A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being
addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and
enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot
end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen
during this time as well.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>He does understand the Waitangi Treaty which in no way whatsoever deals with co-governance. You have had that explained time and time again and you have never provided any evidence to the contrary.
wrote:
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being
addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and
enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot
end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen
during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David
Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the
issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he
does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen,
the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult
with wider groups.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being
addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and
enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot
end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisenDamien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David
during this time as well.
Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - theIt's you and your communists mate who are rewriting the Treaty Rich! Pity you're happier posting links to it rather than reading it!
issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he
does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen,
the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult
with wider groups.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being
addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and
enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot
end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen
during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David
Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the
issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he
does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen,
the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult
with wider groups.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being
addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and
enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen
during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
who else may have a similar opinion.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he
does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen,
the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult
with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a
review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make
about prior agreements is irrelevant.
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and areThere is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of
backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counterIs stating reality bluster, Crash?
this.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>No they were not.
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
who else may have a similar opinion.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a
review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make
about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreements
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more
discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and areThere is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of
backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.
course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do
not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counterIs stating reality bluster, Crash?
this.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Only when it's your interpretation of reality Rich :)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to >>>take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
who else may have a similar opinion.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when >>>in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a
review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make >>about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreementsNo they were not.
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
You have never provided evidence that they were-
Provide evidence of co-governance and not co-management.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more >discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and areThere is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of
backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.
course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do
not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counterIs stating reality bluster, Crash?
this.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to
take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
who else may have a similar opinion.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when
in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a
review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make
about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreements
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more
discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and areThere is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of
backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.
course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do
not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counterIs stating reality bluster, Crash?
this.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:17:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or >>>who else may have a similar opinion.
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to >>>>take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer
who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when >>>>in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a
review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make >>>about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreements
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
Your assertions of this have been debunked repeatedly - and you ignore
this because your unsupported political rhetoric.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more >>discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The statistics are damning. There were over 88,383 submissions on the
Water Entities of which at least 82,000 opposed the bill.
Details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Services_Entities_Act_2022
but it is clear there was not sufficient time allowed for the Finance
and Expenditure Committee to hear this volume of submissions. That
blows wide open any assertion that widespread consultation was
considered. It was not and the timetable available never allowed this
- a deliberate ply by the government.
Oh yes we do - the provisions in this legislation go well beyond the
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and areThere is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >>supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of
backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.
course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do
not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
remit of water quality and most of us are very well aware of the
agenda that the He Pupua report no doubt introduced.
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counterIs stating reality bluster, Crash?
this.
You are yet to acknowledge reality on this. Do keep up on why this is
one of the major reasons why Ardern has given up her leadership.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:48:23 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:17:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or >>>who else may have a similar opinion.
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to >>>>take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer >>>>who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when >>>>in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a >>>review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make >>>about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreements
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
Your assertions of this have been debunked repeatedly - and you ignore
this because your unsupported political rhetoric.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more >>discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The statistics are damning. There were over 88,383 submissions on theHow many were copies - it is quite common for organisations to send
Water Entities of which at least 82,000 opposed the bill.
their members a template. Some groups are more inclined to copy and
send than others. 82,000 people sounds a lot, and it is - a bit less
than 0.002% of our population. Is the figure of 82000 relevant? (And
how many submissions were in favour or just asking for small changes?)
Details here: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Services_Entities_Act_2022
but it is clear there was not sufficient time allowed for the FinanceSo how much time was given to a Select Committee to hear submissions
and Expenditure Committee to hear this volume of submissions. That
blows wide open any assertion that widespread consultation was
considered. It was not and the timetable available never allowed this
- a deliberate ply by the government.
on the Waikato River co-governance agreement? Which was better?
Do you have any evidence that He Puapua had anything to do with the structure?Oh yes we do - the provisions in this legislation go well beyond the
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and are >>>backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.There is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >>supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of >>course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do >>not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
remit of water quality and most of us are very well aware of the
agenda that the He Pupua report no doubt introduced.
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counter >>>this.Is stating reality bluster, Crash?
You are yet to acknowledge reality on this. Do keep up on why this isPerhaps your reality is not my reality; and no I do not think Three
one of the major reasons why Ardern has given up her leadership.
Waters had much to do with Ardern resigning from being PM. I suspect
it was more the vicious threats to her and her family, the constant
insults and untruths - Three Waters has been no more subject to
misleading information that pretty well anything else Labour has done.
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:48:23 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:17:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:02:38 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:00:13 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 12:04:27 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:Off topic. I don't care about who or what Damien Grant may be like or >>>>who else may have a similar opinion.
A review of Jacinda Ardern's leadership:
https://tinyurl.com/29vo6yhu
Of particular relevance: "Co-governance in areas like water >>>>>>infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been imposed >>>>>>without the usual process of consultation and consent.
We are moving from a regime where historical wrongs are being >>>>>>addressed, to a state where one ethnic class has an inherent and >>>>>>enduring political status that is based on their ancestry. This cannot >>>>>>end well."
Worth being reminded of other significant issues that have arisen >>>>>>during this time as well.
Damien Grant is often worth reading - he expresses the views of David >>>>>Seymour and to an extent Chris Finlayson quite well, but is able to >>>>>take a slightly more controversial stance - he is an opinion writer >>>>>who is cleverer than the Hosk.
That he does not understand the Waitangi Treaty is fairly common - the >>>>>issues deling with water are not as easy to understand as land; but he >>>>>does not take into account the precedents from relatively recent >>>>>co-governance arrangements - one led on the government side by Cullen, >>>>>the other by Finlayson. ACT may disagree as Grant indicates, but when >>>>>in office both National and Labour support settlements that do consult >>>>>with wider groups.
Off topic again. Grant references co-governance only in respect a >>>>review of Ardern's time in office, and therefore the claims you make >>>>about prior agreements is irrelevant.
Not off topic. The quote was given above:
"Co-governance in areas like water
infrastructure, land management and the health sector has been
imposed without the usual process of consultation and consent."
I have pointed out that co-governance is not new; major agreements
using co-governance were arranged by Michael Cullen and Chris
Finlayson.
Your assertions of this have been debunked repeatedly - and you ignore
this because your unsupported political rhetoric.
There has been much more consultation and discussion over
the use of co-governance for Three waters. Even though Three waters is
a larger issue than those previous co-governance agreements, more >>>discussion has been appropriate, but the statement that I was
responding to is still incorrect.
The statistics are damning. There were over 88,383 submissions on the >>Water Entities of which at least 82,000 opposed the bill.
How many were copies - it is quite common for organisations to send
their members a template.
Some groups are more inclined to copy and
send than others. 82,000 people sounds a lot, and it is - a bit less
than 0.002% of our population. Is the figure of 82000 relevant? (And
how many submissions were in favour or just asking for small changes?)
Details here: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Services_Entities_Act_2022
but it is clear there was not sufficient time allowed for the Finance
and Expenditure Committee to hear this volume of submissions. That
blows wide open any assertion that widespread consultation was
considered. It was not and the timetable available never allowed this
- a deliberate ply by the government.
So how much time was given to a Select Committee to hear submissions
on the Waikato River co-governance agreement? Which was better?
Oh yes we do - the provisions in this legislation go well beyond the
The issues are about the Water reforms Labour has enacted and are >>>>backed up by the public opposition to them that has been ignored.There is widespread agreement from many people - it is not clear which >>>supporters number more or less than those that are opposed; many of >>>course have no view at all. Certainly opposition is noisier, but we do >>>not base our law-making decision on who is noisiest . . .
remit of water quality and most of us are very well aware of the
agenda that the He Pupua report no doubt introduced.
Do you have any evidence that He Puapua had anything to do with the >structure?
There is no amount of irrelevant bluster from you that can counter >>>>this.Is stating reality bluster, Crash?
You are yet to acknowledge reality on this. Do keep up on why this is
one of the major reasons why Ardern has given up her leadership.
Perhaps your reality is not my reality; and no I do not think Three
Waters had much to do with Ardern resigning from being PM. I suspect
it was more the vicious threats to her and her family, the constant
insults and untruths - Three Waters has been no more subject to
misleading information that pretty well anything else Labour has done.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:43:09 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,843 |