https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing
Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look after
government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and
Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing
government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the
right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the
election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our
economic situation worse.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and
businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of
Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing >>Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce when
Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look after
government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing
government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the
right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the
election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>economic situation worse.
you have nothing meaningful to say.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and
businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including
the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said
it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition
agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3
parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >Government.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:25:40 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>The two are not related, obviously. Such things never are with governments.
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce whenPoor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look afterhttps://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing >>>
government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing
government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the
right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the
election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>>economic situation worse.
you have nothing meaningful to say.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and
businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including
the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said
it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition >>agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3 >>parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >>Government.
I am glad you said most rather than all - some of the decisions that
have given them most trouble were not in either election commitments
or the coalition agreements - as far as I am aware giving a tobacco
company a reduction in excise of over $200 million was not in either,
but certainly completing the Dunedin Hospital was - why on earth did
they agree to lower tobacco taxes when they could have used the money
in Dunedin?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:25:40 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:The two are not related, obviously. Such things never are with governments.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce when >>>you have nothing meaningful to say.Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look after >>>>government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>>>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing >>>>government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>>>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the >>>>right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the >>>>election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>>>economic situation worse.https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing >>>>
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and >>>>businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>>>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including
the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said
it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition >>>agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3 >>>parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >>>Government.
I am glad you said most rather than all - some of the decisions that
have given them most trouble were not in either election commitments
or the coalition agreements - as far as I am aware giving a tobacco
company a reduction in excise of over $200 million was not in either,
but certainly completing the Dunedin Hospital was - why on earth did
they agree to lower tobacco taxes when they could have used the money
in Dunedin?
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 06:47:25 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:25:40 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:The two are not related, obviously. Such things never are with governments.
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:
Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce when >>>>you have nothing meaningful to say.https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing
Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look after >>>>>government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>>>>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing >>>>>government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>>>>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the >>>>>right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the >>>>>election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>>>>economic situation worse.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and >>>>>businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>>>>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and >>>>>medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with >>>>>low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including >>>>the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said >>>>it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition >>>>agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3 >>>>parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >>>>Government.
I am glad you said most rather than all - some of the decisions that
have given them most trouble were not in either election commitments
or the coalition agreements - as far as I am aware giving a tobacco >>>company a reduction in excise of over $200 million was not in either,
but certainly completing the Dunedin Hospital was - why on earth did
they agree to lower tobacco taxes when they could have used the money
in Dunedin?
Of course they are - The NACT1st government are saying that they
cannot afford to do some things they promised - giving away a heap of
money for something they did not promise (at least publicly) are
clearly related in that context.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:25:40 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce whenPoor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look afterhttps://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing >>>
government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing
government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the
right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the
election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>>economic situation worse.
you have nothing meaningful to say.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and
businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including
the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said
it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition >>agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3 >>parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >>Government.
I am glad you said most rather than all - some of the decisions that
have given them most trouble were not in either election commitments
or the coalition agreements - as far as I am aware giving a tobacco
company a reduction in excise of over $200 million was not in either,
but certainly completing the Dunedin Hospital was - why on earth did
they agree to lower tobacco taxes when they could have used the money
in Dunedin?
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:21:53 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:25:40 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:53:47 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:
Your sarcasm is worthless and typical of the rhetoric you produce when >>>you have nothing meaningful to say.Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look after >>>>government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and >>>>Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing >>>>government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >>>>agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the >>>>right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the >>>>election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our >>>>economic situation worse.https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-has-the-new-zealand-economy-been-doing >>>>
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, and >>>>businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of >>>>Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
You are correct - but you are failing to acknowledge similar
historical references that involve past Labour governments (including
the last one).
The fact is that the current Government is doing exactly what it said
it would. Most if not all its actions come from the two coalition >>>agreements which in turn reflect pre-election commitments from the 3 >>>parties. This is a most refreshing change compared to the previous >>>Government.
I am glad you said most rather than all - some of the decisions that
have given them most trouble were not in either election commitments
or the coalition agreements - as far as I am aware giving a tobacco
company a reduction in excise of over $200 million was not in either,
Cite please.
but certainly completing the Dunedin Hospital was - why on earth did
they agree to lower tobacco taxes when they could have used the money
in Dunedin?
I am not aware of any reduction in commitment to build a new Hospital
in Dunedin. There are cost blowouts and these are being dealt with.
Poor Nicola Willis - she was totally unprepared to look afterYour sarcasm is offensive.
government finances, and had clearly not read economic forecasts and
Treasury advice before she found herself agreeing to reducing
government income and pay-offs to political donors in the coalition >agreements; now she finds that the previous government had done the
right thing in reducing spending in the six months prior to the
election, and had held of an silly promises that would have made our
economic situation worse.
So now we have unemployment rising, productivity falling, andThat's what happens when a Labour government fucks the country. We are now trying to fix that.
businesses closing at a rate not seen since the disaster years of
Richardson - and the government is trying to replace police and
medical staff and building industry workers going to Australia with
low income immigrants . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 162:27:13 |
| Calls: | 12,095 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,780 |