From Stuff:The answer is neither, you are just desperate.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people�s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand�s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party >website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
From Stuff:
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people�s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand�s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party >website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:There are three options - which one did you leave in play, tony?
From Stuff:The answer is neither, you are just desperate.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a >>select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of >>malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to >>politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people�s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand�s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party >>website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying, >>incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
From Stuff:
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise peoples voices,
because it is not in New Zealands immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
On 2024-11-19, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
From Stuff:It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the >coalition. Not it has/is being done.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the >slippery slope.
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
On 19 Nov 2024 08:15:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-19, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
From Stuff:It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the >>coalition. Not it has/is being done.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the >>slippery slope.
The six month sitting of the select committee may be in an ACT
manifesto, but it was not in the coalition agreement published by the >National Party, despite Luxon claiming that he has agreed to it
because it was. Very few bills need six months before they are either
passed or abandoned - this is merely a way in which Seymour can ignore
the wishes of a large majority of parliamentarians and of the public
to foment dissent in the hope that by following that part of Trumps
policies he may get a boost in votes for the next election. Why Luxon
is damaging the reputation of the National Party is not at all clear.
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.
Grievances for actions contrary to the treaty have taken many many
years, and not all are yet resolved. Somebody claimed that the total
redress under those claims where wrings have been acknowledged is less
than the current government gifted to landlords in a tax change.
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
On 19 Nov 2024 08:15:14 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:That is not what he is doing, he is honouring an agreement. Simple really.
On 2024-11-19, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
From Stuff:It is also part of democracy. ACT had this in its menafesto, it got into the >>coalition. Not it has/is being done.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher
Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a
select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which
Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
The procedures are being followed, tossing them aside is starting on the >>slippery slope.
The six month sitting of the select committee may be in an ACT
manifesto, but it was not in the coalition agreement published by the >National Party, despite Luxon claiming that he has agreed to it
because it was. Very few bills need six months before they are either
passed or abandoned - this is merely a way in which Seymour can ignore
the wishes of a large majority of parliamentarians and of the public
to foment dissent in the hope that by following that part of Trumps
policies he may get a boost in votes for the next election. Why Luxon
is damaging the reputation of the National Party is not at all clear.
Somebody is an idiot then.
This grievance is not going to go away, it needs to be addressed now.
Grievances for actions contrary to the treaty have taken many many
years, and not all are yet resolved. Somebody claimed that the total
redress under those claims where wrings have been acknowledged is less
than the current government gifted to landlords in a tax change.
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of
malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to
politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people?s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand?s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party
website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six
months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying,
incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:21:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyNeither.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:There are three options - which one did you leave in play, tony?
From Stuff:The answer is neither, you are just desperate.
'No risk of civil war in NZ,' Luxon says
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has challenged Prime Minister Christopher >>>Luxon in the House on his support for the Treaty Principles Bill to
first reading, asking if he agreed with former prime minister Dame
Jenny Shipley's warning that politicizing the Treaty could "invite
civil war".
Luxon firmly rejected the claim, responding, "No, we are not at risk
of civil war in New Zealand. That is inflammatory language."
Hipkins pressed further, questioning why the Government had directed a >>>select committee to spend the next six months on the issue, to which >>>Luxon responded, "Because it is part of our coalition agreement."
Hipkins then accused the Government of putting political interests
ahead of the country, reiterating Shipley's warning: "This sort of >>>malicious, politically-motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to >>>politicize the Treaty in a new way should raise people�s voices,
because it is not in New Zealand�s immediate interest."
Luxon rejected the accusation, stating, "I don't believe it's linked
to fundraising."
Now the coalition agreement is able to be seen on the3. National Party >>>website, and it does not say that the select committee must get six >>>months on the issue - so the question is whether Luxon is lying, >>>incompetent, or hiding details of his cave-in to ACT.
Tough call, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt and
that the likely answer is incompetence . . .
Certainly many (probably including David Seymour) appear to believeNo he doesn't. that is a lie.
that all three are true . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 164:58:22 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,001 |
| Messages: | 6,517,803 |