The statement in the headline has been corrected - "An earlier versionYes it certainly is telling, that this government is flexible and does not tell councils what to do. Refreshing change that.
of this story incorrectly reported the Crown would be unable to
financially support Watercare. While the Government won't guarantee >intervention in a crisis, it would be able to do so if required."
It turns out that National's solution is pretty much what Labour
investigated and eventually rejected as being too expensive -
effectively it uses private financing, and would be set up so that in >difficult times (for example if Auckland had another major flooding or >earthquake event), the most likely result would be privatisation at a
cheap price - it is more like a Thames Water model than similar to
Scottish Water. . . .
It is telling that the Government is not prepared to guarantee loans -
there was a time when most local authorities borrowed, at a cost about
0.5% higher than government borrowing. This scheme would be a great
payback to wealthy donors to the three Atlas parties - they would be
in a good position to buy shares cheaply with a similar ability to >shareholders in the generating company to always achieve good returns
- at the expense of those living in Auckland.
It is also telling that they are admitting different arrangements will
be required elsewhere . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/127603/government-will-pass-legislation-barring-council-or-crown-support-auckland%E2%80%99sYes it certainly is telling, that this government is flexible and does not tell
The statement in the headline has been corrected - "An earlier version
of this story incorrectly reported the Crown would be unable to
financially support Watercare. While the Government won't guarantee >>intervention in a crisis, it would be able to do so if required."
It turns out that National's solution is pretty much what Labour >>investigated and eventually rejected as being too expensive -
effectively it uses private financing, and would be set up so that in >>difficult times (for example if Auckland had another major flooding or >>earthquake event), the most likely result would be privatisation at a
cheap price - it is more like a Thames Water model than similar to
Scottish Water. . . .
It is telling that the Government is not prepared to guarantee loans - >>there was a time when most local authorities borrowed, at a cost about
0.5% higher than government borrowing. This scheme would be a great
payback to wealthy donors to the three Atlas parties - they would be
in a good position to buy shares cheaply with a similar ability to >>shareholders in the generating company to always achieve good returns
- at the expense of those living in Auckland.
It is also telling that they are admitting different arrangements will
be required elsewhere . . .
councils what to do. Refreshing change that.
On 2024-05-06, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:And good riddance to co-governance (the opiate of the Labour party).
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/127603/government-will-pass-legislation-barring-council-or-crown-support-auckland%E2%80%99s
Yes it certainly is telling, that this government is flexible and does not >>tell
The statement in the headline has been corrected - "An earlier version
of this story incorrectly reported the Crown would be unable to >>>financially support Watercare. While the Government won't guarantee >>>intervention in a crisis, it would be able to do so if required."
It turns out that National's solution is pretty much what Labour >>>investigated and eventually rejected as being too expensive -
effectively it uses private financing, and would be set up so that in >>>difficult times (for example if Auckland had another major flooding or >>>earthquake event), the most likely result would be privatisation at a >>>cheap price - it is more like a Thames Water model than similar to >>>Scottish Water. . . .
It is telling that the Government is not prepared to guarantee loans - >>>there was a time when most local authorities borrowed, at a cost about >>>0.5% higher than government borrowing. This scheme would be a great >>>payback to wealthy donors to the three Atlas parties - they would be
in a good position to buy shares cheaply with a similar ability to >>>shareholders in the generating company to always achieve good returns
- at the expense of those living in Auckland.
It is also telling that they are admitting different arrangements will
be required elsewhere . . .
councils what to do. Refreshing change that.
The Government is also able to listen to the Council and negotate a deal. >Unlike the Labour Goverments proposal and actions.
The Council's borrowing will put the resposibility on the Council to make it >work while fixing the issue of long term poor maintainence.
On 2024-05-06, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The government initially said that they would not guarantee loan
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/127603/government-will-pass-legislation-barring-council-or-crown-support-auckland%E2%80%99s
Yes it certainly is telling, that this government is flexible and does not tell
The statement in the headline has been corrected - "An earlier version
of this story incorrectly reported the Crown would be unable to >>>financially support Watercare. While the Government won't guarantee >>>intervention in a crisis, it would be able to do so if required."
It turns out that National's solution is pretty much what Labour >>>investigated and eventually rejected as being too expensive -
effectively it uses private financing, and would be set up so that in >>>difficult times (for example if Auckland had another major flooding or >>>earthquake event), the most likely result would be privatisation at a >>>cheap price - it is more like a Thames Water model than similar to >>>Scottish Water. . . .
It is telling that the Government is not prepared to guarantee loans - >>>there was a time when most local authorities borrowed, at a cost about >>>0.5% higher than government borrowing. This scheme would be a great >>>payback to wealthy donors to the three Atlas parties - they would be
in a good position to buy shares cheaply with a similar ability to >>>shareholders in the generating company to always achieve good returns
- at the expense of those living in Auckland.
It is also telling that they are admitting different arrangements will
be required elsewhere . . .
councils what to do. Refreshing change that.
The Government is also able to listen to the Council and negotate a deal. >Unlike the Labour Goverments proposal and actions.
The Council's borrowing will put the resposibility on the Council to make it >work while fixing the issue of long term poor maintainence.At enormous additional cost to New Zealand, and already Auckland are
On 6 May 2024 04:57:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is the job of government - to help peopl. Simple really!
On 2024-05-06, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The government initially said that they would not guarantee loan
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/127603/government-will-pass-legislation-barring-council-or-crown-support-auckland%E2%80%99s
Yes it certainly is telling, that this government is flexible and does not >>>tell
The statement in the headline has been corrected - "An earlier version >>>>of this story incorrectly reported the Crown would be unable to >>>>financially support Watercare. While the Government won't guarantee >>>>intervention in a crisis, it would be able to do so if required."
It turns out that National's solution is pretty much what Labour >>>>investigated and eventually rejected as being too expensive - >>>>effectively it uses private financing, and would be set up so that in >>>>difficult times (for example if Auckland had another major flooding or >>>>earthquake event), the most likely result would be privatisation at a >>>>cheap price - it is more like a Thames Water model than similar to >>>>Scottish Water. . . .
It is telling that the Government is not prepared to guarantee loans - >>>>there was a time when most local authorities borrowed, at a cost about >>>>0.5% higher than government borrowing. This scheme would be a great >>>>payback to wealthy donors to the three Atlas parties - they would be
in a good position to buy shares cheaply with a similar ability to >>>>shareholders in the generating company to always achieve good returns
- at the expense of those living in Auckland.
It is also telling that they are admitting different arrangements will >>>>be required elsewhere . . .
councils what to do. Refreshing change that.
The Government is also able to listen to the Council and negotate a deal. >>Unlike the Labour Goverments proposal and actions.
repayments; they have now said that they could step in if problems
become too great but they have not promised to refuse permission for a
sale of the water entity.
That is a lie, there is no additional overall cost - sheer political fantasy on your behalf.At enormous additional cost to New Zealand, and already Auckland are
The Council's borrowing will put the resposibility on the Council to make it >>work while fixing the issue of long term poor maintainence.
saying they do not want to have to pay anything for a neighbouring
Council.
Meantime, increasing regressive taxes will make rents increase whileAnother lie - the tax cuts are for lower paid folk.
the wealthy who own their own homes will see prices rise . . . - and
of course enable tax cuts that favour the wealthy . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 430 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 124:59:15 |
| Calls: | 9,060 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,398 |
| Messages: | 6,017,441 |
| Posted today: | 1 |