All the criticisms of Labour seem not to be about anything that is happening now, but about some anticipated future catastrophe that will result from their actions. That is just Chicken Little screaming that the Sky is going to fall. I don't buy it.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
All the criticisms of Labour seem not to be about anything that is happening now, but about some anticipated future catastrophe that will result from their actions. That is just Chicken Little screaming that the Sky is going to fall. I don't buy it.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
All the criticisms of Labour seem not to be about anything that is happening now, but about some anticipated future catastrophe that will result from their actions. That is just Chicken Little screaming that the Sky is going to fall. I don't buy it.
If you think that's true, then I am not sure what thread you have been subscribed to.
There is plenty in *this* thread talking about what failures they have already had (Including walking back almost all their flagship policies and being a week from 100 days and having not even got to 30% of their targets).
If you aren't concerned by that, I don't expect anything at all would ever alarm you.
And all this has affected us - how? All I see here are cries from you and a few others about all the disasters that will come raining down on us. I haven't seen much sign of the actual disasters, though.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Rikkitic:
And all this has affected us - how? All I see here are cries from you and a few others about all the disasters that will come raining down on us. I haven't seen much sign of the actual disasters, though.
Well, I don't really feel I should need to explain these simple concepts to you, but..
Labour made a bunch of promises, these were supposed to be things that made NZ better. They have broken those promises, which means at least in those ways (if you thought they were going to be better) NZ won't be "better".
National made promises I felt were much better for NZ, which I firmly believe they would have delivered on.
If Labour aren't going to make these changes, then we should have stuck with National who would have delivered on a more positive New Zealand.
As for your last comment, if your intended measure of Labours success is that there aren't any major disasters of their causing, then no wonder you are content with them so far. The rest of us are waiting on them to deliver the better NZ.
Given I consider almost everything they want to do a disaster, I am happy for them to break as many of those promises as they can, at least it limits the mess they make for National to clean up. I am making the points about their failure to deliver because I think it's important to do what you say you will do.
If National left the nation in good shape and there has been no critical changes in conditions since the election then there is no need for rushed changes. I prefer the current leadership takes full stock and makes well considered decisions. If that means their initial schedule is changed then so be it.
MikeB4:
If National left the nation in good shape and there has been no critical changes in conditions since the election then there is no need for rushed changes. I prefer the current leadership takes full stock and makes well considered decisions. If that means their initial schedule is changed then so be it.
This is the schedule they set, targets they set, policies they set, which they said were properly thought out and properly costed, both lies.
They aren't just changing the schedule, they are saying they won't do some of these things (Tree planting near 1B for example) under any time frame.
Water is wet
MikeB4:
Water is wet
You are starting to worry me.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11979828
Another wonderful Labour failure.
More wet water.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
networkn:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11979828
Another wonderful Labour failure.
English says:
"They don't sit round in these endless processes of writing strategies and talking about high-level good intentions and wondering what they are there for.
"That is what the public service will do if they can."
A quintessential feature of a labour government. The thing is it doesn't have to be. That's what annoys me.
Yup. 100% agree with this. I thought they might have learned a few things, but no, re-inventing the wheel seems to be the order of the day.
Rikkitic:Here is a cartoon that was in our local paper today. I think it makes the point nicely.
MikeB4:
rjt123:
Males and females might be intellectually equal. However it is indisputable that they are biologically different. Therefore your extrapolation is actually illogical.
How do the physical differences affect the ability to do the job in question here?
There is no difference physically.
“There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody.”
Florynce Kennedy
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |