On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the
time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under the >> >>>>5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to govern, >> >>>they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party
doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green
Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do
not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any.
And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion devoid

of

facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to exist alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance
without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies
technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons
cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three
Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other
parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with
Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which
successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about
water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about
the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven for being
loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and
Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours
proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that
I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 22:35:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:12:16 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 01:01:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:40:38 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 22:39:22 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:11:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:08:55 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people

This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the
time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to >>>>>>>>>>>>govern,
they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you >>>>>>>>>>>could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's >>>>>>>>>>>record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its >>>>>>>>>>>opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party
doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green
Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do
not all do it.

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about >>>>>>>>>>>>>water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about
the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven >>>>>>>>>>>>for
being
loyal to your political masters but not for the lies. >>>>>>>>>>>LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would >>>>>>>>>>>probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and

Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I >>>>>>>>>>>suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours >>>>>>>>>>>proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes. >>>>>>>>>>

Labour did not and could not provide details on their various tax >>>>>>>>>>policies. National, quite properly, exploited this weakness. >>>>>>>>>National did not disclose any details on their policies for water >>>>>>>>>taxes, although they had public servants working on it for some time >>>>>>>>>before the election.

This is totally understandable given that Little resigned at the last >>>>>>>>>>minute before the election and no-one seems to have seen this coming. >>>>>>>>>>The new leader therefore had to cobble together something new that the
old leader had not, in order to gain traction fast. She did that and >>>>>>>>>>I believe the overall election result demonstrates that the new Labour
leader will lead them back from the wilderness. She nearly did that >>>>>>>>>>in just a few weeks.

The original article cited is evidence of a local squabble in >>>>>>>>>>Morrinsville.

You obviously missed this:
"What's become apparent to me is that Federated Farmers has become a >>>>>>>>>voice-piece for the National Party. It made me want to resign but >>>>>>>>>there are good people in it like Andrew McGiven and Chris Lewis (dairy >>>>>>>>>section chairman) who do their best for farmers and work hard at >>>>>>>>>trying to rebuild it."

It must be difficult for you only having one eye most of the time, >>>>>>>>>Tony. Hint - Federated Farmers is wider than just Morrinsville, and >>>>>>>>>National pride themselves on Steven Joyce having managed their >>>>>>>>>campaign closely from Wellington . . .

"Tony" is that last paragraph should obviously have been "Crash." I >>>>>>>>apologise and assure you that an insult was not intended.

I am sure that Crash would not be offended (hint!).
Tony

I would not presume to speak for Crash, Tony but under the >>>>>>circumstances he may well have been offended.

Only because you tend to offend people, especially those that are of a >>>>>sensible
disposition.

You do realise of course that National's "Rent a Mob" are paid through >>>>>>subsidies for polluters, government subsidies for water irrigation >>>>>>etc. Your taxes at work for political gain! I guess its OK if you are >>>>>>on the receiving end . . .

No I do not realise that, because it is yet another lie.

Do you deny that farmers are the most conspicuous exemption from the >>>>emissions trading scheme, effectively giving a subsidy to that
industry that has to be met by taxpayers? Do you deny that the >>>>government has paid for quite a few irrigations schemes that benefit >>>>private farms? Do you deny that National commissioned a working group >>>>to look into ways of using user charges to regulate water usage in
some areas?

Don't be so silly!

Asking you to agree to facts is indeed silly, but that you decline to >>address the questions you demonstate you are not interested in the
tuth

You are right it is silly, that you continue to behave in a dishonest and silly
way is palpably a fact.

National and Labour n=both have questionable ideas on this count, your >>>assumption that pne is wprse than the other is stupid because you do not know
the facts any more than any one else.

So in relation to the emmissions trading scheme, is National's policy
of not asking for any contribution from farmers questionable? Is
Labour's policy of investigating phasing in some contribution to act
as an incentive to assist in improving water quality and meeting
emmission targets questionable? Is National's policy of paying for >>irrigation schemes for priovate gain questionable? What Labour policy
do you believe is questionable in this area?

Do your own work, I am not here for your benefit!

Apart from the cost to taxpayers (funded by National undertaking >>>>additional borrowing), the other cost is of course the contempt in >>>>which National is held relating to climate change goals that New >>>>Zealand is committed to, or targets for clean water, or any chance of >>>>National going into coalition with the Green Party - having no friends >>>>does make coalition deals difficult . . .

Nationsla borrowing was essentil for us to survive the international downturn
so well and the terrible cost of the earthquakes but if course you can never >>>give credit where it is due.

How much of borrowing was required to meet the cost of the
earthquakes, Tony? I think you will find it is a relatively small part
of total borrowing.

I think you are billions of dollars out, but you do the work!

I am not on the receiving end of any handouts, I have earned what I have. >>>>>How
about you?

I was not referring to you personally - I was aware that you are not a >>>>dairy farmer. Nationals poor economic management has meant that it
will be harder for future governments to support NZ Superannuation for >>>>future generations . . .

Their excellent economic management under the circumstances stated above give
the country a chance.

Their reduction in income tax only partially offset by increasing GST
set us off on a poor track right from the start. We now have a mess in >>health and education through underfunding, and many businesses have
been hard hit by the reductions in spending power for a large part of
the population. Housing has been a disaster for National, with poor >>economic decisions leading to private profits at the expense of
government, and huge costs for temporary housing. The asset sales have
been a disaster. Their economic management has been average in places,
and poor in others.

Some of it has been exactly what was needed as I have already patiently >explained.

No you haven't. Give one example where National did what was needed .
. .

The not so brilliant happened too, as it did under Labour (a mixed bag)

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 22:32:54 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people

This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the >>>>>>time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under the >>>>>>5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to govern, >>>>>they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's >>>>record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its >>>>opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party >>>>doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green >>>>Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do >>>>not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any.
And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion devoid >>>of
facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

Any more than you can of National!

The Maori Party was voted out at the last election, and the reasons
are widely seen to include National not giving them electoral "wins"
on issues that mattered such as low incomes for Maori,
over-representation of Maori in incarceration stats, high Maori
unemployment, particularly for young Maori, and poor health outcomes
for Maori - largely from the above issues plus National's running down
of health services. The small "policy gains" that the Maori Party
achieved were not seen as relevant to many Maori - National blamed the
Maori Party for failures but took credit for bits that worked for
themselves.

ACT was getting smaller by itself, but National crippled it by
encouraging first Don Brash then John Banks to become its leader - and
then giving them nothing to show for their consistent support of
everything National did. They are now a puppet party of National -
exploiting an electoprate seat loophole to effectively deliver half a
seat on average to National.

United Future similarly became a poodle-party of National - with no
hope of getting any other MPs

NZ First has been in government with National from 1996 to 1998, and
then with Labour from 2005 to 2008

From the wiki:
"New Zealand First had a relatively smooth coalition relationship with
National at first. Despite early concerns about the ability of Peters
to work with Bolger, who had sacked Peters from a former National
cabinet, the two did not have major problems.

New Zealand First had graver concerns about the behaviour of some of
its MPs, whom opponents accused of incompetence and extravagant
spending. Many people came to the conclusion that the party's minor
MPs had come into parliament merely to provide votes for Peters, and
would not make any real contributions themselves. A particularly
damaging scandal involved Tuku Morgan.

Gradually, however, the coalition tensions became more significant
than problems of party discipline. This became increasingly the case
after Transport Minister Jenny Shipley gained enough support within
the National caucus to force Bolger's resignation and become Prime
Minister (8 December 1997). The tensions between the two parties also
rose as New Zealand First adopted a more aggressive approach to
promoting its policies (including those that National would not
implement). This new attitude probably fed off New Zealand First's
poor performance in opinion polls, which (to Peters) indicated that
the party's success rested on its confrontational style. Many
commentators believe that Peters performs better in opposition than in Government.

On 14 August 1998, Shipley sacked Peters from Cabinet. This occurred
after an ongoing dispute about the sale of the government's stake in
Wellington International Airport.

Peters immediately broke off the coalition with National. However,
several other MPs, unwilling to follow Peters out of government, tried
to replace Peters with Henare. This caucus-room coup failed, and most
of these MPs joined Henare in forming a new party, Mauri Pacific,
while others established themselves as independents. Many of these MPs
had come under public scrutiny for their behaviour. Until 1999,
however, they provided National with enough support to continue.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First for more
including the 2005 to 1008 period with Labour. The controversies
occuring relating to NZ First were all internal to NZ First; the
coalition did not affect the NZ First party particularly; and in the
lead up to 2011, "At the beginning of the election campaign New
Zealand First was polling at around 2% in most major polls and was
effectively written off by most political commentators. Prime Minister
John Key had ruled out working with Peters and New Zealand First,
however Opposition Leader Phil Goff had stated he was open to working
with New Zealand First post-election provided they made it back into Parliament."

While 2011 is a while ago, Labour has a history of showing more resect
to NZ First than National . . .

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about >>>>>>water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about >>>>>>the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven for >>>>>being
loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would >>>>probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and >>>>Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I >>>>suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours >>>>proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that
I was wrong . . .

Do your own research.

Your claim - show any evidence that our overall borrowing level was significantly affected by the earthquakes . . . or is this just
another of your lies?

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:48:58 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the
time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under the >> >>>>5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to

govern,

they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party >> >>doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green
Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do
not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any.
And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion

devoid of

facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to exist

alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance
without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies
technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons
cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

Ah, so Labour's mates wither and die - nothing to see here. Nats mates do the same and it's all the Nats fault.

One day the scales will fall from your eyes, Dickbot.

Actually they probably won't and if they did you'd just put them back in again.

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about
water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about
the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven for

being

loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and
Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours
proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that
I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:48:58 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> >>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the >> >> >>>>time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under the
5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to govern,
they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party >> >> >>doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green >> >> >>Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do >> >> >>not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any.
And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion devoid of
facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to exist alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance
without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies
technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons
cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three
Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other
parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with
Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which
successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

Ah, so Labour's mates wither and die - nothing to see here. Nats mates do the same and it's all the Nats fault.

Can't you read? Values, the Alliance and New Labour were never in
government with Labour, and were not "mates" of Labour.

One day the scales will fall from your eyes, Dickbot.

Actually they probably won't and if they did you'd just put them back in again.

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about
water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about >> >> >>>>the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven for being
loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and >> >> >>Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours
proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that
I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 5 October 2017 07:58:27 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:48:58 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the >> >>>>time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under

the

5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to

govern,

they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party >> >>doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green >> >>Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do >> >>not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any.
And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion

devoid of

facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to

exist alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

Ah, so Labour's mates wither and die - nothing to see here. Nats mates do the

same and it's all the Nats fault.

One day the scales will fall from your eyes, Dickbot.

Actually they probably won't and if they did you'd just put them back in

again.


And of course we mustn't forget that Labour came very close to destroying the Green Party in this very election - their support dropped from 10.7 to 5.9 - perilously close to elimination.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97077173/when-jacinda-ardern-knifed-metiria-turei-she-changed-the-election-for-good

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about >> >>>>water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about >> >>>>the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven

for being

loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and >> >>Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours
proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that
I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03:32 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:48:58 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> >>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the >> >> >>>>time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under

the

5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to

govern,

they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other

party

doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green >> >> >>Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do >> >> >>not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any. >> >> >And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion

devoid of

facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to

exist alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance
without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies
technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons
cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three
Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other
parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with
Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which
successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

Ah, so Labour's mates wither and die - nothing to see here. Nats mates do

the same and it's all the Nats fault.

Can't you read? Values, the Alliance and New Labour were never in
government with Labour, and were not "mates" of Labour.

You said: "I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a political ally."

Nothing about whether they had a seat, or were in government.

You have been shown up as spouting ignorant drivel. Now you are wriggling on a hook of your own making by introducing all sorts of goalpost moves such as "but
they had no seats", "they weren't in coalition", "He resigned" blah blah blah.

Pathetic weaseling by Dickbot.

As usual.

One day the scales will fall from your eyes, Dickbot.

Actually they probably won't and if they did you'd just put them back in

again.

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about >> >> >>>>water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about >> >> >>>>the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven

for being

loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and >> >> >>Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours
proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that >> >> I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:52:53 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03:32 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 19:48:58 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 15:33:55 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:07:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> >> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 16:30:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/97324748/farmer-candidate-abused-by-my-own-people
This puts s a few of those "farmer protests"in perspective - at the
time National was trying to get both NZ First and the Greens under

the

5% threshold.

Standard behaviour for any party including Labour when looking to govern,
they
all do it as you well know.

Yes we know you are following the C-T sript Tony, but perhaps you
could demonstrate any other party coming even close to National's
record of destroying its allies and blatantly lying about its
opposition - see if you can scrape up just one cite of any other party
doing what National have tried to do to NZ First, Labour or the Green
Party. Your hollow rhetoric just doesn;t measure up - and no they do
not all do it.

Of course they do and your precious leaders have been as bad as any. >> >> >> >And no I will not do your research for you! You expressed an opinion devoid of
facts, do your own research.

I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a
political ally.

I've never seen a party destroy an ally in NZ. Indeed why would they?

But Values, the Alliance Party and New Labour party have all ceased to exist alongside Labour.

You really have no idea, do you!
Values never got an MP, so were never in coalition with anyone. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

For the Alliance, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(New_Zealand_political_party)
Until the Labour government under Clark, the Alliance was in
opposition, but in 1999 they went into coalition with Labour. Their
demise was however due to internal tensions - their MPs supported
Labour more than some in the party wanted them to."...Eventually,
Anderton decided to leave the Alliance and establish a new party.
However, rules regarding changes of party allegiance meant that
Anderton and his allies could not officially resign from the Alliance
without also resigning from parliament, which they were unwilling to
do. This led to the awkward situation of Anderton and his allies
technically remaining part of the Alliance while actually operating
outside of it. The conflict within the Alliance was one of the reasons
cited by Helen Clark for her calling the election several months early
in 2002.

Anderton, along with three other Alliance MPs, established the
Progressive Coalition Party (later just the Progressive Party). Three
Alliance MPs, led by Laila Harré, chose to remain with the Alliance.
The remaining three MPs (two supporting Anderton, one supporting
Harré) decided not to stand for parliament again. The Democrats, one
of the two Alliance components still having a separate identity, chose
to follow Anderton, while Mana Motuhake, the other, chose to stay.
Labour was largely successful in avoiding being drawn into the
dispute...."
So again no evidence of Labour causing the demise of the Alliance.

New Labour is covered by the same Wiki given above for the Alliance -
it was a break-away from Labour, and disapperaed by joining with other
parties to form the Alliance - again they were never in coalition with
Labour.

You didn't mention to Progressives, formed by Jim Anderton, which
successfully cooperated with Labour until Anderton decided to retire -
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Anderton%27s_Progressive_Party

Again no evidence of acions by Labour hastening the decline of that
party

So you are totally wrong on all three of your unsupported assertions -
I doubt anyone is surprised at that . . .

Ah, so Labour's mates wither and die - nothing to see here. Nats mates do the same and it's all the Nats fault.

Can't you read? Values, the Alliance and New Labour were never in
government with Labour, and were not "mates" of Labour.

You said: "I knew you could not give even one example of Labour destroying a political ally."

Nothing about whether they had a seat, or were in government.

When in opposition parties do not have allies - even under the MoU
between Labour and The Green Party they agreed to cooperate on some
issues but both parties sought to maximise their share of the party
vote. In government under MMP there are formal agreements to enable
governments to operate. Entering into such an agreement with National
has been determinental to the health of any party that has done so.
Values, the Alliance and New Labour were never in government with
Labour, were not "mates" of Labour, and were not allies. .

You pathetic attempt to evade the truth of National's inability to
cooperate with anyone by deliberately twisting anything said to you is unfortunately typical of the 'blinkered believers'

You have been shown up as spouting ignorant drivel. Now you are wriggling on a

hook of your own making by introducing all sorts of goalpost moves such as "but
they had no seats", "they weren't in coalition", "He resigned" blah blah blah.

Pathetic weaseling by Dickbot.

As usual.

One day the scales will fall from your eyes, Dickbot.

Actually they probably won't and if they did you'd just put them back in again.

And the Nats have still not fronted up to what they would do about >> >> >> >>>>water taxes . . . they set up a committee but won't even talk about
the terms of reference . . .

So what? Labour still haven't committed either. You can be forgiven

for being

loyal to your political masters but not for the lies.

LAbour gave a fair amount of detail - enough to see that it would
probably cost the farmers that attended National's "kick NZ First and
Labour" rally less than the expense of getting to Morrinsville. I
suspect that National agreed with the general direction of Labours >> >> >> >>proposals, but were prepared to lie for political purposes.

You suspect all sorts of things, usually wrongly.

But you cannot get involved enough to actually identify anywhere that >> >> >> I was wrong . . .

Tony

Tony

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 10/5/2017 10:34 AM, JohnO wrote:

And of course we mustn't forget that Labour came very close to destroying the

Green Party in this very election - their support dropped from 10.7 to 5.9 - perilously close to elimination.

Wasn't that the work of the obese one admitting to a criminal act for
some totally inexplicable reason

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)