Timely reminder of Labour underachievements.
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Crash
Oct 3, 2022, 7:17:51 PM10/3/22
to
https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
Governments.
It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
--
Crash McBash
The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
Governments.
It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
--
Crash McBash
Gordon
Oct 3, 2022, 7:52:44 PM10/3/22
to
On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
National needs to get a brand, what does it stand for and what can we trust
them to do? At the moment it is a case of it is beer but which brand is it?
Oh well a vote for Labour it is then?
> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>
> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
> Governments.
>
> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
> Governments.
>
> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
National needs to get a brand, what does it stand for and what can we trust
them to do? At the moment it is a case of it is beer but which brand is it?
Oh well a vote for Labour it is then?
Crash
Oct 3, 2022, 9:15:30 PM10/3/22
to
On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>
>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>> Governments.
>>
>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>
>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>
No - those senior MPs need to be still around and in leadership
>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>
>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>> Governments.
>>
>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>
>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>
positions with one of them as leader. They have the creds to say 'we
got stuff done, Labour have since shown they cant'.
>National needs to get a brand, what does it stand for and what can we trust
>them to do? At the moment it is a case of it is beer but which brand is it?
>
levels, at least for the next term.
>Oh well a vote for Labour it is then?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
Oct 4, 2022, 4:56:29 AM10/4/22
to
On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>
>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack I
may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>> Governments.
>>>
>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
to undecided voters.
>>
>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
implementing ideas . . .
wrote:
>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>
>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>>>
>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>> Governments.
>>>
>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
to undecided voters.
>>
>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
implementing ideas . . .
John Bowes
Oct 4, 2022, 6:08:16 AM10/4/22
to
On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:56:29 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
> wrote:
> >On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
> >>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
> >>
> >>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
> >>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
> Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack I
> may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
> of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
That's you to a T Rich. You can't abide criticism of the Labour/Green party's or in fact of your own vague and pointless whitering...
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
> wrote:
> >On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
> >>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
> >>
> >>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
> >>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
> Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack I
> may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
> of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
All the assertions of failure are bang on the money Rich and have been proven to you countless times. Regrettably you're incapable of accepting that the party you blindly support is incapable of actually doing anything and only excels at talking about the problems they've failed to address over the last five years :)
> >>>
> >>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
> >>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
> >>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
> >>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
> >>> Governments.
> >>>
> >>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
> I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
> necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
> much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
> have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
> to undecided voters.
> >>
> >>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
> >>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
> >>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
> Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
> requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
> than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
> lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>
> I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
> - there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
> filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
> also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
> taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
> with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
> potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
> libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
> implementing ideas . . .
Tony
Oct 4, 2022, 4:13:27 PM10/4/22
to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>
>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>
>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
No-one here does that.
>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>
>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>
>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
> I
>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
Gordon
Oct 4, 2022, 6:54:44 PM10/4/22
to
On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
> No-one here does that.
> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
> No-one here does that.
> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
with your view point, and that is okay.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>> Governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>to undecided voters.
in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.
In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
pass.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution of
>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>>
>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>implementing ideas . . .
is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.
National needs to show that it understands that a democracy is about free
speech. At the present time there is a great deal of mistrust in the
Government and politicians in general. Which is fuel for the VFF sites.
Rich80105
Oct 4, 2022, 6:59:43 PM10/4/22
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>No-one here does that.
>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
I referred to unsupported assertions deliberately, Tony. vague slogans
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>
>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>
>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>No-one here does that.
>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit of
>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>> I
>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
that appeal to those inclined to believe anything - why should I
analyse any of them when Donald Brash and you were not prepared to?
would like to explain what you regard as vitriol in the above . . .
Tony
Oct 4, 2022, 7:12:08 PM10/4/22
to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>>No-one here does that.
>>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>I referred to unsupported assertions deliberately, Tony. vague slogans
>that appeal to those inclined to believe anything - why should I
>analyse any of them when Donald Brash and you were not prepared to?
So thanks for the proof that you attack authors but are unwilling to address
>On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>>No-one here does that.
>>You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>>attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>>In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>I referred to unsupported assertions deliberately, Tony. vague slogans
>that appeal to those inclined to believe anything - why should I
>analyse any of them when Donald Brash and you were not prepared to?
the content.
Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
Q E D
Tony
Oct 4, 2022, 7:18:14 PM10/4/22
to
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>> No-one here does that.
>> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>
>Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
>in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
>even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
>with your view point, and that is okay.
Yes Gordon, reasoning people do that. Rich does not.
>On 2022-10-04, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>> Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:15:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 3 Oct 2022 23:52:41 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2022-10-03, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
>>>>>
>>>>>From memory this article link was posted here. It was one of those ones
>>>>>where Rich was asked not to attack the author.
>>>
>>>Since any criticism of content is taken by some as being an attack
>> No-one here does that.
>> You however together with one other who seems to have gone away made a habit
>>of
>> attacking authors and posters and refyusing to address content. That is fact.
>
>>> I
>>>may not have bothered responding at all. Reading it today, quite a few
>>>of the unsupported assertions of failure are clearly wrong.
>> In that case tell us which are wrong and why.
>
>Indeed. Explain/defend your point of view. It is called public debate. Do it
>in a way sow the seed that may make the other person alter their position,
>even if only a small amount. Accept the fact that not everyone will align
>with your view point, and that is okay.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>>> Governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>>to undecided voters.
>
>Arden, having come out of "nowhere" and being "new" along with Covid thrown
>in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.
>
>In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
>pass.
The sooner tghe better. Too much damage already done.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first 4 paragraphs are key - I wish I knew about this article when
>>>>>> posting a reply to another thread. As I noted in that thread, a
>>>>>> change of Government is not assured because the National Party senior
>>>>>> MPs of today include none of the senior leaders from past National
>>>>>> Governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
>>>I cannot think of one that could have helped National through their
>>>necessary renewal - a process that appears to have barely started -
>>>much like Labour following Helen Clark . . . National do not seem to
>>>have the equivalent of Ardern to show real leadership while appealing
>>>to undecided voters.
>
>Arden, having come out of "nowhere" and being "new" along with Covid thrown
>in, was able to get going on the wave of public opinion.
>
>In my view, Arden is the leader of the Labour party only. This too will
>pass.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution
>>>>>of
>>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>
>Many are not.
>
>>>
>>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>>implementing ideas . . .
>
>The point here is that we are on the wrong road. In a democracy free speech
>is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
>happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
>country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.
Freedom of speech/expression is what sets us apart from tyranny.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes some mentoring would be useful. We are back to being in the sitaution
>>>>>of
>>>>>where an opposition is not giving us value for our money. They seem to be
>>>>>leaving it to the blogs and the farmers.
>>>Many farmer are very happy - they are bring in very good profits, and
>>>requirements for clean water and emmissions have been delayed longer
>>>than they expected. Yes there are a few in trouble, but I suspect a
>>>lower proprtion than 10 or 20 years ago.
>
>Many are not.
>
>>>
>>>I agree however with the blogs being more prominent and very divisive
>>>- there seem to be new VFF type websites popping up all the time,
>>>filled with rabid vitriol and misrepresentation. National is however
>>>also suffering from such sites - they supported most of the actions
>>>taken by Labour and are now I suspect embarrassed to be associated
>>>with some of the wild assertions, but hold back so as not to offend
>>>potential supporters. ACT is doing well as they have turned more
>>>libertarian than the Green Party, and do not have to worry about
>>>implementing ideas . . .
>
>The point here is that we are on the wrong road. In a democracy free speech
>is essential, for it allows people to voice their opinions and debate to
>happen. It has been said that the strength of a democracy is the way the
>country/governmet tolerates all ideas expressed.
Ardern wants to remove that freedom, hes speech to the UN confirms it.
Rich condones and even supports that direction. Hence his refusal to enter into
debate - he merely attacks people (almost anybody will do!).
Rich80105
Oct 4, 2022, 7:46:39 PM10/4/22
to
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 23:12:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
No, I merely observed that Don Brash had not provided evidence of his
statements. You however asked for evidence that he was wrong, and did
not provide any evidence for why you thought he may be correct.
>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>Q E D
Proof of nothing - you attacked and maligned me for asking for
evidence
statements. You however asked for evidence that he was wrong, and did
not provide any evidence for why you thought he may be correct.
>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>Q E D
evidence
Rich80105
Oct 4, 2022, 7:47:57 PM10/4/22
to
support the thread you started
Tony
Oct 4, 2022, 8:21:17 PM10/4/22
to
I made no assertion either you moron.
Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
Tony
Oct 4, 2022, 8:23:41 PM10/4/22
to
content and only interested in attacking authors that you disagree with (for
reasons you are reluctant to say).
>
>>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>>Q E D
>Proof of nothing - you attacked and maligned me for asking for
>evidence
I maligned nobody and attacked nobody - your inability to comprehend simple
>>Proof p;ositive is in this post from you.
>>Q E D
>Proof of nothing - you attacked and maligned me for asking for
>evidence
English is once more on show.
Rich80105
Oct 5, 2022, 2:28:07 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 00:21:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
You did find assertions with no evidence to your liking however. If
you have no evidence, look to Crash or Gordon first . . .
>I made no assertion either you moron.
Of course you did
>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
?????????
Would that be the plate you are avoiding?
you have no evidence, look to Crash or Gordon first . . .
>I made no assertion either you moron.
>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
Would that be the plate you are avoiding?
Crash
Oct 5, 2022, 2:31:44 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:26:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Well this is the one you are avoiding:
https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
As usual your only response so far is to attack the author - because
you are not able to do any better.
--
Crash McBash
wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/mthzhzyu
As usual your only response so far is to attack the author - because
you are not able to do any better.
Crash McBash
Willy Nilly
Oct 5, 2022, 2:43:00 AM10/5/22
to
>It is a pity some of those senior MPs are not still in Parliament.
As I said before, I'm expecting a *big* vote for ACT next election.
Would not surprise me at all if ACT becomes the senior partner in a
coalition with the Nats.
Crash
Oct 5, 2022, 2:55:54 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 06:41:46 GMT, willy...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly)
wrote:
No realistic chance of that. David Seymour as leader has the gravitas
of a stand-up comic. There is no-one else in ACT that has any other
significant public profile. It will take several more terms with
multiple ACT MPs for them to be taken seriously.
They have some meritorious ideas, but offered up in the certainty they
will never need to deliver.
To become a realistic political force they will have to break the
mould of minor parties: over 20% of the party vote, 2 or more
electorate MPs (pick one).
--
Crash McBash
wrote:
of a stand-up comic. There is no-one else in ACT that has any other
significant public profile. It will take several more terms with
multiple ACT MPs for them to be taken seriously.
They have some meritorious ideas, but offered up in the certainty they
will never need to deliver.
To become a realistic political force they will have to break the
mould of minor parties: over 20% of the party vote, 2 or more
electorate MPs (pick one).
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
Oct 5, 2022, 3:28:29 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 19:31:42 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
There is no confiscation of Water. For that assertion, I offer
the same amount of justification as Dr Brash, as well as Tony and
other posters to this thread.
the same amount of justification as Dr Brash, as well as Tony and
other posters to this thread.
John Bowes
Oct 5, 2022, 3:34:54 AM10/5/22
to
Crash
Oct 5, 2022, 3:37:20 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:27:19 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
Then you are a deluded fool. That's like me asserting that National
has no plans for tax cuts for those on low incomes, but they do have
plans to increase tax bracket income limits.
--
Crash McBash
has no plans for tax cuts for those on low incomes, but they do have
plans to increase tax bracket income limits.
Crash McBash
Rich80105
Oct 5, 2022, 5:05:07 AM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:37:17 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
They certainly did last week, but I don;t think they know what they
want to do today:
Luxon had some useful meetings in the UK where he was told what to do
by the best, but now look what has happened:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/05/rightwing-thinktanks-government-bbc-news-programmes
The reality is that tax cuts will be quietly dropped, leaving National
with almost no policy except cutting wasted spending - which they
cannot identify . . .
Will Chris Bishop get his chance to try and do an "Ardern"?
want to do today:
Luxon had some useful meetings in the UK where he was told what to do
by the best, but now look what has happened:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/05/rightwing-thinktanks-government-bbc-news-programmes
The reality is that tax cuts will be quietly dropped, leaving National
with almost no policy except cutting wasted spending - which they
cannot identify . . .
Will Chris Bishop get his chance to try and do an "Ardern"?
JohnO
Oct 5, 2022, 5:06:40 PM10/5/22
to
Labour is tanking in the polls again. It is Labour who need to do an "Ardern" as people are finally seeing through her phoney frowning, gesticulating, head-tilting, pearl-clutching and chin-holding act.
Crash
Oct 5, 2022, 5:37:24 PM10/5/22
to
On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 22:03:57 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
Did you comprehend what I said? You said 'There is no confiscation of
water' in relation to the article I cited. My response about
National's plans for tax bracket adjustments not being called 'tax
cuts was intended to provide like-for-like lunacy comparison to your
confiscation statement.
Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
meaningful rebuttal.
--
Crash McBash
water' in relation to the article I cited. My response about
National's plans for tax bracket adjustments not being called 'tax
cuts was intended to provide like-for-like lunacy comparison to your
confiscation statement.
Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
meaningful rebuttal.
Crash McBash
Rich80105
Oct 5, 2022, 6:22:18 PM10/5/22
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 10:37:21 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
The adjustment of bands for inflation is a trivial matter. The
significant change promised by Luxon was to remove the top tax bracket
- exactly the same decision as turned to custard for the UK! He even
raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
policy decision was made.
Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
thresholds!
>
>Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
>meaningful rebuttal.
I have stated facts, and given no less proof of those statements than
the unsupported assertions I was responding to.
significant change promised by Luxon was to remove the top tax bracket
- exactly the same decision as turned to custard for the UK! He even
raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
policy decision was made.
Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
thresholds!
>
>Rich you have totally failed to address the article with any
>meaningful rebuttal.
the unsupported assertions I was responding to.
Tony
Oct 5, 2022, 8:05:26 PM10/5/22
to
tro apologise. Moron!
>
>>I made no assertion either you moron.
>Of course you did
No "of course" I did not.
>>I made no assertion either you moron.
>Of course you did
>
>>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
>?????????
>Would that be the plate you are avoiding?
I am avoiding nothing but your stupidity and lies.
>>Step up to the plate and address the article that Crash.
>?????????
>Would that be the plate you are avoiding?
Tony
Oct 5, 2022, 8:06:19 PM10/5/22
to
Tony
Oct 5, 2022, 8:09:10 PM10/5/22
to
Therefore you have failed to gain back any of your almost completely depleted
credibility.
Gordon
Oct 5, 2022, 9:13:29 PM10/5/22
to
infastructure out of the peoples control and then using it to provide an
income to the taking party is not confiscation of water. After all people
with still have water and after all this is being done in response to the
North Havelock incident. So everything if satisfactory.
It is also about money (you wnat water then pay up) and power
(co-goverence) and democracy itself.
Gordon
Oct 5, 2022, 9:24:25 PM10/5/22
to
> The
> significant change promised by Luxon was to remove the top tax bracket
> - exactly the same decision as turned to custard for the UK!
39%. I am sure the average British person would not think that the U turn was
custard.
> He even
> raised a lot of donations through a campaign at the time that clear
> policy decision was made.
>
> Luxon would not get $18,000 per year less tax on inflation adjusting
> thresholds!
would pay less tax with the Tax custs. So if we are going to use persons,
lets us say that the PM would not have received $18,000.
John Bowes
Oct 5, 2022, 9:34:12 PM10/5/22
to
John Bowes
Oct 5, 2022, 9:36:04 PM10/5/22
to
Rich80105
Oct 5, 2022, 10:37:10 PM10/5/22
to