Good thinking from Luxon - propose to do a whole lot of things that
have already been done, some by Labour recently . . . Do they know
what they are talking about?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:01:34 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Good thinking from Luxon - propose to do a whole lot of things that
have already been done, some by Labour recently . . . Do they know
what they are talking about?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
You cant have it both ways Rich. You criticise Luxon for opposition
to Labour for the sake of it, then criticise him when he keeps the
Water Quality Regulator. The significance of the Water Infrastructure >Manager and ring-fenced water revenue is not mentioned.
Yet again previous National governments are criticised for doing
nothing, ignoring previous Labour governments that also did nothing.
When Labour did do something they never signaled it as policy prior to
an election but sprung it on us as only a majority government can do.
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 07:55:33 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>Good fucking grief Rich! Do something about your political bias ffs! While your at it get a bloody spell checker so your political rants are easier to follow. You sound like the sort of imbecile covering for Putins war agains the Ukraine a lot of bombast
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:01:34 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Good thinking from Luxon - propose to do a whole lot of things that
have already been done, some by Labour recently . . . Do they know
what they are talking about?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
You cant have it both ways Rich. You criticise Luxon for opposition
to Labour for the sake of it, then criticise him when he keeps the
Water Quality Regulator. The significance of the Water Infrastructure >Manager and ring-fenced water revenue is not mentioned.
Yet again previous National governments are criticised for doingI disagree with you on this issue, as I have expressed prevopusly. No government is restricted to actions that have been signalled in an
nothing, ignoring previous Labour governments that also did nothing.
When Labour did do something they never signaled it as policy prior to
an election but sprung it on us as only a majority government can do.
election campaign. They are elected based on more than is ever
possible to include in election discussions. Part of that is obvious - no-one expected to predict the future. I posted above on regulatory
chnges that I had not been aware of - but which very surprisingly, apparently the Opposition was also not aware of!. I do not avidly
follow the detail of what happens across government; I would expect an opposition to be aware. In the same sort of thing I was surprised to
hear did hear of people coming from overseas to look at our emergency response to the cyclones; there was a comment that NZ was regarded as
a world leader in the changes that had been made in developing NEMA -
I was just not aware of those developments, but clearly good work had happened - and possibly something similar would have happened under a National government or a coalition government - but none of it
featured in an election campaign. We elect on reptation and trust as
well as on stated policies. Not signalling the flag referendum was not
what was complained about when the Key Government decided to have it -
it was the waste of money it invovled and the way it was put together
that angered a lot of people.
Good thinking from Luxon - propose to do a whole lot of things that
have already been done, some by Labour recently . . . Do they know
what they are talking about?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
You cant have it both ways Rich. You criticise Luxon for opposition
to Labour for the sake of it, then criticise him when he keeps the
Water Quality Regulator. The significance of the Water Infrastructure >Manager and ring-fenced water revenue is not mentioned.
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 07:55:33 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:01:34 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
Good thinking from Luxon - propose to do a whole lot of things that
have already been done, some by Labour recently . . . Do they know
what they are talking about?
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
You cant have it both ways Rich. You criticise Luxon for opposition
to Labour for the sake of it, then criticise him when he keeps the
Water Quality Regulator. The significance of the Water Infrastructure >>Manager and ring-fenced water revenue is not mentioned.
Yet again previous National governments are criticised for doing
nothing, ignoring previous Labour governments that also did nothing.
When Labour did do something they never signaled it as policy prior to
an election but sprung it on us as only a majority government can do.
I disagree with you on this issue, as I have expressed prevopusly. No >government is restricted to actions that have been signalled in an
election campaign.
They are elected based on more than is ever
possible to include in election discussions. Part of that is obvious -
no-one expected to predict the future.
I posted above on regulatory
chnges that I had not been aware of - but which very surprisingly,
apparently the Opposition was also not aware of!. I do not avidly
follow the detail of what happens across government; I would expect an >opposition to be aware. In the same sort of thing I was surprised to
hear did hear of people coming from overseas to look at our emergency >response to the cyclones; there was a comment that NZ was regarded as
a world leader in the changes that had been made in developing NEMA -
I was just not aware of those developments, but clearly good work had >happened - and possibly something similar would have happened under a >National government or a coalition government - but none of it
featured in an election campaign. We elect on reptation and trust as
well as on stated policies.
Not signalling the flag referendum was not
what was complained about when the Key Government decided to have it -
it was the waste of money it invovled and the way it was put together
that angered a lot of people.
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2023, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.newsroom.co.nz/et-voila-heres-something-someone-prepared-a-little-earlier?
You cant have it both ways Rich. You criticise Luxon for opposition
to Labour for the sake of it, then criticise him when he keeps the
Water Quality Regulator. The significance of the Water Infrastructure >>Manager and ring-fenced water revenue is not mentioned.
I agree with Rich, Luxon should not keep any of the Labour
initiatives. National is useless to do so, they just bed in Labour
policies as they have been doing for decades. With an opposition like
that, who needs supporters?
Who needs more bureaucrats, more overseeing bodies? Throw the rascals
out, all of them. Here's a quick fix for the NZ labour shortage: fire
half of government bureaucrats and they can go work for private
industry doing something actually productive. Abolish the income tax
and fire the entire IRD -- government can print money to pay its
bills, that way there is no increasing national debt either -- no debt
at all, actually.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:46:18 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,955 |