So what have they achieved, really? (Besides upset a lot of people.)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>So what have they achieved, really? (Besides upset a lot of people.)
Just about everything they promised for the first 100 days - perhaps you can
point to what promises they have not delivered instead of your political
rhetoric.
Or better still, what major promises did the last Labour government fulfill?

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So what have they achieved, really? (Besides upset a lot of people.)
>
> Just about everything they promised for the first 100 days ...

Here’s a memory test for you: name one.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>So what have they achieved, really? (Besides upset a lot of people.)
>>
>> Just about everything they promised for the first 100 days ...
>
>Here’s a memory test for you: name one.
Repeal of 3 waters. Now for fair play name one major promise thae last
giovernment met.

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:

> Repeal of 3 waters.

So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
what?

In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?

Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.

And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.

So how is the Government going to fix that?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>
>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>what?
>
>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>
>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>
>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>
>So how is the Government going to fix that?
Three waters was never about fixing our obvious under-investment in water
infrastructure (for generations). It was one of the co-governance moves based
on tribal and racist domination. I really don't believe that even you can not
see that so you must be toeing the party line.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>
>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>what?
>>
>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>
>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>
>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>
>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>Three waters was never about fixing our obvious under-investment in water
>infrastructure (for generations). It was one of the co-governance moves based
>on tribal and racist domination. I really don't believe that even you can not
>see that so you must be toeing the party line.

So what is the new government going to do to fix the problems? Many
Councils are near their limits for borrowing - will the government
raise the limits? What happens if a local Council finds it cannot
borrow enough to fix problems?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>
>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>what?
>>>
>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>
>>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>
>>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>
>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>Three waters was never about fixing our obvious under-investment in water
>>infrastructure (for generations). It was one of the co-governance moves based
>>on tribal and racist domination. I really don't believe that even you can not
>>see that so you must be toeing the party line.
>
>So what is the new government going to do to fix the problems? Many
>Councils are near their limits for borrowing - will the government
>raise the limits? What happens if a local Council finds it cannot
>borrow enough to fix problems?
There is no co-governance problem any more and hopefully never will be.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>
>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>
>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>what?
>
It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.

>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>
It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
in favour of co-governed entities.

Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
defined.

>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>
>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>
>So how is the Government going to fix that?

We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.

--
Crash McBash

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>
>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>what?
>>
>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>
>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>
>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>in favour of co-governed entities.
>
>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>defined.
>
>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>
>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>
>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>
>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher

This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
than were predicted before last Christmas.

But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
tax structure earlier than they had planned!

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>
>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>what?
>>>
>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>
>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>
>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>
>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>defined.
>>
>>>Just heard on this evening�s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That�s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>
>>>And that�s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>
>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>
>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>
>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>
>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>
>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
You are off topic as usual.
3 waters was a racist initiative.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>>
>>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>>what?
>>>>
>>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>>
>>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>>
>>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>>
>>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>>defined.
>>>
>>>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>>
>>>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>>
>>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>>
>>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>>
>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>>
>>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>>

The topic is NAct1st?s First 100 Days Are Up, and now we are getting
the truth - they do have a $5.1 billion hole in their finances, the
economy is slowing, unemployment is rising, and the government has
abandoned providing any assistance for water problems - they are
forcing local authorities to increase rates by around 15% - so much
for helping people with the cost of living; looking after the squeezed
middle, and other election campaign slogans - in effect, NAct1st lied
.. . and all for getting that top tax rate down even lower to deliver a
return on capital to their political donors . . ..
>>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
>You are off topic as usual.
>3 waters was a racist initiative.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>>>
>>>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>>>what?
>>>>>
>>>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>>>
>>>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>>>
>>>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>>>
>>>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>>>defined.
>>>>
>>>>>Just heard on this evening�s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That�s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that�s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>>>
>>>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>>>
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>>>
>>>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>>>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>>>
>
Direct your posts to the person you are responding to, not some random part of
the thread. Your behaviour in this regard is cowardly.
>>>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>>>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>>>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
>>You are off topic as usual.
>>3 waters was a racist initiative.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:25:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>>>
>>>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>>>what?
>>>>>
>>>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>>>
>>>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>>>
>>>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>>>
>>>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>>>defined.
>>>>
>>>>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>>>
>>>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>>>
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>>>
>>>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>>>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>>>
>
>The topic is NAct1st?s First 100 Days Are Up, and now we are getting
>the truth - they do have a $5.1 billion hole in their finances,

That's an achievement compared to the last Labour government that
significantly increased Government spending but whose achievements
went backwards.

>the
>economy is slowing, unemployment is rising,

If I were to adopt your persona I would congratulate you, Rich, on
recognising the shortcomings of the previous Government.

> and the government has
>abandoned providing any assistance for water problems - they are
>forcing local authorities to increase rates by around 15% - so much
>for helping people with the cost of living; looking after the squeezed
>middle, and other election campaign slogans - in effect, NAct1st lied
>. . and all for getting that top tax rate down even lower to deliver a
>return on capital to their political donors . . ..

The current Government has been in office less than 6 months, so even
if what you say is true there is still time to move on plans not yet
finalised. So far the new Government has achieved an unprecedented
level of repeal of damaging legislation that they campaigned on and
were elected to do. There is now a bit of a legislative lull while
they go through budget preparation but the Government has committed to
periodically publish its next goals.

This Government is not perfect - reducing tax rates should not be
considered until the control over Government spending has been
achieved. However as others have noted from time to time, we no
longer have a Government whose prior experience was limited to Student
politics, Trade Union involvement or civil service administration.
>>>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>>>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>>>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
>>You are off topic as usual.
>>3 waters was a racist initiative.

--
Crash McBash

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:25:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>>>>what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>>>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>>>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>>>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>>>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>>>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>>>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>>>>defined.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>>>>
>>>>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>>>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>>>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>>>>
>>>>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>>>>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>>>>
>>
>>The topic is NAct1st?s First 100 Days Are Up, and now we are getting
>>the truth - they do have a $5.1 billion hole in their finances,
>
>That's an achievement compared to the last Labour government that
>significantly increased Government spending but whose achievements
>went backwards.
I do not see a $5.1 billion dollar hole in financial plans as a
desirable "achievement."
>
>>the
>>economy is slowing, unemployment is rising,
>
>If I were to adopt your persona I would congratulate you, Rich, on
>recognising the shortcomings of the previous Government.
A world slow down was being talked about well before the election -
which was one of the reasons for Grant Robertson to ask departments to
cut costs by 3 to 4 percent before the election.

The current government had however made promises based on faulty
reading of the economy - that has been pointed out by many
commentators, and denied until admitted by Winston Peters this morning

>> and the government has
>>abandoned providing any assistance for water problems - they are
>>forcing local authorities to increase rates by around 15% - so much
>>for helping people with the cost of living; looking after the squeezed
>>middle, and other election campaign slogans - in effect, NAct1st lied
>>. . and all for getting that top tax rate down even lower to deliver a
>>return on capital to their political donors . . ..
>
>The current Government has been in office less than 6 months, so even
>if what you say is true there is still time to move on plans not yet
>finalised. So far the new Government has achieved an unprecedented
>level of repeal of damaging legislation that they campaigned on and
>were elected to do. There is now a bit of a legislative lull while
>they go through budget preparation but the Government has committed to
>periodically publish its next goals.
While that is good, it is clear that despite indicating that they
would repeal three waters a long time ago, it now appears that they
had given no thought to what happens next, or if leaving everything to
local councils was always intended, they stayed quiet about that until
after the election. As it is, we are seeing whether by default or
design, a move towards much higher local rates, and lower income tax -
with the higher local taxes hitting individuals and local businesses
more than rural businesses - it makes our taxation system
significantly less progressive, and will hit particularly hard those
who rent or are struggling to pay a mortgage; we know that the new
government has already 'rewarded' wealthy landlords and intended to
reduce the top tax rate, while restricting increases to the minimum
wage and to benefits. The extent of that change was not foreshadowed
by the parties in the new government during the election.

>This Government is not perfect - reducing tax rates should not be
>considered until the control over Government spending has been
>achieved. However as others have noted from time to time, we no
>longer have a Government whose prior experience was limited to Student
>politics, Trade Union involvement or civil service administration.
I suspect an analysis of experience before becoming a Minister is not
significantly different for this government than the previous one -
and involvement in student politics and the civil service is probably
not very different either.

>>>>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>>>>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>>>>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
>>>You are off topic as usual.
>>>3 waters was a racist initiative.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:54:11 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:56:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:25:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:57:03 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Repeal of 3 waters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So they got rid of the beginnings of a solution, and replaced it with ...
>>>>>>>what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was not the beginnings of a solution. It was about the beginnings
>>>>>>of imposing the mantra of the He Puapua report that Labour dared not
>>>>>>show to their coalition partner at the time in 2019.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In short, was this an actual achievement, or an unachievement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It depends on what you define as an achievement in respect of local
>>>>>>bodies handling of 3-waters issues. For those local bodies that had
>>>>>>not done this properly it was a massive bailout. For those who had
>>>>>>done this well it was a massive confiscation of their 3-waters assets
>>>>>>in favour of co-governed entities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Both have been addressed, but the way forward for some is not yet
>>>>>>defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just heard on this evening’s news that Wellington is losing 45% of its
>>>>>>>water supply to leaky pipes. That’s 77,000 tonnes of water per day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And that’s just one council, out of many in trouble across the country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how is the Government going to fix that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We will find out eventually, but those local bodies that have bit the
>>>>>>bullet and invested in 3-waters asset development and maintenance will
>>>>>>be unaffected and will continue to reap the benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/301023197/why-are-councils-considering-rates-hikes-of-255-and-higher
>>>>>
>>>>>This is from a while ago - I suspect some of the rises may be higher
>>>>>than were predicted before last Christmas.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>The topic is NAct1st?s First 100 Days Are Up, and now we are getting
>>>the truth - they do have a $5.1 billion hole in their finances,
>>
>>That's an achievement compared to the last Labour government that
>>significantly increased Government spending but whose achievements
>>went backwards.
>I do not see a $5.1 billion dollar hole in financial plans as a
>desirable "achievement."

It is unusual to reply to ones own post, but this link may be
interesting - perhaps it is not as bad as Winston was saying!
https://union.org.nz/billions-missing-to-deliver-national-party-promises-says-nzctu/

>>
>>>the
>>>economy is slowing, unemployment is rising,
>>
>>If I were to adopt your persona I would congratulate you, Rich, on
>>recognising the shortcomings of the previous Government.
>A world slow down was being talked about well before the election -
>which was one of the reasons for Grant Robertson to ask departments to
>cut costs by 3 to 4 percent before the election.
>
>The current government had however made promises based on faulty
>reading of the economy - that has been pointed out by many
>commentators, and denied until admitted by Winston Peters this morning
>
>>> and the government has
>>>abandoned providing any assistance for water problems - they are
>>>forcing local authorities to increase rates by around 15% - so much
>>>for helping people with the cost of living; looking after the squeezed
>>>middle, and other election campaign slogans - in effect, NAct1st lied
>>>. . and all for getting that top tax rate down even lower to deliver a
>>>return on capital to their political donors . . ..
>>
>>The current Government has been in office less than 6 months, so even
>>if what you say is true there is still time to move on plans not yet
>>finalised. So far the new Government has achieved an unprecedented
>>level of repeal of damaging legislation that they campaigned on and
>>were elected to do. There is now a bit of a legislative lull while
>>they go through budget preparation but the Government has committed to
>>periodically publish its next goals.
>While that is good, it is clear that despite indicating that they
>would repeal three waters a long time ago, it now appears that they
>had given no thought to what happens next, or if leaving everything to
>local councils was always intended, they stayed quiet about that until
>after the election. As it is, we are seeing whether by default or
>design, a move towards much higher local rates, and lower income tax -
>with the higher local taxes hitting individuals and local businesses
>more than rural businesses - it makes our taxation system
>significantly less progressive, and will hit particularly hard those
>who rent or are struggling to pay a mortgage; we know that the new
>government has already 'rewarded' wealthy landlords and intended to
>reduce the top tax rate, while restricting increases to the minimum
>wage and to benefits. The extent of that change was not foreshadowed
>by the parties in the new government during the election.
>
>>This Government is not perfect - reducing tax rates should not be
>>considered until the control over Government spending has been
>>achieved. However as others have noted from time to time, we no
>>longer have a Government whose prior experience was limited to Student
>>politics, Trade Union involvement or civil service administration.
>I suspect an analysis of experience before becoming a Minister is not
>significantly different for this government than the previous one -
>and involvement in student politics and the civil service is probably
>not very different either.
>
>>>>>But that is all OK - from the governments perspective it is all worth
>>>>>it if they can cut the top tax rate . . . ACT are getting a flatter
>>>>>tax structure earlier than they had planned!
>>>>You are off topic as usual.
>>>>3 waters was a racist initiative.