https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the >Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not >matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will >be over by the election.
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it
does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >will repeal the three waters.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the >>Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not >>matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will >>be over by the election.
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal WaterAt present the alternative being offered by National says that the
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase
rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>It is much more simple than that.
wrote:
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the >>>Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not >>>matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will >>>be over by the election.
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase
rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will >>>>be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or >from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >grab by a minority.
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? I >doubt it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will >>>>be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or >from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >grab by a minority.Off topic
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? I >doubt it.I was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or >>from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>grab by a minority.Off topic
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:20:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
wrote:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed
into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No
wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >> >>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The
People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >> >>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >> >>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with
alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to
be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase
rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is
already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
So explain how Labour was going to cover the costs Rich? Where they going to borrow ANOTHER $60 billion?!
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI just tolkd you where the m oney will come from. Perha[ps you did not realise that, maybe you think it comes from the trees.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats >>>>>the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying >>>>>>>customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will >>>>>not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or >>from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
Topic is three waters therefore more on topic than your posts.It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>grab by a minority.Off topic
The subject is three waters, you were off topic.You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? >>II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
I just tolkd you where the m oney will come from. Perha[ps you did not realiseRich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his
department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying >>>>>>>customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The >>>>>> voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy >>>>>> directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said >>>>>> policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
the
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will
not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it
does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the >>>>Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep >>>>their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water >>>>reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin, >>>>the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the >>>local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government >>>would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is >>>anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or
from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
that, maybe you think it comes from the trees.
Topic is three waters therefore more on topic than your posts.It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic powerOff topic
grab by a minority.
Any chance you can argue against the points I made? Well?
The subject is three waters, you were off topic.You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue?I was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
I
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
And your abuse is noted once more. you have become predictably tedious.
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:Nah! Labour has a little black box deep in the dungeons under the beehive that always has money in it. It's called IRD by the initiated :)
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:20:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >> >>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >> >>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >> >>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it
does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure
to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they
can play as the other major political party. They have come up with
alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >> >be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase
rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is
already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits
set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but
there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
So explain how Labour was going to cover the costs Rich? Where they going to borrow ANOTHER $60 billion?!It will be covered from all those $billions of Maori treaty
settlements as the water system will be owned and controlled by
them.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 22:34:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The >>>>>>> voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy >>>>>>> directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the >>>>>Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep >>>>>their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water >>>>>reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin, >>>>>the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the >>>>local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or
from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
Yes he does and so do I. Local solutions for local bodies, elected by locals. Water Entities have none of this.
Look again at the thread subject. What do you see? Look again at
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>>grab by a minority.Off topic
what Labour has legislated for and you will see what Tony was
referring to.
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
Laughably stupid logic.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The
voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy
directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they >>>>>will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the
Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep
their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water
reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin,
the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the
local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or >>from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>grab by a minority.Off topic
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
On 2023-03-21, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 22:34:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his
department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The >>>>>>> voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy >>>>>>> directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said >>>>>>> policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it.
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it
does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election. >>>>>>
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the >>>>>Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep >>>>>their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water >>>>>reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin, >>>>>the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the >>>>local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government >>>>would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is >>>>anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils or
from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
Yes he does and so do I. Local solutions for local bodies, elected by locals. Water Entities have none of this.This aspect needs to be driven home. Local is often best if you are dealing with local issues. Centeralised, to down management often ends up just creatin inefficienty and thus cost.
Look again at the thread subject. What do you see? Look again at
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic powerOff topic
grab by a minority.
what Labour has legislated for and you will see what Tony was
referring to.
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
Laughably stupid logic.
On 2023-03-21, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:His post was a one-liner, a throw away bit of nonsense. He cannot address the points I made because all he has is rhetoric, and no logic or care for democracy.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats >>>>>>the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying >>>>>>>>customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The >>>>>>> voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy >>>>>>> directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will >>>>>>not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis >>>>>>will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the >>>>>Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep >>>>>their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water >>>>>reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin, >>>>>the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the >>>>local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils >>>or
from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
Please explain why?
It is the consumer who will pay. The route to the bill is irrelevant.Exactly - we all pay one way or another. One is all and all is one.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>>grab by a minority.Off topic
Why do you thik this is the case.
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? >>>II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Apparently not. Just another Rich80105 attack on a person and refusal to address the content.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 05:47:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyI just tolkd you where the m oney will come from. Perha[ps you did not realise >that, maybe you think it comes from the trees.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you have no idea either . . .
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:40:53 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:It is much more simple than that.
On 21 Mar 2023 00:54:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-20, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:11:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:At present I think Labour is going nimb on the issuse as the MSM repeats >>>>>>the
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/pm-chris-hipkins-chief-of-staff-andrew-kirton-led-lobbying-firm-fighting-against-now-binned-reform.html
It smells bad enough that a lobbyist mate of Chippy becomes part of his >>>>>>>>department. It stinks to high heaven that the lobbyist's paying >>>>>>>>customers see
legislation they didn't like binned.
Government for mates. Brought to you by Labour.
I have no doubt at all that the connection is co-incidental. The >>>>>>> voters matter more than lobbyists and it was concern about policy >>>>>>> directions that were costing Labour their support that saw said
policies dumped.
The real question is where to with 3-waters? That is already passed >>>>>>> into law so Labour has very little wriggle-room to deal with it. No >>>>>>> wonder it is taking so long for Labour to work out what to do with it. >>>>>>>
Cost of living crisis and other issues to keep up the distraction. The >>>>>>People's wallets have not been hit and frankly the theft side of it will >>>>>>not
matter so long as the bills do not go up and the Cost of Living Crisis >>>>>>will
be over by the election.
The plan B hope is that it will blow up so close to the election that it >>>>>>does not get foot hold among all the other issues of an election.
The opposition need to keep reminding people that they have said that they
will repeal the three waters.
I largely agree. I don't care about the MSM much because the >>>>>Taxpayers Union is a sizable and credible political force to keep >>>>>their 'Stop 3-waters' campaign going and that will drive MSM exposure >>>>>to the issue.
National needs to realise that their commitment to repeal Water >>>>>reforms legislation is a trump card (no pun intended) that only they >>>>>can play as the other major political party. They have come up with >>>>>alternative policy to deal with water quality issues and this needs to >>>>>be a central plank in everything they do. It is, by a wide margin, >>>>>the biggest differentiation between them and Labour at present.
At present the alternative being offered by National says that the >>>>local bodies will have to raise more money, but that will no increase >>>>rates, but it may increase water costs, and a National Government
would not pay any of the costs but would facilitate borrowing which is >>>>already at the limits of lending for some Councils - with those limits >>>>set by the last National government. It does seem a bit confusing but >>>>there may have been a policy change for one of those issues - is
anyone aware of any changes?
There is some work to be done in some areas.
That work will cost money.
That money will come from either central government or from local councils >>>or
from borrowing. In all cases funded by tax payers or rate payers.
Topic is three waters therefore more on topic than your posts.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with 5 waters which is an undemocratic power >>>grab by a minority.Off topic
Any chance you can argue against the points I made? Well?
The subject is three waters, you were off topic.
You continue to post spin and distraction. Can you try to address the issue? >>>II was on topic, but you were so embarrassed you are trying to change
doubt it.
hte subject . . .
And your abuse is noted once more. you have become predictably tedious.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:52:44 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,843 |