Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it. Lookslike many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayersThanks John.
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John BowesLooks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues.
Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger
got slammed in it. Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
Thanks John.https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Interesting, if Hipkins does get to be PM he has an opportunity to change the way most of the country are thinking right now - but it might be career limiting!
On 2023-01-20, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:They are not "voters" they are irrelevant and in a balanced world they would not have a vote - unfortunately we cannot do that for obvious reasons. (Who would decide eh? Anarchy beckons!)
John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the
interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various >>issues.
Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ >>merger
got slammed in it. Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three >>Waters :)
However there are voters who always vote a certain party even if the think >the Party is screwing them over.
Thanks John.https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Interesting, if Hipkins does get to be PM he has an opportunity to change >>the
way most of the country are thinking right now - but it might be career
limiting!
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a schemehttps://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So
Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against. >Laufghing stock territory.
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is >going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes
it somewhat unlikely.
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So
Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against.Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a scheme
Laufghing stock territory.
that results in clean water for household use that does not make
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy,
adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe
capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It isI agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but
going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes >it somewhat unlikely.
essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans
that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and
flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Political spin and totally false. 3/5 waters is not about that.
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a scheme
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the >>>>interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues.
Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger
got slammed in it. Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So
Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against. >>Laufghing stock territory.
that results in clean water for household use that does not make
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy,
adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe
capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?More spin.
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is >>going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes >>it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but
essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans
that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and
flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a schemehttps://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So
Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against. >>Laufghing stock territory.
that results in clean water for household use that does not make
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy,
adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe
capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is >>going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes >>it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but
essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans
that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and
flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:10:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a schemehttps://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To
even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So >>>> Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against. >>>Laufghing stock territory.
that results in clean water for household use that does not make
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy,
adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe
capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
With a few notable exceptions that is the status quo now. The reforms >currently being enacted do not include any specific plans to achieve
any of this - just a future intent. They do include provision for
minority control of governance and that is most likely the reason that
there will be a change of government this year.
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is >>>going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes >>>it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but >>essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans
that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and
flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
There have been a number of occasions where National has committed to >repealing the Water reforms legislation:
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/simon-watts-national-local-government-spokesperson-on-the-three-waters-bill-being-passed/
What is needed is a consistent plan to address 3-waters issues where"Other baggage"? What would that be, Crash?
needed throughout the country where needed. Labours legislation did
this but had too much other baggage.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 12:42:48 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:10:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a schemehttps://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To >>>>> even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So >>>>> Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against.
Laufghing stock territory.
that results in clean water for household use that does not make
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy, >>>adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe >>>capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
With a few notable exceptions that is the status quo now. The reforms >>currently being enacted do not include any specific plans to achieve
any of this - just a future intent. They do include provision for
minority control of governance and that is most likely the reason that >>there will be a change of government this year.
The major goals that it will be the responsibility of the new entities
to achieve is to meet water standards - and those have been recently
revised and put into law. It has been suggested that Councils that
want to ''go it alone"" should be allowed to, but that they be fined
if they do not meet standards within a reasonable time frame. The
reality is that most local authorities would not be prepared to pay
all the cost - and it would be hugely less efficient than the entities >sharing scientific and engineering work, but organising across
reasonably wide areas the scope of actual work - the Wellington
Regional Council has worked well for the cities that it servs for the
supply of clean water, but there are a lot of other problems relating
to water that need major work
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is
going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes >>>>it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but >>>essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans
that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and >>>flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
There have been a number of occasions where National has committed to >>repealing the Water reforms legislation:
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/simon-watts-national-local-government-spokesperson-on-the-three-waters-bill-being-passed/
Even the National Local Government spokesperson cannot identify any >particular aspects that he calls a ''shambles'' - yes they may repeal
the legislation, but that would take some time and they would
immediately replace it with law that would have the same effect, but
probably less effective; it would lose support from local areas over
time.
"Other baggage"? What would that be, Crash?
What is needed is a consistent plan to address 3-waters issues where
needed throughout the country where needed. Labours legislation did
this but had too much other baggage.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 12:42:48 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:10:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Rich. If you want to drag out the propaganda from your government on three waters start your own thread! This one is partly about how badly Labour and their three waters policy did in a curia poll. so please get on topic for once in your useless life orSurprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a scheme >>that results in clean water for household use that does not makehttps://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To >>>> even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So >>>> Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next
Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against.
Laufghing stock territory.
people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy, >>adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe >>capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and
all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.
With a few notable exceptions that is the status quo now. The reforms >currently being enacted do not include any specific plans to achieveThe major goals that it will be the responsibility of the new entities
any of this - just a future intent. They do include provision for
minority control of governance and that is most likely the reason that >there will be a change of government this year.
to achieve is to meet water standards - and those have been recently
revised and put into law. It has been suggested that Councils that
want to ''go it alone"" should be allowed to, but that they be fined
if they do not meet standards within a reasonable time frame. The
reality is that most local authorities would not be prepared to pay
all the cost - and it would be hugely less efficient than the entities sharing scientific and engineering work, but organising across
reasonably wide areas the scope of actual work - the Wellington
Regional Council has worked well for the cities that it servs for the
supply of clean water, but there are a lot of other problems relating
to water that need major work
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is
going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes
it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but >>essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans >>that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful
not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and >>flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
There have been a number of occasions where National has committed to >repealing the Water reforms legislation:
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/simon-watts-national-local-government-spokesperson-on-the-three-waters-bill-being-passed/Even the National Local Government spokesperson cannot identify any particular aspects that he calls a ''shambles'' - yes they may repeal
the legislation, but that would take some time and they would
immediately replace it with law that would have the same effect, but probably less effective; it would lose support from local areas over
time.
What is needed is a consistent plan to address 3-waters issues where >needed throughout the country where needed. Labours legislation did"Other baggage"? What would that be, Crash?
this but had too much other baggage.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 14:03:23 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>Looks like many Labour supporters didn't like Three Waters :)
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 12:42:48 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:10:50 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On 21 Jan 2023 03:11:04 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-01-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:53:58 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Seems Hipkins is a clear winner in the leadership stakes. However the interesting piece is down in the bottom where they've polled on various issues. Three Waters scored -40% and things like co-governance and the TVNZ/RNZ merger got slammed in it.
Surprisingly, a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of a scheme >>>that results in clean water for household use that does not make >>>people sick, clean water at beaches and rivers to swim and enjoy, >>>adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes, adequate pipe >>>capacity that dirty water does not flood into private property - and >>>all that without asking for rates to be increased significantly.https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/snap_poll?utm_campaign=220121_labour_lead_poll_jordan&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayers
Labour are still doomed by the Water reforms legislation. It is
extremely unpopular and not mentioned prior to the 2020 election. To >>>>> even have a chance in 2023 Labour need to repeal Water Reform Acts. So >>>>> Hipkins is not only the next PM, but also destined to be the next >>>>> Leader of the Opposition.
How can the Labour Government repeal something that the country was against.
Laufghing stock territory.
With a few notable exceptions that is the status quo now. The reforms >>currently being enacted do not include any specific plans to achieve
any of this - just a future intent. They do include provision for >>minority control of governance and that is most likely the reason that >>there will be a change of government this year.
The major goals that it will be the responsibility of the new entities
to achieve is to meet water standards - and those have been recently >revised and put into law. It has been suggested that Councils that
want to ''go it alone"" should be allowed to, but that they be fined
if they do not meet standards within a reasonable time frame. The
reality is that most local authorities would not be prepared to pay
all the cost - and it would be hugely less efficient than the entities >sharing scientific and engineering work, but organising across
reasonably wide areas the scope of actual work - the Wellington
Regional Council has worked well for the cities that it servs for the >supply of clean water, but there are a lot of other problems relating
to water that need major work
What was it that you thought "the country was against", Gordon?
My only concern is whether or not NACT will repeal all the 3-5 waters. It is
going to take some political will, and in this woke fuelled world it makes
it somewhat unlikely.
I agree that National are likely to make some small changes, but >>>essentially the programme being worked on now is a revision of plans >>>that started before the John Key government - Luxon is being careful >>>not to agree publicly with the idiots that want more pollution and >>>flooding and 3 Waters being stopped.
There have been a number of occasions where National has committed to >>repealing the Water reforms legislation:
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/simon-watts-national-local-government-spokesperson-on-the-three-waters-bill-being-passed/
Even the National Local Government spokesperson cannot identify any >particular aspects that he calls a ''shambles'' - yes they may repealIt will not include co-governance measures that are in the current legislation.
the legislation, but that would take some time and they would
immediately replace it with law that would have the same effect, but >probably less effective; it would lose support from local areas over
time.
If you cannot work that out you wont get any relief from your"Other baggage"? What would that be, Crash?
What is needed is a consistent plan to address 3-waters issues where >>needed throughout the country where needed. Labours legislation did
this but had too much other baggage.
ignorance from me. Labour are doomed at the next election because
they also cant work it out.
--Crash. I love your attempts to try and straighten Rich out on the difference between co management and co governance. But regrettably it's not the topic of this thread. So please don't feed the silly little troll Rich and wait for him to start a thread
Crash McBash
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 109:20:35 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,710 |