Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are
solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any commentary I have seen to date.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are
solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of those >parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are
solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of those parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are
solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems
clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice
Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios
are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these
positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any
non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the
party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to
instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are
solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems
clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice
Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios
are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these
positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any
non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the
party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to
instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as part of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's identity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems
clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice
Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios
are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these
positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any
non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the
party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as part of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the
Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle
and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in
the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions
and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems
clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice
Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios
are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the
party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except
during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's >> identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of >the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in >the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks.

An attempt to distract from economic woes? https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>>>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>>>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as >>>part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except >>> during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's >>> identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of >>the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >>minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >>and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in >>the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >>and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks.

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:04:03 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>>>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>>>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except >>> during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's >>> identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of >>the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >>minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >>and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in >>the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >>and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks.

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Why? Cabinet changes will fade from being an issue of the day,
economic issues persist.




--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he must >>>>>>>consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each of >>>>>>>those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as >>>>part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except >>>> during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of >>>the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >>>minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >>>and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in >>>the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >>>and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks.

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

yes I agree that the changes represent desperation, and very little of
the announcements (apart from the facts of who is replacing who) were
not very believable.

Bernard Hickey's public post said:
"Long stories short to start the year in Aotearoa�s political economy
around housing, poverty and climate:

1. Christopher Luxon fired Shane Reti as Health Minister and replaced
him with Simeon Brown, who Luxon sees as National�s most politically
effective minister, but who will have to manage hospitals and health
with the same budget;

2. Luxon said the reshuffle was all about re-focusing the Government
on restarting economic growth, but the main changes were in the big
spending areas of Health and Transport, and the reshuffle came
straight after a bad poll;

3. Big businesses are increasingly impatient with a lack of economic
growth in the wake of the Government�s blunt fiscal tightening last
year and its early-2024 freezing of spending on building state houses,
local roads, school buildings and hospital re-builds;

4. Retail spending was sluggish again over summer and manufacturing
contracted in December for its 22nd consecutive month, which was more
than twice as long a contraction than during the Global Financial
Crisis of 2008;

5. Luxon�s reshuffle hasn�t changed the self-imposed budget rules
forcing the politically painful and economically unnecessary cuts in
health, housing, welfare and transport;

6. The personnel changes also haven�t changed the fundamental
incentives in the economy rewarding households for investing in
residential property, rather than real businesses."


Because there were sufficient likes the rest of his post has been
opened up for the public - it is worth scrolling down to see various
graphs based on Curia polls, BNZ BusinessNZ and the international
monetary fund. In the comments the replacement of Simeon Brown by
Chris Bishop is however being welcomed.

There is also reference to this article : https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360522407/health-nz-abruptly-ends-deal-cost-saving-surgeries-charity-hospital
with bemusement as to why they were stopping using this hospital in
favour of more expensive private providers - with this comment worth
reading:
"CCH chairperson Philip Bagshaw said the trust offered its facilities
to Health NZ to help reduce the backlog after Covid-19.

�They did for about 10 months...There�s no question that it was
running well. The staff who came over really liked working there.

�We were more than happy for it to continue.�

He believed private hospitals would charge more than the charity
hospital.

�We only charged them for consumables like the cost of drugs we
provided and the cost of power. Some of our staff were helping with
the surgeries so they would be paying for less staff than at a private hospital,� he said.

�Most of our private hospitals are spending millions of dollars
building extra operating theatres because they know our governments
are slowly but relentlessly palming off their responsibilities for
providing non-urgent surgery.�

So I empathise with your comment, Tony - some of the recent actions
from government do not seem to be very believable . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution >>>>>>>>>of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he >>>>>>>>must
consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each >>>>>>>>of
those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as >>>>>part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except >>>>> during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the >>>>>government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of
the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >>>>minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >>>>and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in >>>>the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >>>>and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks. >>>

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

yes I agree

I am plesed that you agree.
Please however leave the abusive sarcasm in your mind where it can fester and do most harm,.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:38:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a >>>>>>>>>>full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any >>>>>>>>>>commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he >>>>>>>>>must
consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each >>>>>>>>>of
those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people as >>>>>>part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in except
during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the >>>>>>government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head of
the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the >>>>>minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle >>>>>and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have in
the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions >>>>>and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks. >>>>

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

yes I agree

I am plesed that you agree.
Please however leave the abusive sarcasm in your mind where it can fester and >do most harm,.

perhaps you have something wrong with your computer system - or
possibly you cannot control yourself, but you seem to have missed my
reasons that Luxon's changes reflect desperation. I said:
"yes I agree that the changes represent desperation, and very little
of
the announcements (apart from the facts of who is replacing who) were
not very believable.

Bernard Hickey's public post said:
"Long stories short to start the year in Aotearoa�s political economy
around housing, poverty and climate:

1. Christopher Luxon fired Shane Reti as Health Minister and replaced
him with Simeon Brown, who Luxon sees as National�s most politically
effective minister, but who will have to manage hospitals and health
with the same budget;

2. Luxon said the reshuffle was all about re-focusing the Government
on restarting economic growth, but the main changes were in the big
spending areas of Health and Transport, and the reshuffle came
straight after a bad poll;

3. Big businesses are increasingly impatient with a lack of economic
growth in the wake of the Government�s blunt fiscal tightening last
year and its early-2024 freezing of spending on building state houses,
local roads, school buildings and hospital re-builds;

4. Retail spending was sluggish again over summer and manufacturing
contracted in December for its 22nd consecutive month, which was more
than twice as long a contraction than during the Global Financial
Crisis of 2008;

5. Luxon�s reshuffle hasn�t changed the self-imposed budget rules
forcing the politically painful and economically unnecessary cuts in
health, housing, welfare and transport;

6. The personnel changes also haven�t changed the fundamental
incentives in the economy rewarding households for investing in
residential property, rather than real businesses."


Because there were sufficient likes the rest of his post has been
opened up for the public - it is worth scrolling down to see various
graphs based on Curia polls, BNZ BusinessNZ and the international
monetary fund. In the comments the replacement of Simeon Brown by
Chris Bishop is however being welcomed.

There is also reference to this article : https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360522407/health-nz-abruptly-ends-deal-cost-saving-surgeries-charity-hospital
with bemusement as to why they were stopping using this hospital in
favour of more expensive private providers - with this comment worth
reading:
"CCH chairperson Philip Bagshaw said the trust offered its facilities
to Health NZ to help reduce the backlog after Covid-19.

�They did for about 10 months...There�s no question that it was
running well. The staff who came over really liked working there.

�We were more than happy for it to continue.�

He believed private hospitals would charge more than the charity
hospital.


�We only charged them for consumables like the cost of drugs we
provided and the cost of power. Some of our staff were helping with
the surgeries so they would be paying for less staff than at a private hospital,� he said.

�Most of our private hospitals are spending millions of dollars
building extra operating theatres because they know our governments
are slowly but relentlessly palming off their responsibilities for
providing non-urgent surgery.�

So I empathise with your comment, Tony - some of the recent actions
from government do not seem to be very believable . . .
"




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 06:19:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:38:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a >>>>>>>>>>>>redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any
commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he >>>>>>>>>>>must
consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each
of
those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them. >>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people >>>>>>>>as
part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in >>>>>>>>except
during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the >>>>>>>>government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head
of
the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the
minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>>>>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle
and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have >>>>>>>in
the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions
and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks. >>>>>>

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

yes I agree

I am plesed that you agree.
Please however leave the abusive sarcasm in your mind where it can fester and
do most harm,.

Repeated abuse removed. Only idiots like Rich repeat rratuitous abuse, but that
is all he has.

You do get sensitive when challenged, don't you Tony - perhaps that is
because you quietly agree with me, but don't want to admit it - here
is again for you to reply to properly:

I said: "yes I agree that the changes represent desperation, and very
little of the announcements (apart from the facts of who is replacing
who) were very believable.

Bernard Hickey's public post said:
"Long stories short to start the year in Aotearoa�s political economy
around housing, poverty and climate:

1. Christopher Luxon fired Shane Reti as Health Minister and replaced
him with Simeon Brown, who Luxon sees as National�s most politically
effective minister, but who will have to manage hospitals and health
with the same budget;

2. Luxon said the reshuffle was all about re-focusing the Government
on restarting economic growth, but the main changes were in the big
spending areas of Health and Transport, and the reshuffle came
straight after a bad poll;

3. Big businesses are increasingly impatient with a lack of economic
growth in the wake of the Government�s blunt fiscal tightening last
year and its early-2024 freezing of spending on building state houses,
local roads, school buildings and hospital re-builds;

4. Retail spending was sluggish again over summer and manufacturing
contracted in December for its 22nd consecutive month, which was more
than twice as long a contraction than during the Global Financial
Crisis of 2008;

5. Luxon�s reshuffle hasn�t changed the self-imposed budget rules
forcing the politically painful and economically unnecessary cuts in
health, housing, welfare and transport;

6. The personnel changes also haven�t changed the fundamental
incentives in the economy rewarding households for investing in
residential property, rather than real businesses."


Because there were sufficient likes the rest of his post has been
opened up for the public - it is worth scrolling down to see various
graphs based on Curia polls, BNZ BusinessNZ and the international
monetary fund. In the comments the replacement of Simeon Brown by
Chris Bishop is however being welcomed.

There is also reference to this article : https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360522407/health-nz-abruptly-ends-deal-cost-saving-surgeries-charity-hospital
with bemusement as to why they were stopping using this hospital in
favour of more expensive private providers - with this comment worth
reading:
"CCH chairperson Philip Bagshaw said the trust offered its facilities
to Health NZ to help reduce the backlog after Covid-19.

�They did for about 10 months...There�s no question that it was
running well. The staff who came over really liked working there.

�We were more than happy for it to continue.�

He believed private hospitals would charge more than the charity
hospital.


�We only charged them for consumables like the cost of drugs we
provided and the cost of power. Some of our staff were helping with
the surgeries so they would be paying for less staff than at a private hospital,� he said.

�Most of our private hospitals are spending millions of dollars
building extra operating theatres because they know our governments
are slowly but relentlessly palming off their responsibilities for
providing non-urgent surgery.�

So I empathise with your comment, Tony - some of the recent actions
from government do not seem to be very believable . . ."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:38:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a >>>>>>>>>>>redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in any
commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he >>>>>>>>>>must
consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from each >>>>>>>>>>of
those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them.

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people >>>>>>>as
part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in >>>>>>>except
during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the >>>>>>>government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is head >>>>>>of
the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" the
minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>>>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the reshuffle
and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could have >>>>>>in
the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their actions
and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill folks. >>>>>

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass

Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable?

yes I agree

I am plesed that you agree.
Please however leave the abusive sarcasm in your mind where it can fester and >>do most harm,.

Repeated abuse removed. Only idiots like Rich repeat rratuitous abuse, but that is all he has.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 06:19:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:38:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:32:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2025 04:14:37 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-01-20, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:51:19 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

Announced today - but no mention of the act that the changes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>solely to Cabinet positions held by National MPs. So a >>>>>>>>>>>>>redistribution
of National-held Cabinet positions. The PM is not at liberty to >>>>>>>>>>>>>do a
full Cabinet reshuffle. A fact of life but no mention of this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>any
commentary I have seen to date.

I read it somewhere, I think it was TVNZ. They made it clear tha he >>>>>>>>>>>>must
consult with ACT and NZF leaders concerning the 3 ministers from >>>>>>>>>>>>each
of
those
parties. Reasonable for a coalition.

It's at the end of this. >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/01/19/shane-reti-out-as-health-minister-as-pm-makes-major-cabinet-reshuffle/

While it does make reference to the non-National ministers it seems >>>>>>>>>>clear that the composition of NZF and ACT ministers is not a choice >>>>>>>>>>Luxon can make.

The coalition agreements specify only how many Ministerial portfolios >>>>>>>>>>are allocated to the minority party and that who will fill these >>>>>>>>>>positions has been agreed but they are not named.

It is probable that Luxon has assumed that the actions of any >>>>>>>>>>non-National Minister will not affect National, but will affect the >>>>>>>>>>party they represent, meaning that Seymour and Peters are likely to >>>>>>>>>>instigate changes to the Ministerial roles allocated to them. >>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure, that could be correct.
If so, I think Luxon is wrong - all ministers are seen by most people >>>>>>>>>as
part
of governmment, most people don't care what party ministers are in >>>>>>>>>except
during an election. So whatever these ministers do affects the >>>>>>>>>government's
identity.

True. However, as I see it matter of Coalition. Luxon, even if he is >>>>>>>>head
of
the major Party of the Government can not in all logic start "running" >>>>>>>>the
minor parties.

The agreement allows for the minor parties to have Ministers in the >>>>>>>>Government.

It would be wise for National to inform the minor parties of the >>>>>>>>reshuffle
and to perhaps even suggest which ministers the minor parties could >>>>>>>>have
in
the new lineup. Negotation ie.

At the end of the day the public will judge the Ministers on their >>>>>>>>actions
and not the party they are from apart from those died in the mill >>>>>>>>folks.

An attempt to distract from economic woes? >>>>>>>https://thekaka.substack.com/p/luxon-flicks-retis-hospital-pass >>>>>>Gee that's desperate. Couldn't you think of something believable? >>>>>yes I agree

I am plesed that you agree.
Please however leave the abusive sarcasm in your mind where it can fester >>>>and
do most harm,.

Repeated abuse removed. Only idiots like Rich repeat rratuitous abuse, but >>that
is all he has.

Rich uses sarcasm as a substitute for his low intelligence and dearth of debating skills.
Sarcasm, as used by this little child, Rich, is simply abuse, he does not comprehend that because he does not understand that most people are, unlike him, fundamentally honest.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and he uses it interminably. He is a boring, low intelliugence troll.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)