>supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate >>>market structures.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and
the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I
don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises
for a very long time.
the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to >>the
election.
And every one causing serious damage, in some cases damage to our democracy.
Co-governance was well established by National led on that issue by
Chris Finlayson, but wit the support of Key / English.
The healthThere was nothing that justified a two tier health system, that was never mentioned and the debts did not justify that - another lie.
restructure was a result of the enormous debts most DHBs offered - the >structure was resistant to cooperation, and we found that greater
cooperation was led primarily due to the Covid experience - Labour
were less comfortable with post code discrmination in health services
than the previous government
. 3 waters (I don't know what you mean by
5 waters)
was started many years ago, possibly under Labour, butNonsense, that is not the same as removing (confiscating) control of waters from local councils - that has never been suggested before - another lie.
development continued throught he Key/English years. Problems with
widespread non-compliance with water quality standards, and the need
for emergency supplies (largely in North Auckand) have mean that the
time was right for all that planning to come to fruition.
Some other issues such as the need to review public broadcasting, areNo that is a lie also - the merger is a polical move and is trejected by almost everyone. It has no support from the people of this country and will cost millions of dollars for no return.
partly driven by internal NZ issues, but also driven by the rise of
other broadcasting suppliers and methods.
Are there any more in the "some others'' referred to above ? CertainlyIrrelevant and off topic - you cannot ever stay on topic and you always try to make it someobody else's fault.
the sell off of state assets by National were seldom forecast in
pre-election manifestos - indeed I am not sure if National had a
manifesto before the last election - perhaps Judith is still drafting
it . . .
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>>>> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:37:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Co-governance was well established by National led on that issue by
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) >>>waters,
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>>>>> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as >>>>>> this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led >>>>>> government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>>>>> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>>>>> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >>>>>> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >>>>>> more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This
shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part >>>>>of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if >>>>>they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>>>>> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >>>>>> that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >>>>>> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition >>>>>> government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >>>>>> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>>>>> to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>>>>suprises.
parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being >>>>felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need >>>>for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid
demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been >>>>badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and >>>>supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate >>>>market structures.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and
the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I
don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises >>>>for a very long time.
the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to >>>the
election.
And every one causing serious damage, in some cases damage to our democracy. >>
Chris Finlayson, but wit the support of Key / English.
No you have told that lie before and have never provided proof. What they may >have talked about was co-management but you have more than once demonstrated >that you do not understand the difference between governance and management. A >difference that is profound.
The healthThere was nothing that justified a two tier health system, that was never >mentioned and the debts did not justify that - another lie.
restructure was a result of the enormous debts most DHBs offered - the >>structure was resistant to cooperation, and we found that greater >>cooperation was led primarily due to the Covid experience - Labour
were less comfortable with post code discrmination in health services
than the previous government
. 3 waters (I don't know what you mean by
5 waters)
Yes you do - the select committee added two more waters to 3 waters - and that >has been explained to you more than once.
was started many years ago, possibly under Labour, butNonsense, that is not the same as removing (confiscating) control of waters >from local councils - that has never been suggested before - another lie.
development continued throught he Key/English years. Problems with >>widespread non-compliance with water quality standards, and the need
for emergency supplies (largely in North Auckand) have mean that the
time was right for all that planning to come to fruition.
No that is a lie also - the merger is a polical move and is trejected by almost
Some other issues such as the need to review public broadcasting, are >>partly driven by internal NZ issues, but also driven by the rise of
other broadcasting suppliers and methods.
everyone. It has no support from the people of this country and will cost >millions of dollars for no return.
Irrelevant and off topic - you cannot ever stay on topic and you always try to >make it someobody else's fault.
Are there any more in the "some others'' referred to above ? Certainly
the sell off of state assets by National were seldom forecast in >>pre-election manifestos - indeed I am not sure if National had a
manifesto before the last election - perhaps Judith is still drafting
it . . .
Well, not this time boyo. Keep on topic or go away.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>>>>> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowesthinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >> >> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >> >> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >> >> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >> >> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >> >> more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >> >> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >> >> that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >> >> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >> >> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >> >> to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >> >> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
You and Tony are well suited John Boy - you are both rude, arrogant,But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation fromNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well done!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
lacking in simple comprehension, susceptable to any stupid suggestion,
loyal to a political party you do not understand, believers in stupid speculative theories with no scientific evidence, and totally out of
your depth most of the time.
New Zealanders deserve to have a clear idea of what each political
party has as its priorities, and know what they will do. Asking all
parties will improve our knowledge, and also show up those parties
that appear to have no policies except expediancy.
I am sorry that your disabilities so handicap you John, an that Tony
is no help to you or anyone else. I foresee great disappontments in
both your futures.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 03:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I will post again the reference to the co-management agreements
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:37:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2023 22:45:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Rubbish. The biggest avoidable surprises were co-governance, 3 (now 5) >>>>waters,
On 2023-01-13, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The big surprises have been beyond the control of the political >>>>>parties - Covid, earthquakes, the effect of climate change now being >>>>>felt with floods and fires. Covid caused a re-assessment of the need >>>>>for greater funding for health - some had been known, but Covid >>>>>demands have now seen general recognition that the system had been >>>>>badly run down. Cartel-like activity for Banks, Electricity and >>>>>supermarkets have identified ''excess profits'' caused by inadequate >>>>>market structures.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >>>>>>> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as >>>>>>> this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led >>>>>>> government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >>>>>>> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >>>>>>> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >>>>>>> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >>>>>>> more likely to be supported.
Surely even the MPs now understand MMP. Jim Boldger understood
was back at the start.
Yes it might be the first time that ACT and National have to coalition. This
shows that MMP is working, the smaller party now has a voice to get a part
of its mandate carried out. The voters of the minor parties are feel as if
they have some say. This is good for democracy.
Over the last three years we have seen how FFP can wreck havoc.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >>>>>>> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >>>>>>> that marks a significant difference between different parties.
I would hope so.
I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >>>>>>> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition >>>>>>> government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >>>>>>> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >>>>>>> to know.
Pity that was not done at the last election. Might have stop all these >>>>>>suprises.
The Key government had the GFC (which was partially predicted), and >>>>>the Christchurch and Kaikoura earthquakes.
Some policies will always develop during a parliamentary term - I >>>>>don;t think there has been much change in the leve of small surprises >>>>>for a very long time.
the health restructures and some others none of which were advised prior to >>>>the
election.
And every one causing serious damage, in some cases damage to our democracy.
Co-governance was well established by National led on that issue by
Chris Finlayson, but wit the support of Key / English.
No you have told that lie before and have never provided proof. What they may >>have talked about was co-management but you have more than once demonstrated >>that you do not understand the difference between governance and management. A
difference that is profound.
reached under a National Government (with Chris Finlayson as Minister
of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations at the time):
https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/community/your-community/iwi/waikato-river-co-management/
This quite clearly establishes that the Waikato Regional Council
entered into co-management agreements with local Maori for some of the
water resources it manages. Council membership was not changed to
facilitate Maori representation and this is a significant
differentiation between co-management and the provisions in 5-waters legislation for co-governance.
Rich continues to ignore this very significant difference because it
does not suit his game-plan to portray co-governance as initiated by a
past National Government.
The healthThere was nothing that justified a two tier health system, that was never >>mentioned and the debts did not justify that - another lie.
restructure was a result of the enormous debts most DHBs offered - the >>>structure was resistant to cooperation, and we found that greater >>>cooperation was led primarily due to the Covid experience - Labour
were less comfortable with post code discrmination in health services >>>than the previous government
. 3 waters (I don't know what you mean by
5 waters)
Yes you do - the select committee added two more waters to 3 waters - and that
has been explained to you more than once.
was started many years ago, possibly under Labour, butNonsense, that is not the same as removing (confiscating) control of waters >>from local councils - that has never been suggested before - another lie.
development continued throught he Key/English years. Problems with >>>widespread non-compliance with water quality standards, and the need
for emergency supplies (largely in North Auckand) have mean that the
time was right for all that planning to come to fruition.
No that is a lie also - the merger is a polical move and is trejected by almost
Some other issues such as the need to review public broadcasting, are >>>partly driven by internal NZ issues, but also driven by the rise of
other broadcasting suppliers and methods.
everyone. It has no support from the people of this country and will cost >>millions of dollars for no return.
Irrelevant and off topic - you cannot ever stay on topic and you always try to
Are there any more in the "some others'' referred to above ? Certainly >>>the sell off of state assets by National were seldom forecast in >>>pre-election manifestos - indeed I am not sure if National had a >>>manifesto before the last election - perhaps Judith is still drafting
it . . .
make it someobody else's fault.
Well, not this time boyo. Keep on topic or go away.
When Rich needs to go off-topic to continue with his political
rhetoric he does - without realising that tactics such as this reveal
to us all his admission of logical defeat.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >>>>>>> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this >>>>>>> issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 20:54:28 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:thinning, it's the administrative staff in the back ground shuffling papers. This has been needed for decades and Labour filling the Public service with over priced çonsultants'isn't helping the problem! What's needed is a good cleanout of the deadwood
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:24:33 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 6:32:25 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 20:27:12 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130771276/we-need-to-know-what-the-plan-for-the-public-service-is-beyond-the-election
While it is clear that either Labour or National are likely to be the >> >> >> largest party in whichever parties make up the next government, as
this article makes clear is that on current polling, a National-led
government from the next election is likely to have to take seriously >> >> >> policies of the ACT party, just as a Labour-led government would have >> >> >> to take seriously the policies of the Green Party - and we know from >> >> >> the Labour/NZFirst coalition that such a need is real; some
initiatives can be at least prevented by the minor party, others are >> >> >> more likely to be supported.
The article acknowledges that the policies of ACT may well influence a >> >> >> Nat/ACT coalition; and I agree that a critical issue is being raised >> >> >> that marks a significant difference between different parties. I do
however believe that as far as possible the same questions should be >> >> >> asked of at least the four parties most likely to be in a coalition
government in a year's time. If they decline to answer, or fudge, or >> >> >> make promises that suprise even their own supporters, then we all need >> >> >> to know.
Benedict Fergusson may feel that he knows what Labour would do, but I >> >> >> believe it is worth being able to compare four parties - and this
issue would be as good an issue as any to start with.
However the claims aimed at the Public Service by Luxon are quite correct. Though that may be because Labour removed the need for the bureaucrats' meeting targets which probably explains their poor performance. It's not the frontline staff needing
You and Tony are well suited John Boy - you are both rude, arrogant,But you were not being asked, John. We can have speculation fromNice that at last you admit your so called opinions are worthless Rich. Well done!
supporters of any party, but they mean a lot less than a statement
from the party leader.
lacking in simple comprehension, susceptable to any stupid suggestion,
loyal to a political party you do not understand, believers in stupid
speculative theories with no scientific evidence, and totally out of
your depth most of the time.
New Zealanders deserve to have a clear idea of what each political
party has as its priorities, and know what they will do. Asking all
parties will improve our knowledge, and also show up those parties
that appear to have no policies except expediancy.
I am sorry that your disabilities so handicap you John, an that Tony
is no help to you or anyone else. I foresee great disappontments in
both your futures.
It's uncanny to see Dickbot describe itself so accurately.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:39:35 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,994 |