https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself
that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for
years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too
lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on
being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against
the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself
that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for
years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too
lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on
being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against
the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:20:47 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>But you are not. Therefore an erroneous claim.
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
So you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >>political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to behttps://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National >>>politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
politically neutral.
National politicians have unashamedly and honestly putting themselves
and the party forward as looking after the interests of business and
business owners - there is nothing unsubstantiated about that; it is
not an allegation (of either good or bad); just a statement of fact -
whether they have achieved that goal is subjective of course. I have
not claimed to be politically neutral, just that I am as neutral as
Tony.
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that they
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggestingI agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >>evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ.
Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make
without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is
also similarly affected.
compromise policy for large donations - if for no other reason that
they do not get very many large donations - and those are more likely
than for National to be from the likes of MPs; donations from unions
are perhaps the nearest equivalent to the business transactions with
the National Party, but the unions are not looking for compromises on
safety or reducing costs of employing workers - unions and their
members do not as obviously benefit from lax enforcement of
legislation - could you give a few examples of Labour being similarly >affected?.
Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move;
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all
the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of
business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >>amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with
Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked
any such initiatives 2017-2020.
for universities to increase class sizes, - what initiatives are you
thinking were missed?
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning onI had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with
their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >>destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?
local bodies over sharing the cost of houses unable to be rebuilt was
far quicker than what happened after the Ch Ch earthquake - there are
still problems for quite a few residents there. Many people are
personally aware of their increases to minimum wages, their support
during Covid, the work on structural improvements with establishing
parity for large numbers of workers; their salary settlements with
nurses and discussion with doctors; the assistance for local roading
problems ; the completion of some major road projects that turned out
to have not been well started under National; the continuing success
in both upgrading existing state houses and the building of large
numbers of new houses (despite Covid and supply problems); the
assistance for trade apprenticeships that reduced youth unemployment
and helped us undertake a lot of building (not just in state housing).
I am sure you do no need reminding of the excellent responses to Covid
and the Christchurch shooting. Can you list any policies that National
have yet announced that have been costed? - they are still not
explaining how they will adapt to the lower tax income from dropping
the top tax rate . . . What other policies has National announced?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things goSo what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the >>party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say
there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little
but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National >>rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article
you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostelSo you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to be
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself
that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
politically neutral.
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that theyRightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggestingI agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ.
Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make
without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is
also similarly affected.
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all
the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of
business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with
Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked
any such initiatives 2017-2020.
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning onI had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with
their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things goSo what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too
lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against
the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say
there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little
but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National
rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article
you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On 25 Aug 2023 01:23:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. You have been shown that many times but you still tell the lie. Tha TPU is apolitical and in the past have criticised National. You are beyond help.
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel is >>not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >>parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait.
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It has >>appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
Some of the Company donations will have been from New Zealand
companies with overseas owners. Banning donations from other than NZ >Residents has been suggested. Another problem is the use of other >organisations to undertake political activity - Trump for example was >encouraging donations to organisations other than the Republican
party; here in New Zealand the most obvious active political
campaigner for National and ACT is the Taxpayer Union, who do not have
to disclose who gave them donations; they have taken the cost of
polling through Curia from the National Party, but have also been able
to support all sorts of other spontaneous political protests, etc etc
- as well as providing a good living for Jordan Williams and a heap ofNot a fact.
others . . . Quite how such artificial "political action committee"
can be stopped from dominating our politics as they have in America is >another issue that needs addressing . . .
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge
political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself
that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for
years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too
lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on
being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against
the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel is >not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait.
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It has >appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set
in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge
political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself
that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms
of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off
- but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for
years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too
lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on
being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against
the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They supported Counterspin for example - that has little to do with "taxpayers", and a lot to do with supporting anti-government protest.
On 25 Aug 2023 01:23:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. You have been shown that many times but you still tell the lie. >Tha TPU is apolitical and in the past have criticised National. You are beyond >help.
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel is >>>not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >>>parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait.
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It has >>>appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
Some of the Company donations will have been from New Zealand
companies with overseas owners. Banning donations from other than NZ >>Residents has been suggested. Another problem is the use of other >>organisations to undertake political activity - Trump for example was >>encouraging donations to organisations other than the Republican
party; here in New Zealand the most obvious active political
campaigner for National and ACT is the Taxpayer Union, who do not have
to disclose who gave them donations; they have taken the cost of
polling through Curia from the National Party, but have also been able
to support all sorts of other spontaneous political protests, etc etc
The ability to campaign using funds that do not count as political- as well as providing a good living for Jordan Williams and a heap of >>others . . . Quite how such artificial "political action committee"Not a fact.
can be stopped from dominating our politics as they have in America is >>another issue that needs addressing . . .
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>> in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed,
and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we
know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge
political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of
those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>> that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors
etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>> of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory;
and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at
what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>> - but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and
nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>> years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as
them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they
were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>> lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it
was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of
the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>> being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>> the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:20:47 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:But you are not. Therefore an erroneous claim.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
So you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >>>political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to behttps://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>>checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the >>>>government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in
a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and >>>>adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National >>>>politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>etc.
politically neutral.
National politicians have unashamedly and honestly putting themselves
and the party forward as looking after the interests of business and >>business owners - there is nothing unsubstantiated about that; it is
not an allegation (of either good or bad); just a statement of fact - >>whether they have achieved that goal is subjective of course. I have
not claimed to be politically neutral, just that I am as neutral as
Tony.
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that they
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggestingI agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>- but are we?
of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >>>evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ. >>>Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make
without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is
also similarly affected.
compromise policy for large donations - if for no other reason that
they do not get very many large donations - and those are more likely
than for National to be from the likes of MPs; donations from unions
are perhaps the nearest equivalent to the business transactions with
the National Party, but the unions are not looking for compromises on >>safety or reducing costs of employing workers - unions and their
members do not as obviously benefit from lax enforcement of
legislation - could you give a few examples of Labour being similarly >>affected?.
Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move;
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all
the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of >>>business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >>>amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with >>>Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked
any such initiatives 2017-2020.
for universities to increase class sizes, - what initiatives are you >>thinking were missed?
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning onI had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with
their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >>>destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?
local bodies over sharing the cost of houses unable to be rebuilt was
far quicker than what happened after the Ch Ch earthquake - there are
still problems for quite a few residents there. Many people are
personally aware of their increases to minimum wages, their support
during Covid, the work on structural improvements with establishing
parity for large numbers of workers; their salary settlements with
nurses and discussion with doctors; the assistance for local roading >>problems ; the completion of some major road projects that turned out
to have not been well started under National; the continuing success
in both upgrading existing state houses and the building of large
numbers of new houses (despite Covid and supply problems); the
assistance for trade apprenticeships that reduced youth unemployment
and helped us undertake a lot of building (not just in state housing).
I am sure you do no need reminding of the excellent responses to Covid
and the Christchurch shooting. Can you list any policies that National
have yet announced that have been costed? - they are still not
explaining how they will adapt to the lower tax income from dropping
the top tax rate . . . What other policies has National announced?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things goSo what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the >>>party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in >>>>migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who >>>>should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>>director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say >>>there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little
but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National >>>rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article
you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:01:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyAn invalid claim - I have always said that I am apolitical, and I am. Your "neutral" interpretation of that is childish and ignorant. However I guess you think that apolitical and neutral are the same thing (hint -they are not).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:20:47 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:But you are not. Therefore an erroneous claim.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
So you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >>>>political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to be >>>>politically neutral.https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the >>>>>parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>>>checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the >>>>>government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>>in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>>that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>>and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>>a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>>know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and >>>>>adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>>ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National >>>>>politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>>those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>>that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they >>>>>are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>>etc.
National politicians have unashamedly and honestly putting themselves
and the party forward as looking after the interests of business and >>>business owners - there is nothing unsubstantiated about that; it is
not an allegation (of either good or bad); just a statement of fact - >>>whether they have achieved that goal is subjective of course. I have
not claimed to be politically neutral, just that I am as neutral as
Tony.
Comprehension is perhaps not you strong point, Tony - get someone to
explain it to you . . . I am indeed just as neutral as you are, and
that is the only claim I have made in this regard. .
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that they >>>compromise policy for large donations - if for no other reason that
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting >>>>>that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>>of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>>and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>>>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>>what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>>- but are we?I agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations >>>>of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >>>>evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ. >>>>Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make >>>>without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is >>>>also similarly affected.
they do not get very many large donations - and those are more likely >>>than for National to be from the likes of MPs; donations from unions
are perhaps the nearest equivalent to the business transactions with
the National Party, but the unions are not looking for compromises on >>>safety or reducing costs of employing workers - unions and their
members do not as obviously benefit from lax enforcement of
legislation - could you give a few examples of Labour being similarly >>>affected?.
Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move;
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all >>>>the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of >>>>business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >>>>amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with >>>>Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again - >>>>>just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>>manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>>nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>>down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>>again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>>them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed
problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked >>>>any such initiatives 2017-2020.
for universities to increase class sizes, - what initiatives are you >>>thinking were missed?
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning on >>>>their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >>>>destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?I had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with >>>local bodies over sharing the cost of houses unable to be rebuilt was
far quicker than what happened after the Ch Ch earthquake - there are >>>still problems for quite a few residents there. Many people are >>>personally aware of their increases to minimum wages, their support >>>during Covid, the work on structural improvements with establishing >>>parity for large numbers of workers; their salary settlements with
nurses and discussion with doctors; the assistance for local roading >>>problems ; the completion of some major road projects that turned out
to have not been well started under National; the continuing success
in both upgrading existing state houses and the building of large
numbers of new houses (despite Covid and supply problems); the
assistance for trade apprenticeships that reduced youth unemployment
and helped us undertake a lot of building (not just in state housing).
I am sure you do no need reminding of the excellent responses to Covid >>>and the Christchurch shooting. Can you list any policies that National >>>have yet announced that have been costed? - they are still not
explaining how they will adapt to the lower tax income from dropping
the top tax rate . . . What other policies has National announced?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go >>>>>wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>>were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>>lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>>was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>>the politicians.So what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the >>>>party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>>the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>>looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than >>>>>had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>>political donations from companies. Third build back our public >>>>>service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in >>>>>migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who >>>>>should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>>>director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say >>>>there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little >>>>but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National >>>>rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article
you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 05:03:57 -0000 (UTC), TonyUntrue - your memory needs some attention (truth would help).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They supported Counterspin for example - that has little to do with >"taxpayers", and a lot to do with supporting anti-government protest.
On 25 Aug 2023 01:23:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Tha TPU is apolitical and in the past have criticised National. You are >>beyond
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel is >>>>not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >>>>parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait. >>>>
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It has
appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
Some of the Company donations will have been from New Zealand
companies with overseas owners. Banning donations from other than NZ >>>Residents has been suggested. Another problem is the use of other >>>organisations to undertake political activity - Trump for example was >>>encouraging donations to organisations other than the Republican
party; here in New Zealand the most obvious active political
campaigner for National and ACT is the Taxpayer Union, who do not have
to disclose who gave them donations; they have taken the cost of
polling through Curia from the National Party, but have also been able
to support all sorts of other spontaneous political protests, etc etc >>That is a lie. You have been shown that many times but you still tell the lie.
help.
Of course they are not apolitical. Their criticism of National is
always on very small issues, easily forgotten.
So you would ban a non-political organisation from trying to help average New Zealanders? Yes I thought as much- very left wing.The ability to campaign using funds that do not count as political- as well as providing a good living for Jordan Williams and a heap of >>>others . . . Quite how such artificial "political action committee" >>>can be stopped from dominating our politics as they have in America is >>>another issue that needs addressing . . .Not a fact.
donations is a fact - instead of the National Party having to pay for
market research surveys, they are now being supplied by the NZ
Taxpayer Union - with no cost being declared by National. That by
itself is a distortion, allowing National to receive a benefit at no
cost to themselves.
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>> in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly,
that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>> and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>> a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>> know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to
ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>> political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>> those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>> that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they
are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>> etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>> of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>> and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building
consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>> what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>> - but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again -
just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at
manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>> nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>> years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking
down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can
again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>> them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>> were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>> lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>> was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>> the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>> being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>> the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of
looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than
had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all
political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am not as vested in defending National from criticism as you
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 05:03:57 -0000 (UTC), TonyUntrue - your memory needs some attention (truth would help).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They supported Counterspin for example - that has little to do with >>"taxpayers", and a lot to do with supporting anti-government protest.
On 25 Aug 2023 01:23:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Tha TPU is apolitical and in the past have criticised National. You are >>>beyond
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel is
not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >>>>>parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait. >>>>>
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It has
appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
Some of the Company donations will have been from New Zealand
companies with overseas owners. Banning donations from other than NZ >>>>Residents has been suggested. Another problem is the use of other >>>>organisations to undertake political activity - Trump for example was >>>>encouraging donations to organisations other than the Republican
party; here in New Zealand the most obvious active political
campaigner for National and ACT is the Taxpayer Union, who do not have >>>>to disclose who gave them donations; they have taken the cost of >>>>polling through Curia from the National Party, but have also been able >>>>to support all sorts of other spontaneous political protests, etc etc >>>That is a lie. You have been shown that many times but you still tell the lie.
help.
Of course they are not apolitical. Their criticism of National is
always on very small issues, easily forgotten.
No; what organisation is trying to help average New Zealanders thatSo you would ban a non-political organisation from trying to help average New >Zealanders? Yes I thought as much- very left wing.
The ability to campaign using funds that do not count as political >>donations is a fact - instead of the National Party having to pay for >>market research surveys, they are now being supplied by the NZ- as well as providing a good living for Jordan Williams and a heap of >>>>others . . . Quite how such artificial "political action committee" >>>>can be stopped from dominating our politics as they have in America is >>>>another issue that needs addressing . . .Not a fact.
Taxpayer Union - with no cost being declared by National. That by
itself is a distortion, allowing National to receive a benefit at no
cost to themselves.
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive
checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>>> in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>>> that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>>> and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>>> a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>>> know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>>> ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>>> political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>>> those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>>> that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they >>>>>> are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>>> etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting
that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>>> of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>>> and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be
encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>>> consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>>> what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>>> - but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again - >>>>>> just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>>> manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>>> nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>>> years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>>> down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>>> again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>>> them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go
wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>>> were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>>> lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>>> was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>>> the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>>> being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>>> the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>>> looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than >>>>>> had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>>> political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who
should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a
director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I do understand the difference between the two. You demonstrate nearly
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:01:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyAn invalid claim - I have always said that I am apolitical, and I am. Your >"neutral" interpretation of that is childish and ignorant. However I guess you >think that apolitical and neutral are the same thing (hint -they are not).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:20:47 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:But you are not. Therefore an erroneous claim.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
So you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >>>>>political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to be >>>>>politically neutral.https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the >>>>>>parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>>>>checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the >>>>>>government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>>>in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>>>that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>>>and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>>>a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>>>know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and >>>>>>adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>>>ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National >>>>>>politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>>>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>>>those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>>>that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they >>>>>>are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>>>etc.
National politicians have unashamedly and honestly putting themselves >>>>and the party forward as looking after the interests of business and >>>>business owners - there is nothing unsubstantiated about that; it is >>>>not an allegation (of either good or bad); just a statement of fact - >>>>whether they have achieved that goal is subjective of course. I have >>>>not claimed to be politically neutral, just that I am as neutral as >>>>Tony.
Comprehension is perhaps not you strong point, Tony - get someone to >>explain it to you . . . I am indeed just as neutral as you are, and
that is the only claim I have made in this regard. .
Fact is you are bound to a political party and I have never been, am not now >and most unlikety to be ever so bound. Your pathetic arguments to the contrary >are typical of those who are closed minded.I support ideas that appeal to me - they come more often from two of
Question? Why would someone who supports a political party deny it. Mirror >mirror on the wall Rich - that is you, not me.
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that they >>>>compromise policy for large donations - if for no other reason that >>>>they do not get very many large donations - and those are more likely >>>>than for National to be from the likes of MPs; donations from unions >>>>are perhaps the nearest equivalent to the business transactions with >>>>the National Party, but the unions are not looking for compromises on >>>>safety or reducing costs of employing workers - unions and their >>>>members do not as obviously benefit from lax enforcement of
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting >>>>>>that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>>>of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>>>and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>>>>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>>>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>>>what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>>>- but are we?I agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations >>>>>of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >>>>>evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ. >>>>>Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make >>>>>without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is >>>>>also similarly affected.
legislation - could you give a few examples of Labour being similarly >>>>affected?.
Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move; >>>>for universities to increase class sizes, - what initiatives are you >>>>thinking were missed?
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all >>>>>the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of >>>>>business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >>>>>amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with >>>>>Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again - >>>>>>just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>>>manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>>>nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>>>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>>>down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>>>again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>>>them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed >>>>>problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked >>>>>any such initiatives 2017-2020.
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning on >>>>>their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >>>>>destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?I had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with >>>>local bodies over sharing the cost of houses unable to be rebuilt was >>>>far quicker than what happened after the Ch Ch earthquake - there are >>>>still problems for quite a few residents there. Many people are >>>>personally aware of their increases to minimum wages, their support >>>>during Covid, the work on structural improvements with establishing >>>>parity for large numbers of workers; their salary settlements with >>>>nurses and discussion with doctors; the assistance for local roading >>>>problems ; the completion of some major road projects that turned out >>>>to have not been well started under National; the continuing success
in both upgrading existing state houses and the building of large >>>>numbers of new houses (despite Covid and supply problems); the >>>>assistance for trade apprenticeships that reduced youth unemployment >>>>and helped us undertake a lot of building (not just in state housing). >>>>I am sure you do no need reminding of the excellent responses to Covid >>>>and the Christchurch shooting. Can you list any policies that National >>>>have yet announced that have been costed? - they are still not >>>>explaining how they will adapt to the lower tax income from dropping >>>>the top tax rate . . . What other policies has National announced?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go >>>>>>wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>>>were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>>>lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>>>was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>>>the politicians.So what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the >>>>>party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>>>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>>>the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>>>looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than >>>>>>had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>>>political donations from companies. Third build back our public >>>>>>service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in >>>>>>migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who >>>>>>should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>>>>director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say >>>>>there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little >>>>>but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National >>>>>rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article >>>>>you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 06:41:59 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am apolitical, and your repetitive accusation that I am not is a sign of your mental derangement.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I do understand the difference between the two. You demonstrate nearly
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:01:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyAn invalid claim - I have always said that I am apolitical, and I am. Your >>"neutral" interpretation of that is childish and ignorant. However I guess >>you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:20:47 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:But you are not. Therefore an erroneous claim.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:38:42 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
So you make an unsubstantiated allegation against National - just the >>>>>>political rhetoric that is as ridiculous as your claim to be >>>>>>politically neutral.https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the >>>>>>>parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>>>>>checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the >>>>>>>government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>>>>in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>>>>that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>>>>and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>>>>a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>>>>know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and >>>>>>>adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>>>>ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National >>>>>>>politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>>>>political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>>>>those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>>>>that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they >>>>>>>are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>>>>etc.
National politicians have unashamedly and honestly putting themselves >>>>>and the party forward as looking after the interests of business and >>>>>business owners - there is nothing unsubstantiated about that; it is >>>>>not an allegation (of either good or bad); just a statement of fact - >>>>>whether they have achieved that goal is subjective of course. I have >>>>>not claimed to be politically neutral, just that I am as neutral as >>>>>Tony.
Comprehension is perhaps not you strong point, Tony - get someone to >>>explain it to you . . . I am indeed just as neutral as you are, and >>>that is the only claim I have made in this regard. .
think that apolitical and neutral are the same thing (hint -they are not).
daily that you are neither.
Barefaced lie - you are an extreme left leaning idiot.Fact is you are bound to a political party and I have never been, am not now >>and most unlikety to be ever so bound. Your pathetic arguments to the >>contraryI support ideas that appeal to me - they come more often from two of
are typical of those who are closed minded.
Question? Why would someone who supports a political party deny it. Mirror >>mirror on the wall Rich - that is you, not me.
our political parties, but at times also from ACT, National and the
Maori Party. I have seldom agreed with Winston Peters, but the count
is not zero for Winston First either.
I don't see Labour as much affected by the perception that they >>>>>compromise policy for large donations - if for no other reason that >>>>>they do not get very many large donations - and those are more likely >>>>>than for National to be from the likes of MPs; donations from unions >>>>>are perhaps the nearest equivalent to the business transactions with >>>>>the National Party, but the unions are not looking for compromises on >>>>>safety or reducing costs of employing workers - unions and their >>>>>members do not as obviously benefit from lax enforcement of >>>>>legislation - could you give a few examples of Labour being similarly >>>>>affected?.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting >>>>>>>that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>>>>of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>>>>and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>>>>>encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>>>>consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>>>>what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>>>>- but are we?I agree with your assessment of risk. There are cultural expectations >>>>>>of corruption in the countries that these donors were born in, but no >>>>>>evidence that these donors have any similar expectations in NZ. >>>>>>Corruption in NZ is a serious matter Rich the inference you make >>>>>>without any evidence is evidence of your political bias. Labour is >>>>>>also similarly affected.
Covid blocked a lot of things - it was difficult for people to move; >>>>>for universities to increase class sizes, - what initiatives are you >>>>>thinking were missed?
Newsroom has compiled a list of major donations:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2023/the-latest-election-data
Scroll down to the end of the article. Use the search box to see all >>>>>>the donations fo5 each political party. 'Labour' shows a list of >>>>>>business people and trade unions. The difference with National is the >>>>>>amounts involved but none-the-less corruption is just as likely with >>>>>>Labour as National.
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again - >>>>>>>just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>>>>manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>>>>nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>>>>years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>>>>down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>>>>again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>>>>them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas.So how far down the track are Labour in righting this supposed >>>>>>problem? Its been 6 years, and I am sure NZF would not have blocked >>>>>>any such initiatives 2017-2020.
Perhaps you might explain why Labour so far are not campaigning on >>>>>>their record in Government? Perhaps it is because they have partially >>>>>>destroyed democracy with the water reforms legislation?I had not noticed that they weren't . . . the recent agreements with >>>>>local bodies over sharing the cost of houses unable to be rebuilt was >>>>>far quicker than what happened after the Ch Ch earthquake - there are >>>>>still problems for quite a few residents there. Many people are >>>>>personally aware of their increases to minimum wages, their support >>>>>during Covid, the work on structural improvements with establishing >>>>>parity for large numbers of workers; their salary settlements with >>>>>nurses and discussion with doctors; the assistance for local roading >>>>>problems ; the completion of some major road projects that turned out >>>>>to have not been well started under National; the continuing success >>>>>in both upgrading existing state houses and the building of large >>>>>numbers of new houses (despite Covid and supply problems); the >>>>>assistance for trade apprenticeships that reduced youth unemployment >>>>>and helped us undertake a lot of building (not just in state housing). >>>>>I am sure you do no need reminding of the excellent responses to Covid >>>>>and the Christchurch shooting. Can you list any policies that National >>>>>have yet announced that have been costed? - they are still not >>>>>explaining how they will adapt to the lower tax income from dropping >>>>>the top tax rate . . . What other policies has National announced?
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go >>>>>>>wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>>>>were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>>>>lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>>>>was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>>>>the politicians.So what is your point? What have Labour done about this? Who was the >>>>>>party that promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes?
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>>>>being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>>>>the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>>>>looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than >>>>>>>had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>>>>political donations from companies. Third build back our public >>>>>>>service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in >>>>>>>migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who >>>>>>>should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>>>>>director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
Your rhetoric is as irrational as your ability to do maths. You say >>>>>>there are two things we should do and then list three. Just a little >>>>>>but indicative of your muddled, politically-neutral, anti-National >>>>>>rhetoric.
You would do well to ponder why the couple mentioned in the article >>>>>>you cited now prefer to keep the property empty.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 06:44:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe taxpayers union you silly tiny man.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am not as vested in defending National from criticism as you
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 05:03:57 -0000 (UTC), TonyUntrue - your memory needs some attention (truth would help).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:They supported Counterspin for example - that has little to do with >>>"taxpayers", and a lot to do with supporting anti-government protest.
On 25 Aug 2023 01:23:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Tha TPU is apolitical and in the past have criticised National. You are >>>>beyond
On 2023-08-24, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/big-national-party-donors-investigated-for-migrant-hostel
This article is abit confused in my view. Yes, using the house as hostel >>>>>>is
not within the rules.
Yes, they did donate to the National party which other people do. To all >>>>>>parties. Been happening for years.
Seems to me the media are trying to get more clicks on their click bait. >>>>>>
The issue of donations for elections will be with us for a long time. It >>>>>>has
appeared that the Russians donated to Trump's 2016 election effort.
Some of the Company donations will have been from New Zealand >>>>>companies with overseas owners. Banning donations from other than NZ >>>>>Residents has been suggested. Another problem is the use of other >>>>>organisations to undertake political activity - Trump for example was >>>>>encouraging donations to organisations other than the Republican >>>>>party; here in New Zealand the most obvious active political >>>>>campaigner for National and ACT is the Taxpayer Union, who do not have >>>>>to disclose who gave them donations; they have taken the cost of >>>>>polling through Curia from the National Party, but have also been able >>>>>to support all sorts of other spontaneous political protests, etc etc >>>>That is a lie. You have been shown that many times but you still tell the >>>>lie.
help.
Of course they are not apolitical. Their criticism of National is
always on very small issues, easily forgotten.
apparently. Economically the NZ Taxpayer Union usually criticises
National for not following the ACT line - in reality they seem to be
working for an ACT/Nat government. Have a look at their website and
see the backgrounds of their Board and Staff - ACT has taken over the
focus from National, but to them the enemy is still all other parties. Irredeemable nonsense. The TU is not partisan, and your lies about that have become tiresome.
No; what organisation is trying to help average New Zealanders thatSo you would ban a non-political organisation from trying to help average New >>Zealanders? Yes I thought as much- very left wing.
The ability to campaign using funds that do not count as political >>>donations is a fact - instead of the National Party having to pay for >>>market research surveys, they are now being supplied by the NZ- as well as providing a good living for Jordan Williams and a heap of >>>>>others . . . Quite how such artificial "political action committee" >>>>>can be stopped from dominating our politics as they have in America is >>>>>another issue that needs addressing . . .Not a fact.
Taxpayer Union - with no cost being declared by National. That by
itself is a distortion, allowing National to receive a benefit at no
cost to themselves.
you think I would want to ban?
I am not necessarily seeking to ban lobby groups like the ACT/NatWhy do you keep complaining about the TU? What action do you want taken against them? What damage are they doing?
aligned 'NZ Taxpayer Union - just have consideration given to their
assisting political parties get around limits on campaign spending . .
. I do not have a clear answer as to how that can be done, but in
effect they are attacking a fair election - would you be happy if >Labour/Green had a similarly well funded lobby / publicity group
linked as closely to them?
There are failures here on multiple fronts - I do not blame the
parties for accepting donations, or for not undertaking extensive >>>>>>> checking on why people donate. The problems are structural.
Like it or not, National is known for reducing capacity of the
government to check that businesses are meeting the rules and laws set >>>>>>> in place to ensure that employees and customers are treated fairly, >>>>>>> that buildings are safe, that honest business practices are followed, >>>>>>> and that work is carried out in accordance with standards. We live in >>>>>>> a comples world, and such checking has always been desirable, but we >>>>>>> know that in difficult times it is not always carried out - and
adequate staff at local council and government levels are needed to >>>>>>> ensure that offences are uncovered. I do not blame the National
politicians who have enjoyed the ability to spend up large from huge >>>>>>> political donations, but it is easy to see with hindsight why some of >>>>>>> those donations are made - National has a reputation of telling itself >>>>>>> that businesses can be trusted, commerce will work better when they >>>>>>> are left alone to get on with it and not have to wait for inspectors >>>>>>> etc.
Rightly or wrongly, that reputation is seen by some as suggesting >>>>>>> that, as is sadly the case in some other countries, greasing the palms >>>>>>> of friendly politicians may help ensure that any checking is cursory; >>>>>>> and if departments responsible are starved of funds that is to be >>>>>>> encouraged. So we see complaints about the time taken for building >>>>>>> consents, inspectors to look at construction, etc., etc. We look at >>>>>>> what happens in the UK to get houses built and think we are better off >>>>>>> - but are we?
It is also easier to reduce staff than it is to build back again - >>>>>>> just look at doctors. We had a health service committee looking at >>>>>>> manpower planning - it got ignored, and the shortages of doctors and >>>>>>> nurses became a problem when Covid hit (and underpaying such staff for >>>>>>> years had not helped either). Building back is harder than knocking >>>>>>> down. It takes 9 years to train some of the doctors we need. We can >>>>>>> again look at the UK and be thankful we are not quite as badly off as >>>>>>> them - and they depend more than we do on doctors from overseas. >>>>>>>
So what can we do about it? First we should be upset if things go >>>>>>> wrong because government (local and central) have not done what they >>>>>>> were supposed to do. The leaky homes fiasco was a direct result of too >>>>>>> lax an approach encouraged by a previous National Government. but it >>>>>>> was never really identified as such in peoples minds as a failure of >>>>>>> the politicians.
So two things we should do: First not elect governments that reply on >>>>>>> being bought - even though I do not believe National has acted against >>>>>>> the law, they have however put lower taxes for the wealthy ahead of >>>>>>> looking after New Zealanders - and have cost us all more money than >>>>>>> had the job been done properly in the first place. Second ban all >>>>>>> political donations from companies. Third build back our public
service to stop employers mistreating employees, or bringing in
migrants on false pretences. Third penalise company directors who >>>>>>> should be stopping some of these problems - ban them from being a >>>>>>> director, and in some cases insist that shareholdings be sold.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:34:54 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,994 |