Our PM Jacinda Ardern (and the government)

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our PM Jacinda Ardern (and the government)

1 | ... | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | ... | 118

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2990455 1-Nov-2022 06:42

elpenguino:

marmel:

I think in 10 years when our food costs have tripled, and we choose lower quality imported alternatives from countries that produce far more emissions to produce said food then we will all sit back and wonder how the hell did we end up in this position. The treaty is a partnership, it is supposed to benefit both parties. Simply adding levels of beauacracy just to tick the box is pointless and devalues the treaty.

No, mostly the food with high inputs like water and fertiliser will increase.

We're already seeing a rise in meat and dairy prices and I expect that to continue.

You can try and renegotiate the treaty if you want, but it says what it says.

The treaty is a pretty simple document. Seems to me it gets interpreted according to whom ever wants to use it to their advantage and some seem to want to interpret it against todays vernacular rather than against that of the time it was written. I'd say it's been "renegotiated" already by some factions.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2990461 1-Nov-2022 07:22

Just watched the 3Waters discussion on Breakfast this morning with Bernard Hickey, last point made was about taxes having to go up to pay for the project and it isn’t going to be free. The PM needs to stop with her misleading statements I referred to earlier in the thread and be upfront about how this will actually be funded.

There was also a comment that this will likely cost Labour the election or they will have to do a u-turn prior to then. I suspect there will be a u-turn and they will just have to suck it up.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2990462 1-Nov-2022 07:39

I haven't followed 3 Waters so I don't know all the details of it, but I believe it was at least partially triggered by the water supply contamination in Havelock North that created huge problems and expense and is thought to have killed up to four people. It was decided that the fragmented nature of responsibility for the water supply, with large and small councils with abundant and minimal resources was incapable of assuring consistent drinking water quality throughout the country. Small councils especially just are not up to the job, and in the case of Havelock North, the Hastings District Council was not even all that small.

I don't know if the Three Waters solution chosen is the best one, or even a good one, but the knee-jerk 'big government is bad' reaction to it is over the top politicised hysterical bullshit. People died from their drinking water. I live near Havelock North. No-one there thinks that proper supervision and maintenance of the supply so sheep can't shit in it is a bad idea.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2990703 1-Nov-2022 17:18

Rikkitic:

I haven't followed 3 Waters so I don't know all the details of it, but I believe it was at least partially triggered by the water supply contamination in Havelock North that created huge problems and expense and is thought to have killed up to four people. It was decided that the fragmented nature of responsibility for the water supply, with large and small councils with abundant and minimal resources was incapable of assuring consistent drinking water quality throughout the country. Small councils especially just are not up to the job, and in the case of Havelock North, the Hastings District Council was not even all that small.

I don't know if the Three Waters solution chosen is the best one, or even a good one, but the knee-jerk 'big government is bad' reaction to it is over the top politicised hysterical bullshit. People died from their drinking water. I live near Havelock North. No-one there thinks that proper supervision and maintenance of the supply so sheep can't shit in it is a bad idea.

So, you haven't followed it, and don't know if it's a good idea, but can categorically state the response to it is BS? Have you even read any of the submissions objecting to it, or any of the suggested alternatives?

I don't see *anyone* (including farmers) saying we shouldn't do better with our waterways (and most farmers are open to doing their part from what I've seen) , but the majority of the objection isn't hysterical big government is bad rhetoric, but people looking at how well the Government (this and others) have managed similar projects and results of those over a long period. The supposed transparency and inability of the Government to be able to answer basic questions on it, have hardly instilled confidence either.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2990785 1-Nov-2022 21:44

networkn:

So, you haven't followed it, and don't know if it's a good idea, but can categorically state the response to it is BS? Have you even read any of the submissions objecting to it, or any of the suggested alternatives?

I don't see *anyone* (including farmers) saying we shouldn't do better with our waterways (and most farmers are open to doing their part from what I've seen) , but the majority of the objection isn't hysterical big government is bad rhetoric, but people looking at how well the Government (this and others) have managed similar projects and results of those over a long period. The supposed transparency and inability of the Government to be able to answer basic questions on it, have hardly instilled confidence either.

BS is BS. You don't have to know the details of a proposition to know if an attack on it is BS. In any case, my comment is in regard to the provision of safe drinking water. People have died and those attacking Three Waters seem to be glossing over this in their eagerness to find fault with the overall scheme.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

chatterbox

204 posts

Master Geek

#2990812 2-Nov-2022 00:25

Rikkitic:
networkn:

So, you haven't followed it, and don't know if it's a good idea, but can categorically state the response to it is BS? Have you even read any of the submissions objecting to it, or any of the suggested alternatives?

I don't see *anyone* (including farmers) saying we shouldn't do better with our waterways (and most farmers are open to doing their part from what I've seen) , but the majority of the objection isn't hysterical big government is bad rhetoric, but people looking at how well the Government (this and others) have managed similar projects and results of those over a long period. The supposed transparency and inability of the Government to be able to answer basic questions on it, have hardly instilled confidence either.

BS is BS. You don't have to know the details of a proposition to know if an attack on it is BS. In any case, my comment is in regard to the provision of safe drinking water. People have died and those attacking Three Waters seem to be glossing over this in their eagerness to find fault with the overall scheme.

I don’t think anyones arguing over the provision of clean drinking water. They’re not glossing over it because it’s a point people agree on. It’s the other areas of the proposal people are unhappy about.

Cogovernance, management, cost, value of assets, the opt in proposal with a default option government might mandate 3 waters are some of those other issues I’ve heard of.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2990819 2-Nov-2022 06:22

Rikkitic:

BS is BS. You don't have to know the details of a proposition to know if an attack on it is BS. In any case, my comment is in regard to the provision of safe drinking water. People have died and those attacking Three Waters seem to be glossing over this in their eagerness to find fault with the overall scheme.

The cynical thing here seems to be using the fallout from a regional water crisis to justify stripping assets from councils nation-wide.

Is Auckland not big enough to look after its own water either?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2990841 2-Nov-2022 08:19

Rikkitic:

BS is BS. You don't have to know the details of a proposition to know if an attack on it is BS. In any case, my comment is in regard to the provision of safe drinking water. People have died and those attacking Three Waters seem to be glossing over this in their eagerness to find fault with the overall scheme.

You haven't read the proposal, nor the counter-arguments, but continue to blindly defend the Government regardless, writing off any objection to it because some people are using 'big government' as part of their reason.

4 People died. How many people will die as a result of Labour not living up to its *promise* to extend funding to screen for breast cancer in over 65's?

Again, I have yet to see anyone suggesting we don't do something to improve/protect our water supply. I see people arguing components of the proposal, or based on the evidence of the past 5 years, worried that this Government will not be able to execute this plan effectively. In case you are wondering about what they might be referring to, check out the centralization of the DHB's, Universities, Kiwibuild etc. The Government has enough on it's plate, and whilst waterways are incredibly important, there are ways proposed to have made similar/more progress, for less money, to buy some time for overall direction to have been more well thought out and properly consulted on (if you are wondering about that, a quick google will show that consultation was all but ignored in favour of the original plan).

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2990850 2-Nov-2022 08:36

networkn:

Rikkitic:

BS is BS. You don't have to know the details of a proposition to know if an attack on it is BS. In any case, my comment is in regard to the provision of safe drinking water. People have died and those attacking Three Waters seem to be glossing over this in their eagerness to find fault with the overall scheme.

You haven't read the proposal, nor the counter-arguments, but continue to blindly defend the Government regardless, writing off any objection to it because some people are using 'big government' as part of their reason.

4 People died. How many people will die as a result of Labour not living up to its *promise* to extend funding to screen for breast cancer in over 65's?

Again, I have yet to see anyone suggesting we don't do something to improve/protect our water supply. I see people arguing components of the proposal, or based on the evidence of the past 5 years, worried that this Government will not be able to execute this plan effectively. In case you are wondering about what they might be referring to, check out the centralization of the DHB's, Universities, Kiwibuild etc. The Government has enough on it's plate, and whilst waterways are incredibly important, there are ways proposed to have made similar/more progress, for less money, to buy some time for overall direction to have been more well thought out and properly consulted on (if you are wondering about that, a quick google will show that consultation was all but ignored in favour of the original plan).

The other point is at least 100x more people die on the roads than have ever died from drinking contaminated water. If that is the argument you are trying to make to sell 3Water's than why don't I don't see Labour party supporters up in arms about the state of the highways? Suicide rates? We know Labour made a total mess of the $2b in funding they allocated to mantel health which appears to have been mainly swallowed up in the "system" somewhere and we have to rely on people like Mike King to raise money just so people can have access to a counsellor.

So yeah, if you are going to try the "what about people dying from dirty water" maybe start with the roads and suicides first, once that's fixed then let's sort the water.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2990859 2-Nov-2022 09:01

GV27:

The cynical thing here seems to be using the fallout from a regional water crisis to justify stripping assets from councils nation-wide.

Is Auckland not big enough to look after its own water either?

I can't speak to that but Hastings clearly demonstrated it isn't up to the job. There needs to be some kind of national enforceable drinking water standard, and that is all I am advocating.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2990860 2-Nov-2022 09:03

networkn:

You haven't read the proposal, nor the counter-arguments, but continue to blindly defend the Government regardless, writing off any objection to it because some people are using 'big government' as part of their reason.

4 People died. How many people will die as a result of Labour not living up to its *promise* to extend funding to screen for breast cancer in over 65's?

Again, I have yet to see anyone suggesting we don't do something to improve/protect our water supply. I see people arguing components of the proposal, or based on the evidence of the past 5 years, worried that this Government will not be able to execute this plan effectively. In case you are wondering about what they might be referring to, check out the centralization of the DHB's, Universities, Kiwibuild etc. The Government has enough on it's plate, and whilst waterways are incredibly important, there are ways proposed to have made similar/more progress, for less money, to buy some time for overall direction to have been more well thought out and properly consulted on (if you are wondering about that, a quick google will show that consultation was all but ignored in favour of the original plan).

OK, I don't argue with any of this.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2990863 2-Nov-2022 09:05

marmel:

The other point is at least 100x more people die on the roads than have ever died from drinking contaminated water. If that is the argument you are trying to make to sell 3Water's than why don't I don't see Labour party supporters up in arms about the state of the highways? Suicide rates? We know Labour made a total mess of the $2b in funding they allocated to mantel health which appears to have been mainly swallowed up in the "system" somewhere and we have to rely on people like Mike King to raise money just so people can have access to a counsellor.

So yeah, if you are going to try the "what about people dying from dirty water" maybe start with the roads and suicides first, once that's fixed then let's sort the water.

I actually feel water is wickedly important, and am totally behind making changes to secure clean safe drinking water. I feel something needs to be done, but I feel the people objecting to the way it's being handled have some valid counter proposals.

There is a lot to fix right now and most of it's important and some of it's urgent. I feel rather than making this sweeping change where consultation has been really poor, and ramming it through with expensive marketing and mistruths that it's going to hurt people financially more if they don't do it (which is nonsense since the tax payer is paying regardless), it should have been handled differently.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2990864 2-Nov-2022 09:05

marmel:

The other point is at least 100x more people die on the roads than have ever died from drinking contaminated water. If that is the argument you are trying to make to sell 3Water's than why don't I don't see Labour party supporters up in arms about the state of the highways? Suicide rates? We know Labour made a total mess of the $2b in funding they allocated to mantel health which appears to have been mainly swallowed up in the "system" somewhere and we have to rely on people like Mike King to raise money just so people can have access to a counsellor.

So yeah, if you are going to try the "what about people dying from dirty water" maybe start with the roads and suicides first, once that's fixed then let's sort the water.

Not everyone drives or has mental health issues. Everyone drinks water.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2990870 2-Nov-2022 09:17

Rikkitic:

Not everyone drives or has mental health issues. Everyone drinks water.

A very small percentage of people are day-to-day affected by the current issues with our drinking water (Which isn't to say it doesn't have a big impact on those people) . I'd say Mental Health is a totally all-consuming health emergency right now. It's the next pandemic in NZ.

Again, I am not advocating doing nothing, but perhaps starting a total overhaul of yet another huge system, when smaller more directed action would be as appropriate now is the correct solution.

We need a total overhaul, but it's not likely to be successful when there are so many other projects on the go, some of whom are probably more urgent. Whether you agree or not, I feel that the current misterial candidates are not suitably experienced or qualified for most of these big projects and adding more to the list, isn't going to make them succeed. It would be better to de-prioritize some to allow current ministers to put their full attention where it's needed most. I don't envy Labours position right now. I consider a fair bit of it to be their own doing, but they have had their fair share of challenges to contend with, and that certainly won't help.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2990871 2-Nov-2022 09:18

Rikkitic:

I can't speak to that but Hastings clearly demonstrated it isn't up to the job. There needs to be some kind of national enforceable drinking water standard, and that is all I am advocating.

There's some serious issues with our high levels of tolerance of nitrates and other such run-off (There is such a low low threshold for these things becoming a huge issue in terms of cancer and other such illnesses) that has been completely lost in the ideological approach to water-reform, and ignoring the legitimate feedback on the 3 Waters program has intensified debate around everything but the actual outcome of better water standards.

1 | ... | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | ... | 118