And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think aboutOf course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could it be but biased?
whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
been acceptable to any previous government . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could it >be but biased?
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
been acceptable to any previous government . . .
What a pathetically childish post.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could >>it
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have >>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
be but biased?
What a pathetically childish post.
So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and >environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens,
Tony?
Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?Itrrelevant.
Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that >embarrass you?More abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I did not, I asked that this particular article not be dismissed
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could >>>it
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have >>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
be but biased?
What a pathetically childish post.
So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding
that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and >>environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens, >>Tony?
No, it is directly relevant. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisisItrrelevant.
Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?
I was not attacking you, I was seeking reaction to the article postedMore abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.
Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that >>embarrass you?
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:14:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyBullshit. Twisting words is what you do, but this time it is bullshit, You got sprung.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I did not
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 04:33:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant - you argued that the blog was not biased - it is. Period.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
Of course it is biased, it is a left wing publication - whatever else could >>>>it
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have >>>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
be but biased?
What a pathetically childish post.
So would you have been happy with the last Labour Government deciding >>>that decisions on major projects could be decided by three Ministers
with no need to meet normal regulatory requirements for safety and >>>environment concerns and no need for consultation with local citizens, >>>Tony?
, I asked that this particular article not be dismissedIrrelevant
just because it is clearly objecting to a proposal made by the current >government, but to look to whether a similar proposal under any
previous government. Clearly the proposed authority to three Ministers
has not been granted previously; would it have been acceptable under
any previous government? I do not expect you to not have any bias
Tony; what is needed is honest appraisal of proposals from all
different points of view - and you cannot deny that you have
particular political views that are not the same as those expressed on
No Right Turn . . .
Irrelevant to my point which is all I have assressed. but you cannot move away from your bias.No, it is directly relevant. See here: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisisItrrelevant.
Would you be happy with ''Leaky Buildings'' happening again?
The cost has variously been estimated to have cost the economy betweenMorfe abuse and irrelevance.
$12 billion and $45 billion. Many building companies went out of
business to avoid liability; some individuals moved overseas.
There may be gains from deregulation, but there may also be losses. Itrrelevant as above,
I was not attacking you, I was seeking reaction to the article postedMore abuse. Attacking authors is what you do, not me.
Or can you only ever attack the author, and ot address arguments that >>>embarrass you?
and different views. If you do not have a view then don't pretend that
you do.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about
whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
been acceptable to any previous government . . .
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have
been acceptable to any previous government . . .
Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point
worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your >relentless anti-Government rhetoric.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:00:01 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>There is a good reason that it is unanswered - it is a pointless question disguising (very poorly) a political attack.
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have >>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the
two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point >>worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your >>relentless anti-Government rhetoric.
There may have been some vague talk about quicker decision making, but
I do not believe allowing Ministers to overall normal planning and
safety and environmental legislation with no recourse was campaigned
on or in the coalition agreements. The coalition agreements were made
in a rush involving a very small group - they are not legally binding
on either the parties or individual members of parliament - if they
vote the current proposals in they are creating in effect a system
somewhat akin to a personal dictatorship, with three Ministers each
able to make decisions that would normally require a majority of votes
in parliament. When democracy is convenient, NAct1st are prepared to
by-pass it . . .
My question is still unanswered - would a Labour or Labour-led
government giving Ministers the power to make decisions contrary to >legislation and without consultation or justification have been
acceptable to any previous government?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:00:01 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:There is a good reason that it is unanswered - it is a pointless question >disguising (very poorly) a political attack.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:13:24 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-whos-who-of-new-zealands-dodgiest.html
And before some immediately dismiss this as biased, just think about >>>>whether this proposed legislation and the obvious pay-backs would have >>>>been acceptable to any previous government . . .
Irrelevant Rich. Can you point to anything in this that is not in the >>>two coalition agreements that National have concluded? Can you point
to anything that is not included in the manifestos of any none of the
3 parties in the current Government? If you can then you have a point >>>worth making. If you ant then your post is another example of your >>>relentless anti-Government rhetoric.
There may have been some vague talk about quicker decision making, but
I do not believe allowing Ministers to overall normal planning and
safety and environmental legislation with no recourse was campaigned
on or in the coalition agreements. The coalition agreements were made
in a rush involving a very small group - they are not legally binding
on either the parties or individual members of parliament - if they
vote the current proposals in they are creating in effect a system
somewhat akin to a personal dictatorship, with three Ministers each
able to make decisions that would normally require a majority of votes
in parliament. When democracy is convenient, NAct1st are prepared to >>by-pass it . . .
My question is still unanswered - would a Labour or Labour-led
government giving Ministers the power to make decisions contrary to >>legislation and without consultation or justification have been
acceptable to any previous government?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:00:51 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,692 |