Discussion:
Governmnet Commitments and achievements since 2017
(too old to reply)
Crash
2020-09-21 02:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Not too good:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html

Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.

The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.

Lastly this is not about previous governments.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-09-21 05:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
Rich80105
2020-09-21 08:50:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go! Start with the description of statements from
Labour. There were very few promises made by any party before the last
election - but there were policies presented, which as Crash points
out would have been easier to have been achieved had Labour been
elected - the reality is that Labour was not elected; but have formed
a coalition government with two other parties. The misrepresentation
of what policies mean is the first casualty of truth at the hands of
National's experiences spin merchant / lackey.

Then there is misrepresentation of individual policies. Take for
example the one about first year free. That was of course implemented,
but the false measurement is all National - Naturally having had a
largely free university education himself, Farrar is totally against
anyone else paying less than full cost; but just think about why that
policy was implemented. 1. Equal Opportunity - remember when National
pretended to believe in that? If cost was reducing the number of young
people from other than wealthy families going to University, that loss
of opportunity is not just that persons loss, but a loss for New
Zealand. 2. What was the effect of National pushing higher fees? First
of course fewer people from New Zealand went to University - and
Universities learned that they were expected to make profits from
overseas students . . . Secondly a lot of students graduated with a
large debt, in some cases larger than they could see themselves paying
off, so some are now New Zealanders trapped overseas who cannot afford
to come home - debt refugees. In other cases the need to pay off the
debt has deferred being able to puy a house, has encouraged working to
pay off the loan before getting married or having children - so we
have more of our young families with older mothers and more birth
complications. Dentistry students have some of the largest debts - now
we see the industry dominated by chains who employ dentists to do the
work, as young dentists cannot afford to buy a practice; Dental
charges have gone up to repay the loans and also to pass profit to the
corporate employer, making dentistry work hugely more expensive and
unaffordable to a much higher percentage of our population. The aim
was not to get more people into universities, but to not have whole
industries distorted by the crippling debts. There are a lot of
reasons why there will have been fewer students at universities - the
availablilty of vocational training may have helped for example, but
not forcing our brightest young people into huge debt before they
start their working life is a laudable objective.

Farrar and Kiwiblog are missing the WhaleOil partner to take over the
blatant dirty tricks; they are having to run slightly more borderline
propaganda than previously, but with National in danger of a massive
wipeout at the election they will try anything, and there are plenty
of mugs who may be taken in by the lies, misprepresentation and
avoidance of the truth that are evident in that story.
John Bowes
2020-09-21 21:30:14 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 8:50:56 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snipped>
<typical denial of the facts from Rich deleted because it's just another avoidance by the idiotic prick Rich80105 of Labours three years of utter failure to achieve any of their main policies/promises>
Crash
2020-09-21 23:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go!
Any references to 'Rich" in my comments are an abbreviation of
Rich80105. Rich you fail at the first hurdle. I specifically asked
posters to refrain from referring to the source of the article in
favour of commenting on the content. You have not done this,
illustrating that your biased political motivations trump your ability
to debate.
Post by Rich80105
Start with the description of statements from
Labour. There were very few promises made by any party before the last
election - but there were policies presented, which as Crash points
out would have been easier to have been achieved had Labour been
elected - the reality is that Labour was not elected; but have formed
a coalition government with two other parties. The misrepresentation
of what policies mean is the first casualty of truth at the hands of
National's experiences spin merchant / lackey.
Then there is misrepresentation of individual policies. Take for
example the one about first year free. That was of course implemented,
but the false measurement is all National - Naturally having had a
largely free university education himself, Farrar is totally against
anyone else paying less than full cost; but just think about why that
policy was implemented. 1. Equal Opportunity - remember when National
pretended to believe in that? If cost was reducing the number of young
people from other than wealthy families going to University, that loss
of opportunity is not just that persons loss, but a loss for New
Zealand. 2. What was the effect of National pushing higher fees? First
of course fewer people from New Zealand went to University - and
Universities learned that they were expected to make profits from
overseas students . . . Secondly a lot of students graduated with a
large debt, in some cases larger than they could see themselves paying
off, so some are now New Zealanders trapped overseas who cannot afford
to come home - debt refugees. In other cases the need to pay off the
debt has deferred being able to puy a house, has encouraged working to
pay off the loan before getting married or having children - so we
have more of our young families with older mothers and more birth
complications. Dentistry students have some of the largest debts - now
we see the industry dominated by chains who employ dentists to do the
work, as young dentists cannot afford to buy a practice; Dental
charges have gone up to repay the loans and also to pass profit to the
corporate employer, making dentistry work hugely more expensive and
unaffordable to a much higher percentage of our population. The aim
was not to get more people into universities, but to not have whole
industries distorted by the crippling debts. There are a lot of
reasons why there will have been fewer students at universities - the
availablilty of vocational training may have helped for example, but
not forcing our brightest young people into huge debt before they
start their working life is a laudable objective.
Farrar and Kiwiblog are missing the WhaleOil partner to take over the
blatant dirty tricks; they are having to run slightly more borderline
propaganda than previously, but with National in danger of a massive
wipeout at the election they will try anything, and there are plenty
of mugs who may be taken in by the lies, misprepresentation and
avoidance of the truth that are evident in that story.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-09-22 00:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go!
Any references to 'Rich" in my comments are an abbreviation of
Rich80105. Rich you fail at the first hurdle. I specifically asked
posters to refrain from referring to the source of the article in
favour of commenting on the content. You have not done this,
illustrating that your biased political motivations trump your ability
to debate.
It is not possible to rationally comment on the content without
identifying the dishonest portrayal of various aspects. If you care to
post politically neewtral material you may better be able to expect
comments on a similar basis. To post provocative material and expect
it to be ignored was an unreasonable request; besides posts to
nz.general are not under the control of any one poster, despite what
some authoroitarian posters may wish (and I am not referring to you
with that comment) - may that long continue
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Start with the description of statements from
Labour. There were very few promises made by any party before the last
election - but there were policies presented, which as Crash points
out would have been easier to have been achieved had Labour been
elected - the reality is that Labour was not elected; but have formed
a coalition government with two other parties. The misrepresentation
of what policies mean is the first casualty of truth at the hands of
National's experiences spin merchant / lackey.
Then there is misrepresentation of individual policies. Take for
example the one about first year free. That was of course implemented,
but the false measurement is all National - Naturally having had a
largely free university education himself, Farrar is totally against
anyone else paying less than full cost; but just think about why that
policy was implemented. 1. Equal Opportunity - remember when National
pretended to believe in that? If cost was reducing the number of young
people from other than wealthy families going to University, that loss
of opportunity is not just that persons loss, but a loss for New
Zealand. 2. What was the effect of National pushing higher fees? First
of course fewer people from New Zealand went to University - and
Universities learned that they were expected to make profits from
overseas students . . . Secondly a lot of students graduated with a
large debt, in some cases larger than they could see themselves paying
off, so some are now New Zealanders trapped overseas who cannot afford
to come home - debt refugees. In other cases the need to pay off the
debt has deferred being able to puy a house, has encouraged working to
pay off the loan before getting married or having children - so we
have more of our young families with older mothers and more birth
complications. Dentistry students have some of the largest debts - now
we see the industry dominated by chains who employ dentists to do the
work, as young dentists cannot afford to buy a practice; Dental
charges have gone up to repay the loans and also to pass profit to the
corporate employer, making dentistry work hugely more expensive and
unaffordable to a much higher percentage of our population. The aim
was not to get more people into universities, but to not have whole
industries distorted by the crippling debts. There are a lot of
reasons why there will have been fewer students at universities - the
availablilty of vocational training may have helped for example, but
not forcing our brightest young people into huge debt before they
start their working life is a laudable objective.
Farrar and Kiwiblog are missing the WhaleOil partner to take over the
blatant dirty tricks; they are having to run slightly more borderline
propaganda than previously, but with National in danger of a massive
wipeout at the election they will try anything, and there are plenty
of mugs who may be taken in by the lies, misprepresentation and
avoidance of the truth that are evident in that story.
Tony
2020-09-22 02:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges
bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in
isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government,
some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party
is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence,
the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go!
Any references to 'Rich" in my comments are an abbreviation of
Rich80105. Rich you fail at the first hurdle. I specifically asked
posters to refrain from referring to the source of the article in
favour of commenting on the content. You have not done this,
illustrating that your biased political motivations trump your ability
to debate.
It is not possible to rationally comment on the content without
identifying the dishonest portrayal of various aspects. If you care to
post politically neewtral material you may better be able to expect
comments on a similar basis. To post provocative material and expect
it to be ignored was an unreasonable request; besides posts to
nz.general are not under the control of any one poster, despite what
some authoroitarian posters may wish
You are the only poster here that applies to.
Post by Rich80105
(and I am not referring to you
with that comment) - may that long continue
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Start with the description of statements from
Labour. There were very few promises made by any party before the last
election - but there were policies presented, which as Crash points
out would have been easier to have been achieved had Labour been
elected - the reality is that Labour was not elected; but have formed
a coalition government with two other parties. The misrepresentation
of what policies mean is the first casualty of truth at the hands of
National's experiences spin merchant / lackey.
Then there is misrepresentation of individual policies. Take for
example the one about first year free. That was of course implemented,
but the false measurement is all National - Naturally having had a
largely free university education himself, Farrar is totally against
anyone else paying less than full cost; but just think about why that
policy was implemented. 1. Equal Opportunity - remember when National
pretended to believe in that? If cost was reducing the number of young
people from other than wealthy families going to University, that loss
of opportunity is not just that persons loss, but a loss for New
Zealand. 2. What was the effect of National pushing higher fees? First
of course fewer people from New Zealand went to University - and
Universities learned that they were expected to make profits from
overseas students . . . Secondly a lot of students graduated with a
large debt, in some cases larger than they could see themselves paying
off, so some are now New Zealanders trapped overseas who cannot afford
to come home - debt refugees. In other cases the need to pay off the
debt has deferred being able to puy a house, has encouraged working to
pay off the loan before getting married or having children - so we
have more of our young families with older mothers and more birth
complications. Dentistry students have some of the largest debts - now
we see the industry dominated by chains who employ dentists to do the
work, as young dentists cannot afford to buy a practice; Dental
charges have gone up to repay the loans and also to pass profit to the
corporate employer, making dentistry work hugely more expensive and
unaffordable to a much higher percentage of our population. The aim
was not to get more people into universities, but to not have whole
industries distorted by the crippling debts. There are a lot of
reasons why there will have been fewer students at universities - the
availablilty of vocational training may have helped for example, but
not forcing our brightest young people into huge debt before they
start their working life is a laudable objective.
Farrar and Kiwiblog are missing the WhaleOil partner to take over the
blatant dirty tricks; they are having to run slightly more borderline
propaganda than previously, but with National in danger of a massive
wipeout at the election they will try anything, and there are plenty
of mugs who may be taken in by the lies, misprepresentation and
avoidance of the truth that are evident in that story.
John Bowes
2020-09-22 04:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go!
Any references to 'Rich" in my comments are an abbreviation of
Rich80105. Rich you fail at the first hurdle. I specifically asked
posters to refrain from referring to the source of the article in
favour of commenting on the content. You have not done this,
illustrating that your biased political motivations trump your ability
to debate.
It is not possible to rationally comment on the content without
identifying the dishonest portrayal of various aspects. If you care to
post politically neewtral material you may better be able to expect
comments on a similar basis. To post provocative material and expect
it to be ignored was an unreasonable request; besides posts to
nz.general are not under the control of any one poster, despite what
some authoroitarian posters may wish (and I am not referring to you
with that comment) - may that long continue
So why haven't you destroyed Farrars claims Rich? could it be that you're just spewing your usual shit because in your eyes nobody should question the glorious leader Saint Jacinda even if the stupid girl can't follow her own rules about social distancing?

The only authoritarians in this ng are Rich 80105 and Keith :)
<snipped>

John Bowes
2020-09-22 04:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:36:49 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
But it is **invariably** about having to deal with the challenges bequeathed to the new government by the old, and therefore cannot be treated in isolation from what has gone before. In the case of the current government, some of those bequests are intractable and this applies no matter which party is now running the show or ends up doing so so after the election. In essence, the economy is re
What a Farrar-Go!
Any references to 'Rich" in my comments are an abbreviation of
Rich80105. Rich you fail at the first hurdle. I specifically asked
posters to refrain from referring to the source of the article in
favour of commenting on the content. You have not done this,
illustrating that your biased political motivations trump your ability
to debate.
Post by Rich80105
Start with the description of statements from
Labour. There were very few promises made by any party before the last
election - but there were policies presented, which as Crash points
out would have been easier to have been achieved had Labour been
elected - the reality is that Labour was not elected; but have formed
a coalition government with two other parties. The misrepresentation
of what policies mean is the first casualty of truth at the hands of
National's experiences spin merchant / lackey.
Then there is misrepresentation of individual policies. Take for
example the one about first year free. That was of course implemented,
but the false measurement is all National - Naturally having had a
largely free university education himself, Farrar is totally against
anyone else paying less than full cost; but just think about why that
policy was implemented. 1. Equal Opportunity - remember when National
pretended to believe in that? If cost was reducing the number of young
people from other than wealthy families going to University, that loss
of opportunity is not just that persons loss, but a loss for New
Zealand. 2. What was the effect of National pushing higher fees? First
of course fewer people from New Zealand went to University - and
Universities learned that they were expected to make profits from
overseas students . . . Secondly a lot of students graduated with a
large debt, in some cases larger than they could see themselves paying
off, so some are now New Zealanders trapped overseas who cannot afford
to come home - debt refugees. In other cases the need to pay off the
debt has deferred being able to puy a house, has encouraged working to
pay off the loan before getting married or having children - so we
have more of our young families with older mothers and more birth
complications. Dentistry students have some of the largest debts - now
we see the industry dominated by chains who employ dentists to do the
work, as young dentists cannot afford to buy a practice; Dental
charges have gone up to repay the loans and also to pass profit to the
corporate employer, making dentistry work hugely more expensive and
unaffordable to a much higher percentage of our population. The aim
was not to get more people into universities, but to not have whole
industries distorted by the crippling debts. There are a lot of
reasons why there will have been fewer students at universities - the
availablilty of vocational training may have helped for example, but
not forcing our brightest young people into huge debt before they
start their working life is a laudable objective.
Farrar and Kiwiblog are missing the WhaleOil partner to take over the
blatant dirty tricks; they are having to run slightly more borderline
propaganda than previously, but with National in danger of a massive
wipeout at the election they will try anything, and there are plenty
of mugs who may be taken in by the lies, misprepresentation and
avoidance of the truth that are evident in that story.
--
Crash McBash
It highlights Rich80105's total lack of comprehension skills.
Mutlley
2020-09-21 20:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/09/labours_term_of_failure.html
Now I invite posters to ignore the source and concentrate on the
content. The focus is on Labour pre-election promises and this
government is a Coalition with NZ First with support from the Greens.
Feel free to point out any objectives that were blocked by NZF or the
Greens.
The combination of the 'Jacinda effect', these promises and '3rd
term-itus' produced an election result that caused enough of a swing
against National to cause a change of government, so the fact that
there is a list like this is significant.
Lastly this is not about previous governments.
Ah but the Covinda fans will make it about the previous government.
Loading...