Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingThe fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political rhetoric.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingThe fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately so at worst, the >other possibilities you raise are political rhetoric.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:23:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be silly. The new government has stated that it was misleading and clearly they would know. You don't know of course.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingThe fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately so at worst, the >>other possibilities you raise are political rhetoric.
How was it misleading, Tony? Do be specific. What did you discover
that Brian Easton missed?
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to smart and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians resulting in the knowledge I mentioned.
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 09:00:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
There is nothing of much note in what Easton has written. In his
usual verbose style he simply outlines what Treasury said in the
various recent Fiscal Updates.
It is worth remembering that Willis, like most of her Finance
predecessors, is not in her role because of professional expertise but >because of other factors. The Financial Updates are therefore written
by (presumably) experts in Treasury to inform the lay-person Minister.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the next year or 2 for
sure.
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to smart >>and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians resulting >>in the knowledge I mentioned.
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to smart >and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians resulting >in the knowledge I mentioned.
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 11:17:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nobody is doing that. But you keep on saying otherwise - tghat is a lie.
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 09:00:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
There is nothing of much note in what Easton has written. In his
usual verbose style he simply outlines what Treasury said in the
various recent Fiscal Updates.
It is worth remembering that Willis, like most of her Finance
predecessors, is not in her role because of professional expertise but >>because of other factors. The Financial Updates are therefore written
by (presumably) experts in Treasury to inform the lay-person Minister.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the next year or 2 for
sure.
I agree, Crash. Trying to lay blame on the professionals in Treasury
is not helpful or honest.
As Easton said:
"What disturbed me was that the new minister seemed to be saying that
the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) was misleading,
with the implication that the Treasury was incompetent or dishonest.
She was not probably intending to do so, but ‘the books’ are the
Treasury’s, not the Minister of Finance’s."
and later:
"Willis seemed to be challenging the integrity of the 2023 PREFU. Each
EFU makes it very clear that it is a Treasury document. Here is what
HYEFU 2023 says:
“On the basis of the economic and fiscal information available to
it, the Treasury has used its best professional judgement in
preparing, and supplying the Minister of Finance with, this Economic
and Fiscal Update. The Update incorporates the fiscal and economic >implications of government decisions and other circumstances as at 23 >November 2023 that were communicated to me by the Minister of Finance
as required by the Public Finance Act 1989, and of other economic and
fiscal information available to the Treasury as at 24 November 2023.”"
and later again:
"There are also the ‘risks to the fiscal forecasts’, which take many
pages in an EFU (48 pages in HYEFU 2023 compared with 19 pages of
fiscal outlook). You have to be a bit of a geek to pay them much
attention (I plead guilty). Many carry over from EFU to EFU, there are
new ones and some have come to book in the period between. They might
be deemed ‘snakes and snails’, but they can be identified if one puts
in the effort.
One is left with the impression that the National Opposition did not.
Willis complains that there were spending programs due to terminate
which she did not know about. A bit of diligence in the Opposition
Research Unit would have identified them – did they tell her? Or was
the Opposition badly prepared?"
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe advice given to this government prior to the election was highly questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics (read mischievous half truths).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to smart >>>and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>resulting
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update,
which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had
sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to
charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and
talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice
or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition
negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government.
We can hope for better in the future.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the previous government. Can anybody guarantee that the data was not manipulated by politicians (I was not referring to officials when I wrote the last sentence above)? After all politicians lie and the last government lied in spades.
The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly
questionablke and probably wrong.
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect well
on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say previously >that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly questionablke and probably wrong.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 11:17:20 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 09:00:55 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
There is nothing of much note in what Easton has written. In his
usual verbose style he simply outlines what Treasury said in the
various recent Fiscal Updates.
It is worth remembering that Willis, like most of her Finance
predecessors, is not in her role because of professional expertise but >>because of other factors. The Financial Updates are therefore written
by (presumably) experts in Treasury to inform the lay-person Minister.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the next year or 2 for
sure.
I agree, Crash. Trying to lay blame on the professionals in Treasury
is not helpful or honest.
As Easton said:
"What disturbed me was that the new minister seemed to be saying that
the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) was misleading,
with the implication that the Treasury was incompetent or dishonest.
She was not probably intending to do so, but ‘the books’ are the Treasury’s, not the Minister of Finance’s."
and later:
"Willis seemed to be challenging the integrity of the 2023 PREFU. Each
EFU makes it very clear that it is a Treasury document. Here is what
HYEFU 2023 says:
“On the basis of the economic and fiscal information available to
it, the Treasury has used its best professional judgement in
preparing, and supplying the Minister of Finance with, this Economic
and Fiscal Update. The Update incorporates the fiscal and economic implications of government decisions and other circumstances as at 23 November 2023 that were communicated to me by the Minister of Finance
as required by the Public Finance Act 1989, and of other economic and
fiscal information available to the Treasury as at 24 November 2023.”"
and later again:
"There are also the ‘risks to the fiscal forecasts’, which take many
pages in an EFU (48 pages in HYEFU 2023 compared with 19 pages of
fiscal outlook). You have to be a bit of a geek to pay them much
attention (I plead guilty). Many carry over from EFU to EFU, there are
new ones and some have come to book in the period between. They might
be deemed ‘snakes and snails’, but they can be identified if one puts
in the effort.
One is left with the impression that the National Opposition did not.
Willis complains that there were spending programs due to terminate
which she did not know about. A bit of diligence in the Opposition
Research Unit would have identified them – did they tell her? Or was
the Opposition badly prepared?"
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect well
on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say previously >>that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the previous government.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly
questionablke and probably wrong.
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect well
on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say previously
that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics >(read mischievous half truths).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update,
which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had
sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to
charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and
talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice
or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition
negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government.
We can hope for better in the future.
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you cannot >see that can you?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 06:04:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No, that is incorrect.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect well >>>on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say previously >>>that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the previous
government.
So when you previously said “However government's have access to smart
and competent people”, you did not mean _all_ governments, only the ones >you agreed with, then?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyRobertson obvkiously.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics >>(read mischievous half truths).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to >>>>>smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had
sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to
charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and
talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice
or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition
negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government.
We can hope for better in the future.
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you cannot >>see that can you?
of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have
in mind?
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal updateNo I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the politicians, especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming
that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence
is there?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 05:48:01 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Do you have anything intelligent to add? Or is that the best you have?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly
questionablke and probably wrong.
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect well
on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say previously >>that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Certainly many were not impressed by the advice Nicola Willis claimed
to have received that gave a very high estimate of the tax that would
be raised by their proposed tax on high value purchases of homes by >foreigners. Thankfully that policy was rejected in the coalition
discussions, but perhaps National had other priorities for election
spending . . . >https://www.tophamguerin.com/work/the-digital-campaign-that-rewrote-nzs-political-playbook
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyRobertson obvkiously.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics >>>(read mischievous half truths).
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to >>>>>>smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had
sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and
talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government.
We can hope for better in the future.
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you cannot >>>see that can you?
of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have
in mind?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of Willis >who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at their >very best!
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis wasNo I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the politicians, >especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update
from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming
that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence
is there?
Do, please, try to keep on track.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 06:04:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect >>>>well on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say >>>>previously that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the previous
government.
So when you previously said “However government's have access to smart >>and competent people”, you did not mean _all_ governments, only the ones >>you agreed with, then?
No, that is incorrect.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyExcept that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyRobertson obvkiously.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics >>>>(read mischievous half truths).
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to >>>>>>>smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent.
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>cannot
see that can you?
of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have
in mind?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of Willis >>who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at their >>very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about
the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis wasNo I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update
from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming
that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence
is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have
read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of
anyone but herself.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:28:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Obviously it does, and I made no other suggestion.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 06:04:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Why would they take advice from incompetents? That does not reflect >>>>>well on their ability to judge character, does it? Didn’t you say >>>>>previously that they “have access to smart and competent people”?
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the previous
government.
So when you previously said “However government's have access to smart >>>and competent people”, you did not mean _all_ governments, only the ones >>>you agreed with, then?
No, that is incorrect.
So which is it? When you said that governments “have access to smart >people”, does that or does that not “include the members of the previous >government”?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyExcept that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just politics >>>>>(read mischievous half truths).
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>>resulting
The new government has stated that it was misleading and
clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to >>>>>>>>smart
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at their >>>very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about
the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis wasNo I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence
is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have
read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>anyone but herself.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyFor the last bleeding time in this thread (I have made it clear already more than once) I believe it is likely that there was political interference with the data. And I am not alone in that opinion - Robertson has lied in the past (also mentioned at least once in this thread).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyExcept that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just >>>>>>politics
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>>>resulting
The new government has stated that it was misleading and >>>>>>>>>>> clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to >>>>>>>>>smart
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
(read mischievous half truths).
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of >>>>Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at their >>>>very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about >>>the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis was >>>entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to haveNo I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence >>>>>is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>>anyone but herself.
You said: "The fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately
so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political
rhetoric."
So who prepared the fiscal update and how was it misleading, Tony?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:28:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 06:04:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the
previous government.
So when you previously said “However government's have access to smart >>>>and competent people”, you did not mean _all_ governments, only the >>>>ones you agreed with, then?
No, that is incorrect.
So which is it? When you said that governments “have access to smart >>people”, does that or does that not “include the members of the previous >>government”?
Obviously it does, and I made no other suggestion.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:42:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Government includes politicians and officials. I, at all times, was blaming politiciand not officials.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:28:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 06:04:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Indeed they do, but that does not include the members of the
previous government.
So when you previously said “However government's have access to smart >>>>>and competent people”, you did not mean _all_ governments, only the >>>>>ones you agreed with, then?
No, that is incorrect.
So which is it? When you said that governments “have access to smart >>>people”, does that or does that not “include the members of the previous >>>government”?
Obviously it does, and I made no other suggestion.
But you did say (above, that “that does not include the members of the >previous government”, did you not?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyFor the last bleeding time in this thread (I have made it clear already more >than once) I believe it is likely that there was political interference with >the data. And I am not alone in that opinion - Robertson has lied in the past >(also mentioned at least once in this thread).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Except that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just >>>>>>>politics
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access to
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>>>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>>>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
(read mischievous half truths).
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of >>>>>Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at their
very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about >>>>the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis was >>>>entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have >>>>read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>>>anyone but herself.No I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence >>>>>>is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
You said: "The fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately
so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political
rhetoric."
So who prepared the fiscal update and how was it misleading, Tony?
Period. Do get some comprehension and reading training - oh too late I suspect.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingThe fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately so at worst, the >other possibilities you raise are political rhetoric.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:23:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour personal opinion is equally unjustified, why do you have that right and nobody else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or badly prepared? Or just not up to the job? >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingThe fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately so at worst, the >>other possibilities you raise are political rhetoric.
A statement of personal opinion that remains unjustified and, as the
article points out, a slur on the integrity of Treasury.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:18:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd so was your opinion unsupported. Once more you are apparently entitled to unsupported opinions and others are not - typical lefty dimwit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyFor the last bleeding time in this thread (I have made it clear already more >>than once) I believe it is likely that there was political interference with >>the data. And I am not alone in that opinion - Robertson has lied in the past >>(also mentioned at least once in this thread).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Except that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just >>>>>>>>politics
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access >>>>>>>>>>>to
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice >>>>>>>>>or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill >>>>>>>>>English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
(read mischievous half truths).
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of >>>>>>Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at >>>>>>their
very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about >>>>>the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis was >>>>>entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have >>>>>read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>>>>anyone but herself.No I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>>>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence >>>>>>>is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
You said: "The fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately
so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political
rhetoric."
So who prepared the fiscal update and how was it misleading, Tony?
Period. Do get some comprehension and reading training - oh too late I >>suspect.
So it was only an unsupported personal opinion of yours, and you have
no evidence of political interference.
The article I referenced pointed out that these Fiscal Updates areNone of which is evidence.
prepared in accordance with legislation, and are reports by the
Treasury Department to Parliament. They must be based on decisions of
cabinet as to future policies, but are otherwise prepared without >intervention from politicians. You are just being insulting to the
public servants involved in suggesting that they are corrupt, and you
have no evidence of either that or Willis being confused by any
statements from Robertson or indeed any other Labour politician. If
she was unable to understand the fiscal update (which was prepared in
the same format as recent budgets and other updates), then that is the
fault of Willis and her party. As Easton concluded, the Opposition was >unprepared.
Have another read, Tony: >https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleadingLie removed.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 07:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No.
Government includes politicians and officials. I, at all times, was
blaming politiciand not officials.
But you kept saying “government”, not “politicians and officials”. >Therefore when you were blaming “government”, that must have included >“politicians and officials”, did it not?
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:18:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is you that does not understand. It doesn't matter what Treasury does in this context, what matters is what influence politicians have over them. And that is and has always been my poiint. Stick to that and you might be on topic, otherwise you are not.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:and restored:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:18:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd so was your opinion unsupported. Once more you are apparently entitled to >>unsupported opinions and others are not - typical lefty dimwit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:For the last bleeding time in this thread (I have made it clear already >>>>more
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Except that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>>>>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>>>>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>>>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just >>>>>>>>>>politics
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
The new government has stated that it was misleading and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have >>>>>>>>>>>>>access
smart
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to >>>>>>>>>>>>>politicians
resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor >>>>>>>>>>>advice
or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from >>>>>>>>>>>Bill
English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies;
thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
(read mischievous half truths).
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>>>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of >>>>>>>>Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at >>>>>>>>their
very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about >>>>>>>the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis was >>>>>>>entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have >>>>>>>read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>>>>>>anyone but herself.No I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>>>>>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>>>>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>>>>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence >>>>>>>>>is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
You said: "The fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately >>>>>so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political >>>>>rhetoric."
So who prepared the fiscal update and how was it misleading, Tony?
than once) I believe it is likely that there was political interference >>>>with
the data. And I am not alone in that opinion - Robertson has lied in the >>>>past
(also mentioned at least once in this thread).
Period. Do get some comprehension and reading training - oh too late I >>>>suspect.
So it was only an unsupported personal opinion of yours, and you have
no evidence of political interference.
None of which is evidence.
The article I referenced pointed out that these Fiscal Updates are >>>prepared in accordance with legislation, and are reports by the
Treasury Department to Parliament. They must be based on decisions of >>>cabinet as to future policies, but are otherwise prepared without >>>intervention from politicians. You are just being insulting to the
public servants involved in suggesting that they are corrupt, and you >>>have no evidence of either that or Willis being confused by any >>>statements from Robertson or indeed any other Labour politician. If
she was unable to understand the fiscal update (which was prepared in
the same format as recent budgets and other updates), then that is the >>>fault of Willis and her party. As Easton concluded, the Opposition was >>>unprepared.
Lie removed.
Have another read, Tony: >>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
Your deliberate and unwarranted slurs on the integrity of Treasury is >>>disgraceful, but we have sadly come to expect such dishonesty from
you.
You don't appear to understand that Treasury will have taken only
known (and endorsed by cabinet) policies into account in their
financial update, prepared for the incoming government. Robertson
would have had no input whatsoever, other than to affect cabinet
decisions, which is the only political involvement. Treasury then set
out all those assumptions to make it easy to see what they were, and
all of that is disclosed in the published Financial outlook. Willis
should have known that, but she had clearly not understood the
previous budget and fiscal outlook papers, but needed to avoid that
being the dominant narrative, so blamed the innocent. You know that is
why you cannot identify any lies by Robertson, and have not been able
to cite anything specific - Willis was feeding the unthinking
knee-jerk supporters with blatant lies, and you are either so blind
and ignorant, or so prepared to accept lies, that you are disputing
reality. I do feel sorry for you, Tony, that you are blinded to lies
from Willis. I do note that while you claim Robertson lied, you are
unable to point to any statement from him that represents a lie.
It is my opinion, and is as valid as yours - try again you silly child.Once more you idiotic little twerp - I have not in this or any other thread >>said anything derogatory about treasury - I have only suggested that >>politicians (Robertson in particular) influenced poor reporting to the >>incomingYou have failed to identify any way in which Robertson misled anyone >regarding the Treasury Report. Think again, Tony.
government - nothing unusual about that he has done similar before.
Now piss off and stop repeating childish lies.
Government includes politicians and officials. I, at all times, was
blaming politiciand not officials.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:and restored:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:18:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd so was your opinion unsupported. Once more you are apparently entitled to >unsupported opinions and others are not - typical lefty dimwit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:43:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:For the last bleeding time in this thread (I have made it clear already more >>>than once) I believe it is likely that there was political interference with >>>the data. And I am not alone in that opinion - Robertson has lied in the past
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:33:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Except that is not true and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 03:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Robertson obvkiously.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is the word of Nicola Willis against the integrity and independence >>>>>>>>of Treasury and the Public Service. What other politician did you have >>>>>>>>in mind?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The advice given to this government prior to the election was highly >>>>>>>>>questionablke and probably wrong. All your protestations are just >>>>>>>>>politics
Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Correction - government has not "government's have"
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:17:09 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>smart
The new government has stated that it was misleading and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly they would know.
Of course. Politicians are paid to be smart and competent. >>>>>>>>>>>>That is a naive view and not mine. However government's have access >>>>>>>>>>>>to
and competent people. Those people can explain stuff to politicians >>>>>>>>>>>>resulting
in the knowledge I mentioned.
It appears that Willis had not looked carefully at the March update, >>>>>>>>>>which explains many of the factors she complained about. She had >>>>>>>>>>sought economic advice pre-election in relation to the proposal to >>>>>>>>>>charge foreigners who purchased homes worth over $2 million, and >>>>>>>>>>talked about a high level of income which indicated either poor advice
or wishful thinking. The party could also have sought advice from Bill
English and Ruth Richardson on the broad thrust of proposed policies; >>>>>>>>>>thankfully the foreign buyers tax was rejected in coalition >>>>>>>>>>negotiations. This has not been a good start for the new Government. >>>>>>>>>>We can hope for better in the future.
(read mischievous half truths).
It is the word of one ppolitician against the word of another and you >>>>>>>>>cannot
see that can you?
It is the word of Robertson who has lied many times versus the word of >>>>>>>Willis
who we have yet to judge. Not a pretty picture at all. Politicians at >>>>>>>their
very best!
What lie are you accusing Robertson of making that misled Willis about >>>>>>the country's finances . . . .
Do, please justify your allegations with real examples. Willis was >>>>>>entitled to rely on budget documents, but she did not appear to have >>>>>>read them to gain an adequate understanding. That is not the fault of >>>>>>anyone but herself.No I have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that, it is the >>>>>>>politicians,
The Budget in 2022 is a public document, and the last fiscal update >>>>>>>>from Treasury was prepared for the new Government. Are you claiming >>>>>>>>that Treasury lied to the new Finance Minister? If so, what evidence >>>>>>>>is there?
especially Robertson, who I believe have lied.
Do, please, try to keep on track.
You said: "The fiscal update was misleading at best and deliberately
so at worst, the other possibilities you raise are political
rhetoric."
So who prepared the fiscal update and how was it misleading, Tony?
(also mentioned at least once in this thread).
Period. Do get some comprehension and reading training - oh too late I >>>suspect.
So it was only an unsupported personal opinion of yours, and you have
no evidence of political interference.
None of which is evidence.
The article I referenced pointed out that these Fiscal Updates are
prepared in accordance with legislation, and are reports by the
Treasury Department to Parliament. They must be based on decisions of >>cabinet as to future policies, but are otherwise prepared without >>intervention from politicians. You are just being insulting to the
public servants involved in suggesting that they are corrupt, and you
have no evidence of either that or Willis being confused by any
statements from Robertson or indeed any other Labour politician. If
she was unable to understand the fiscal update (which was prepared in
the same format as recent budgets and other updates), then that is the >>fault of Willis and her party. As Easton concluded, the Opposition was >>unprepared.
Lie removed.
Have another read, Tony: >>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/was-the-2023-treasury-pre-election-economic-and-fiscal-update-misleading
Your deliberate and unwarranted slurs on the integrity of Treasury is >>disgraceful, but we have sadly come to expect such dishonesty from
you.
Once more you idiotic little twerp - I have not in this or any other thread >said anything derogatory about treasury - I have only suggested that >politicians (Robertson in particular) influenced poor reporting to the incomingYou have failed to identify any way in which Robertson misled anyone
government - nothing unusual about that he has done similar before.
Now piss off and stop repeating childish lies.
No.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I am sure that it does - that can heppen when logic leaves you behind, sometimes careful reading can assist, this thread being a case in point. >“You’re going to have to die some day.”
No.
Reminds me of a certain Harry Enfield character. Pugnacious, but totally >ineffectual:
“No!”
“So you’re going to live forever?”
“No!”
“You’ll grow older and older.”
“No!”
“So you want to stay forever young?”
“No!”
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:It would help if you read more than just your own posts Tony, but good
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I am sure that it does - that can heppen when logic leaves you behind, >sometimes careful reading can assist, this thread being a case in point.
No.
Reminds me of a certain Harry Enfield character. Pugnacious, but totally >>ineffectual:
“You’re going to have to die some day.�
“No!�
“So you’re going to live forever?�
“No!�
“You’ll grow older and older.�
“No!�
“So you want to stay forever young?�
“No!�
On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 00:28:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyI have no such handicap, I was as you well know referring to Lawrence - howevr your sarcasm just gets worse and worse - in fact it is a major indicator of mental illness most likely sociopathy. Plus you are just a childish asshole and failure.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:It would help if you read more than just your own posts Tony, but good
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I am sure that it does - that can heppen when logic leaves you behind, >>sometimes careful reading can assist, this thread being a case in point.
No.
Reminds me of a certain Harry Enfield character. Pugnacious, but totally >>>ineffectual:
on you for admitting your handicap.
“You’re going to have to die some day.�
“No!�
“So you’re going to live forever?�
“No!�
“You’ll grow older and older.�
“No!�
“So you want to stay forever young?�
“No!�
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:47:36 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,234 |