Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe
that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party
policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both
National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense
pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job
offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future
commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for
which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe
that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party
policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both
National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense
pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job
offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . .
It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe
that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party
policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both
National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense
pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job
offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe
that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party
policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense
pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job
offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a
caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >of a job in the National model.
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What nonsense.
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a
caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >>of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to
retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the
field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep
rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work
without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What nonsense.
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a
caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >>>of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to
retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the
field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep
rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work
without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him.
- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of >that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >guessing as usual.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 18:01:49 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a
caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >>>of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to
retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the
field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep
rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work
without quite high increases in rates.
This will be addressed by National's well-publicised policy, as you
have been told many times but never acknowledge.
Chris Finlayson believes that
Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him.
This has been covered so many times and you can never refute the fact
that Findlayson was a party to ToW Settlement negotiations on small
regional assets that allowed co-management of specific resources
between Iwi and regional local bodies. This has no connection to the
Water reforms legislation that Labour enacted and National have
promised to repeal.
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why
anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a
caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the
relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >>of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to
retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the
field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep
rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work
without quite high increases in rates.
Chris Finlayson believes that
Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour word isn't believed by many in this ng Rich. It's up to YOU to backup your worthless opinion with a cite! You've tried this bullshit before and got hammered. So now is the time for you to provide some evidence rather than your usual empty words!
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of >>>> Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see >>>> work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones
without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance
of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep >>rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him. >What nonsense.
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of >that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >guessing as usual.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou childish little sociopath.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What nonsense.
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of
Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see
work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution
that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>>>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance >>>>of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep
rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local
authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ;
but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him.
- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of >>that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >>guessing as usual.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou childish little sociopath.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a
number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of >>>>>> Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see >>>>>> work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution >>>>>> that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones >>>>>without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better chance
of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>>>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>>>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>>>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep >>>>rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local >>>>authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>>>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>>>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ; >>>>but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him. >>>What nonsense.
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of >>>that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >>>guessing as usual.
Provide some evidence of your idiotic repetitive lies about Finlayson and >co-management.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:40:33 -0000 (UTC), TonyAll else youhave written is irrelevant. You lied, again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou childish little sociopath.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal.
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>>>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a >>>>>>> number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>>>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>>>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of >>>>>>> Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see >>>>>>> work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution >>>>>>> that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by
Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones
without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>>>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better >>>>>>chance
of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>>>>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>>>>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>>>>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep >>>>>rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local >>>>>authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>>>>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>>>>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ; >>>>>but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him. >>>>What nonsense.
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of >>>>that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >>>>guessing as usual.
Provide some evidence of your idiotic repetitive lies about Finlayson and >>co-management.
Helpless are you? Google is your friend, Tony.
Here is just one article: >https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
But perhaps you are part of the "KKK Brigade" that he refers to . . . Finlayson did not put co-governance in place - you said he did - you lied.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:He certainly did not put all co-governance arrangements in place, but
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:40:33 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You childish little sociopath.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal. >>>>>>>>>
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for >>>>>>>>>which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>>>>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a >>>>>>>> number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>>>>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need >>>>>>>> people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of >>>>>>>> Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see >>>>>>>> work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution >>>>>>>> that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by >>>>>>>> Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. Ones
without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>>>>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better >>>>>>>chance
of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>>>>>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>>>>>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>>>>>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep >>>>>>rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local >>>>>>authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>>>>>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>>>>>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ; >>>>>>but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him. >>>>>What nonsense.
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence of
that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >>>>>guessing as usual.
Provide some evidence of your idiotic repetitive lies about Finlayson and >>>co-management.
Helpless are you? Google is your friend, Tony.
Here is just one article: >>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
But perhaps you are part of the "KKK Brigade" that he refers to . . . >Finlayson did not put co-governance in place - you said he did - you lied.
All else youhave written is irrelevant. You lied, again.How easy you do find it to lie while accusing others of lying.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:47:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyFinlayson did not put co-governance in place - you said he did - you lied.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:the discussion was about what politicians and the National Party in >particular believe - clearly Finlayson believes that co-governance is
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:40:33 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 05:42:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You childish little sociopath.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So give us some evidnece, Tony . . . . .
On 21 Oct 2023 03:00:32 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:- Finlayson did not put any co-governance ins place
On 2023-10-20, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 20:58:51 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Well we are in the transition phase between governments. I believe >>>>>>>>>>that Hipkins in particular needs to take into consideration the best >>>>>>>>>>interests of the country and put taxpayer interests before party >>>>>>>>>>policy. Specifically, spending on areas where National and ACT have >>>>>>>>>>indicated a change in direction should be absolutely minimal. >>>>>>>>>>
A case in point is the Water reforms. Given the policies of both >>>>>>>>>>National and ACT, there should be no further incursion of expense >>>>>>>>>>pending the repeal of the appropriate Acts. I cannot fathom why >>>>>>>>>>anyone would consider taking a job with the Water Entities but job >>>>>>>>>>offers need to be ceased immediately along with all other future >>>>>>>>>>commitments.
The same applies to all other initiatives instigated by Labour but for
which National (in particular) have committed to repeal.
Until a new government is sworn in, the outgoing government acts in a >>>>>>>>> caretaker role. As far as I am aware they are not allowed to do a >>>>>>>>> number of the things you are suggesting - perhaps you could read the >>>>>>>>> relevant legislation . . . It is only a short period, and we do need
people to address many of the water issues that are beyond a lot of >>>>>>>>> Councils - but perhaps the incoming government will be happy to see >>>>>>>>> work progressing at fixing some of the problems of water pollution >>>>>>>>> that the current system is leading to due to underinvestment by >>>>>>>>> Councils . . .
Maybe, maybe not.
Does not National have some policy/propsals in the water reform area. >>>>>>>>Ones
without co-governace. There is probably some new jobs in the National >>>>>>>>reforms. Maybe it is a case of being on the field gives one a better >>>>>>>>chance
of a job in the National model.
They certainly plan to keep ownership with local authorities, and to >>>>>>>retain the water quality regulator. What do you mean by being on the >>>>>>>field, Gordon - is that a rugby metaphor? Given significant problems >>>>>>>throughout the country, arising from too little maintenance to keep >>>>>>>rates low, and the effect of storms and flooding, some local >>>>>>>authorities are not likely to be able to afford the necessary work >>>>>>>without quite high increases in rates. Chris Finlayson believes that >>>>>>>Co-governance arrangements that he put in place are still relevant ; >>>>>>>but the next generation of National MPs appear not to agree with him. >>>>>>What nonsense.
- There are not "signifiant" problems "throughout" the country. Evidence >>>>>>of
that does not exist.
- You have shown no evidnece of what current National MPs believe - just >>>>>>guessing as usual.
Provide some evidence of your idiotic repetitive lies about Finlayson and >>>>co-management.
Helpless are you? Google is your friend, Tony.
Here is just one article: >>>https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/chris-finlayson-co-governance-should-be-embraced-not-feared/
But perhaps you are part of the "KKK Brigade" that he refers to . . . >>Finlayson did not put co-governance in place - you said he did - you lied. >He certainly did not put all co-governance arrangements in place, but
a good way to deal with many settlements.
Now to move to your attempted diversion, prove that none of theNo diversion.
settlements during Finalyson's term involved any element of
co-governance - your assertion; up to you to prove it.
No lie. from me. And you know it.All else youhave written is irrelevant. You lied, again.How easy you do find it to lie while accusing others of lying.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:21:47 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,598 |