https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficientPrivate industry is almost always more efficient than government departments. What a ridiculous idea. Labour got rid of the ministry in 1988 and why would they want to remove competitiveness which works well all over the world. Millions of dollars a year was spent on the old ministry and they were notoriously slow at achieving anything. Capitalism actually works regardless of what the useful idiots say!
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Private industry is almost always more efficient than government departments. >What a ridiculous idea. Labour got rid of the ministry in 1988 and why would >they want to remove competitiveness which works well all over the world. >Millions of dollars a year was spent on the old ministry and they were >notoriously slow at achieving anything. Capitalism actually works regardless >of
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >>partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
what the useful idiots say!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:18:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:duration of the project doubles due to lack of commercial and competitive imperatives.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Doesn't matter if finance rates are a couple of % less if the budget and
Just what we need, a whole lot more government employees (Dickbot's wetdream) hanging around leaning on shovels.
Next Dickbot will tell us that Chorus and Spark should be nationalised backinto the Post Office!
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Private industry is almost always more efficient than government departments. >What a ridiculous idea. Labour got rid of the ministry in 1988 and why would >they want to remove competitiveness which works well all over the world. >Millions of dollars a year was spent on the old ministry and they were >notoriously slow at achieving anything. Capitalism actually works regardless of
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >>partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
what the useful idiots say!
Tony
On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 2:56:33 PM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:duration of the project doubles due to lack of commercial and competitive imperatives.
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:18:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Doesn't matter if finance rates are a couple of % less if the budget and
dream) hanging around leaning on shovels.Just what we need, a whole lot more government employees (Dickbot's wet
into the Post Office!Next Dickbot will tell us that Chorus and Spark should be nationalised back
Drove SH1 around Kaikoura today. Was impressed with what they have done todate. The road is open but by the looks of things they still have about another
Apart from the number of workers on it didn't see anyone leaning on a shovel.but then when you consider Richie's trolling record the ignorant communist twit
Don't get me wrong Rich. The old MoW did sterling service but can never matchwhat Downer and co do.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 21:14:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat does not necessarily apply here! If it does perhaps you can explain exactly how!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Private industry is almost always more efficient than government departments. >>What a ridiculous idea. Labour got rid of the ministry in 1988 and why would >>they want to remove competitiveness which works well all over the world. >>Millions of dollars a year was spent on the old ministry and they were >>notoriously slow at achieving anything. Capitalism actually works regardless >>of
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >>>partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
what the useful idiots say!
Tony
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?__twitter_impression=true
Hopefully we will learn from the mistakes of the UK . . .
Yes the Kapiti Expressway (M2PP) was finished early and to budget, the Alliance model worked very well and had some really great advantages over the usual model. Sure there have been some repairs but I think that is almost alwaya the case and there will have been an allowance in the budget for that.On Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:18:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >> > > services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >> > > there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Doesn't matter if finance rates are a couple of % less if the budget and >> >duration of the project doubles due to lack of commercial and competitive >> >imperatives.
Just what we need, a whole lot more government employees (Dickbot's wet
dream) hanging around leaning on shovels.
Next Dickbot will tell us that Chorus and Spark should be nationalised
back into the Post Office!
Drove SH1 around Kaikoura today. Was impressed with what they have done to >>date. The road is open but by the looks of things they still have about another
twelve months of work to do to upgrade and improve it.
Apart from the number of workers on it didn't see anyone leaning on a >>shovel. but then when you consider Richie's trolling record the ignorant >>communist twit is hell bent (like his inglorious leader) on making us the >>Venezuela of the south Pacific and anything that will waste time and money is >>fine with him. After all the coalition of losers don't need the taxes from >>these industrious fellows to fund their grandiose and impossible schemes.
Don't get me wrong Rich. The old MoW did sterling service but can never >>match what Downer and co do.
There were serious issues with the old Ministry of Works like the severe cost >over-runs on the Maniatoto irrigation schemes. When this came to light a senior
Minister said 'heads must roll'. Heads did roll - but not those to top >management. In one case the guy had been operating within the culture and >guidelines of the organisation and had little influence in these things - but >he was transferred to the wop-wops so the top management could present the >scalp. A few others were sentenced to a transfer to Head Office.
In NZ TANZ is pretty savvy with roading projects and is most concerned that >contractors have the financial and knowhow capacity to deliver the work on time
and within budgets.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and
services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Again, what gives you that idea?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with youOr regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >thoughts.
Still waiting, no action yetTime to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for
providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and
lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and
services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not toAgain, what gives you that idea?
compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy aAre these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >overseas, to do so.
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 9:42:59 PM UTC+13, bowes...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 2:56:33 PM UTC+13, JohnO wrote:twelve months of work to do to upgrade and improve it.
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:18:30 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >> > > services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >> > > there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
Doesn't matter if finance rates are a couple of % less if the budget and duration of the project doubles due to lack of commercial and competitive imperatives.
Just what we need, a whole lot more government employees (Dickbot's wet dream) hanging around leaning on shovels.
Next Dickbot will tell us that Chorus and Spark should be nationalised back into the Post Office!
Drove SH1 around Kaikoura today. Was impressed with what they have done to date. The road is open but by the looks of things they still have about another
anything that will waste time and money is fine with him. After all the coalition of losers don't need the taxes from these industrious fellows to fund
Apart from the number of workers on it didn't see anyone leaning on a shovel. but then when you consider Richie's trolling record the ignorant communist twit is hell bent (like his inglorious leader) on making us the Venezuela of the south Pacific and
Minister said 'heads must roll'. Heads did roll - but not those to top management. In one case
Don't get me wrong Rich. The old MoW did sterling service but can never match what Downer and co do.
There were serious issues with the old Ministry of Works like the severe cost over-runs on the Maniatoto irrigation schemes. When this came to light a senior
In NZ TANZ is pretty savvy with roading projects and is most concerned that contractors have the financial and knowhow capacity to deliver the work on timeand within budgets.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Again, what gives you that idea?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
ago
That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any suchWhy do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>thoughts.
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in teh first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for
providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and
lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it,
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>>>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>Again, what gives you that idea?
ago
still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
You were rude, why do thatThat was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any suchWhy do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>thoughts.
things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response -
trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course
claiming.
A plan would be goodDid you really expect much to hap[pen in teh first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for
providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to
compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a
new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned overseas, to do so.
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyWhy do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>overseas, to do so.
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>thoughts.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBecause in calling for the MOW to be brought back, you are implying a
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and
services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Again, what gives you that idea?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >thoughts.
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for
providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and
lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it,
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>>>>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
why do it otherwisel
You were rude, why do that
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>claiming.Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>thoughts.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Why would you think that? Bringing back an organisation does not mean re-installing mechanical telephone switching - that is what was
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKeyBecause in calling for the MOW to be brought back, you are implying a >reversal of similar decisions made in the same era.
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled
the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well >>>> - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher
bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
You may not be doing that but in tour original post you did not makeIt didn't need to! The MoW was split up and sold during the peak of provatisation under Ruthenasia - but I was referring to efficiency
clear that you advocacy to re-establish the MOU did not extend to
other similar decisions of that era.
Again, what gives you that idea?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any
such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>thoughts.
See above.
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for
providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and
lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse
than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
Correct. What government department has been sacked like Serco was
when they failed to deliver? Feel free to cite how civil servants
were sacked for failing to deliver.
On 2018-01-18, HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from
proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to
compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank
permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a
new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned
overseas, to do so.
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......
FFS, lets leave Lange and Douglas and all that they created into history.
The real challange is one of balance and control. Capatalism does not scale >well.
There are certain things a developed country needs. Roads, power supply, >politcal stability, and army to protect its people, and all other sorts of >intra structure. A yes a stable money supply come in here as well.
When spending taxpayers, that is your money the Goverment needs to ensure >value from it is obtained. Any one think that the rebuilding of SH1 after
the earthquake was a waste of money?
The arrow of time results in everything decaying, and this applies to >organisations and poltical systems, beliefs and ideals.
The MOW works satred out as an efficient organisation but over time it fell >into dis-repair. Became $ in and not alot of value out.
Since 1984, this has been replaced by the neolibreal ideas which have >resulted in fat cats getting fatter.
Remember Max Braford (born this day in 1942) who said that deregulationExactly - MoW was the product of its times and the politicians that
would ensure that power prices would become lower? Yes it was a Tui ad.
So to Rich on one side and to the rest on the other, supervision is needed. >This has not happened.
It has been pointed out that advertising costs money, and advertising is
done in a market free world. So all the advertising which has happened since >the market was deregulated has been paid for partly by the increased prices. >Remember that when the electricty generation was under state control there >was no need to advertise.
Remember also that under a National Goverment, Muldoon power prices doubled >in two years.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:03:11 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it,
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>>>>> shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>>>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>>>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
why do it otherwisel
Labut got rid of it? See: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Works_and_Development
By 1988 Natonal were in government.
"The New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, formerly the
Department of Public Works and often referred to as the Public Works >Department or PWD, was founded in 1876 and disestablished and
privatised in 1988. The Ministry had its own Cabinet-level responsible >minister, the Minister of Works or Minister of Public Works."
and
While the policy functions were either disestablished or passed on to
other Government departments, the commercial operations were set up as
Works and Development Services Corporation (a state-owned enterprise)
and the computing bureau and the buildings maintenance units were
sold. The corporation had two main subsidiaries, Works Consultancy
Services and Works Civil Construction. These were sold in 1996 and
became Opus International Consultants and Works Infrastructure
respectively, and the corporation was disestablished.
You were rude, why do that
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>>claiming.Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>>>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>>thoughts.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least - >>>>>given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse >>>>>than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 21:14:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netdepartments.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot
Private industry is almost always more efficient than government
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >>partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
ofWhat a ridiculous idea. Labour got rid of the ministry in 1988 and why would >they want to remove competitiveness which works well all over the world. >Millions of dollars a year was spent on the old ministry and they were >notoriously slow at achieving anything. Capitalism actually works regardless
what the useful idiots say!
Tony
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?__twitter_impression=true
Hopefully we will learn from the mistakes of the UK . . .
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:03:11 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:No they were not
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it,
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>>>>> shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>>>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>>>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
why do it otherwisel
Labut got rid of it? See: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Works_and_Development
By 1988 Natonal were in government.
"The New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, formerly the
Department of Public Works and often referred to as the Public Works >Department or PWD, was founded in 1876 and disestablished and
privatised in 1988. The Ministry had its own Cabinet-level responsible >minister, the Minister of Works or Minister of Public Works."
and
While the policy functions were either disestablished or passed on to
other Government departments, the commercial operations were set up as
Works and Development Services Corporation (a state-owned enterprise)
and the computing bureau and the buildings maintenance units were
sold. The corporation had two main subsidiaries, Works Consultancy
Services and Works Civil Construction. These were sold in 1996 and
became Opus International Consultants and Works Infrastructure
respectively, and the corporation was disestablished.
You were rude, why do that
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>>claiming.Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>>>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>>thoughts.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least - >>>>>given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse >>>>>than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:03:11 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it, >>>why do it otherwisel
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>>>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>>>>>> shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
Labut got rid of it? See: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Works_and_Development
By 1988 Natonal were in government.
Wow - rewriting history are you?
David Lange was prime minister from 26 July 1984 to 8 August 1989. I don't >recall him ever being in a National Governmenet. Do you?
"The New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, formerly the
Department of Public Works and often referred to as the Public Works >>Department or PWD, was founded in 1876 and disestablished and
privatised in 1988. The Ministry had its own Cabinet-level responsible >>minister, the Minister of Works or Minister of Public Works."
and
While the policy functions were either disestablished or passed on to
other Government departments, the commercial operations were set up as >>Works and Development Services Corporation (a state-owned enterprise)
and the computing bureau and the buildings maintenance units were
sold. The corporation had two main subsidiaries, Works Consultancy
Services and Works Civil Construction. These were sold in 1996 and
became Opus International Consultants and Works Infrastructure >>respectively, and the corporation was disestablished.
You were rude, why do that
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>>>claiming.Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>>>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>>>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>>>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>>>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy aAre these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>>>thoughts.
new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>>>overseas, to do so.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least - >>>>>>given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse >>>>>>than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:03:11 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it,
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>>>>> shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and >>>>>>> services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National governments >>>>>>> saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government than >>>>>>> for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then >>>>>>> there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
why do it otherwisel
Labut got rid of it? See: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Works_and_Development
By 1988 Natonal were in government.
"The New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, formerly the
Department of Public Works and often referred to as the Public Works >Department or PWD, was founded in 1876 and disestablished and
privatised in 1988. The Ministry had its own Cabinet-level responsible >minister, the Minister of Works or Minister of Public Works."
and
While the policy functions were either disestablished or passed on to
other Government departments, the commercial operations were set up as
Works and Development Services Corporation (a state-owned enterprise)
and the computing bureau and the buildings maintenance units were
sold. The corporation had two main subsidiaries, Works Consultancy
Services and Works Civil Construction. These were sold in 1996 and
became Opus International Consultants and Works Infrastructure
respectively, and the corporation was disestablished.
You were rude, why do that
a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>>claiming.Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy a >>>>>>new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>>overseas, to do so.Are these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>>thoughts.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least - >>>>>given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse >>>>>than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 13:56:33 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWe all make mistakes, however the only reason for reconstituting the MoW is political - and that makes it dangerous, unfair and stupid. Capitalism works regardless of what some say, it is practised by 99% of the world for that reason regardless of whether they pretend to be left wing or not. All alternatives fail, almost always.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:03:11 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:56:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:19:28 +1300, Sam@truthisright.org wrote:But the MoW was notoriously wastefu. that is why Labour got rid of it, >>>>why do it otherwisel
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:03:23 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Of course much has changed over 30 years - but that has not stopped us >>>>>still having many of the Government Departments we had back then.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey >>>>>>><nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Bringing back the MoW is a silly idea, going back to what was 30 years >>>>>>ago
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>>>>>>>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient >>>>>>>>> than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to >>>>>>>>> shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and
services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National >>>>>>>>>governments
saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF government be fooled >>>>>>>>> the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government >>>>>>>>>than
for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having >>>>>>>>> partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed >>>>>>>>>well
- for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a higher >>>>>>>>> bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have >>>>>>>>the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed? >>>>>>>No, why would anyone want to do that?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>>>>>>>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>>>>>>>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one). >>>>>>>Again, what gives you that idea?
Labut got rid of it? See: >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Works_and_Development
By 1988 Natonal were in government.
Wow - rewriting history are you?
David Lange was prime minister from 26 July 1984 to 8 August 1989. I don't >>recall him ever being in a National Governmenet. Do you?
I do apologise - you are of course correct. I was thinking of the 1984 >government only lasting three years to 1987, but yes it did last
longer. In a sense as we now know it was a government that was more a >forerunner of the later National governments than representative of
Labour governments either before or after - an abherration that while
it inherited a mess, carried the "solutions" far too far - the
tributes to Jim Anderton should have reminded me of the mistakes made
in that period.
"The New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, formerly the >>>Department of Public Works and often referred to as the Public Works >>>Department or PWD, was founded in 1876 and disestablished and
privatised in 1988. The Ministry had its own Cabinet-level responsible >>>minister, the Minister of Works or Minister of Public Works."
and
While the policy functions were either disestablished or passed on to >>>other Government departments, the commercial operations were set up as >>>Works and Development Services Corporation (a state-owned enterprise)
and the computing bureau and the buildings maintenance units were
sold. The corporation had two main subsidiaries, Works Consultancy >>>Services and Works Civil Construction. These were sold in 1996 and
became Opus International Consultants and Works Infrastructure >>>respectively, and the corporation was disestablished.
You were rude, why do that
Why do you have to be so rude, just because someone disagrees with you >>>>>That was misrepresentation - I clearly had not even implied any such >>>>>things. The unjustified assumptions were I suspect a panic response - >>>>>trying to deflect from what I had actually posted by interpreting with >>>>>irrelevant drivel. It is as irrelevant as my claiming you are wearing >>>>>a pink shirt with a yellow stripe . . . - which I am not of course >>>>>claiming.
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>>>>>>>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buy >>>>>>>>aAre these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any >>>>>>>such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur >>>>>>>thoughts.
new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds, earned >>>>>>>>overseas, to do so.
A plan would be good
Did you really expect much to hap[pen in the first 100 days?Still waiting, no action yet
Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least - >>>>>>>given that our current government does take responsibility for >>>>>>>providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and >>>>>>>lowest cost to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse >>>>>>>than was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: >>>>>>>https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:10:19 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:18:27 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:No, why would anyone want to do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses- >>carillion-money-george-monbiot
Time and time again we see that private companies are more efficient
than the State - but only in relation to transferring profits to
shareholders and key managers, not to actually producing the goods and
services that they are contracted to provide.
Let this be a lesson to governments - the previous National
governments saw failures that cost taxpayers; will the LGNZF
government be fooled the same way?
The reality is that financing costs are cheaper for the government
than for anyone else - that is an immediate benefit for not having
partnerships with private companies that finance at higher rates. Then
there is control, and whether quality and risk are actually managed
well - for if anything goes wrong, the taxpayer ends up footing a
higher bill.
I assume you'd also see merit in nationalising Spark so we can all have
the privilege of waiting six months for a telephone to be installed?
Or re-regulating the transport industry to prevent heavy trucks from >>proceeding more than a few km from their registered base so as not to >>compete with the railways (a very large hidden subsidy, that one).Again, what gives you that idea?
Or regulating foreign exchange to require that you need Reserve Bank >>permission to fund your overseas trip; or to ensure that you cannot buyAre these pet fetishes of yours? Certainly I have not indicated any such actions - perhaps HitAnyKey is a description of the order of yur
a new car unless you can prove you have sufficient overseas funds,
earned overseas, to do so.
thoughts.
foot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office?Time to bring back the good ol' days indeed .......That part of it which calls for responsible government at least -
given that our current government does take responsibility for providing social housing, let them do it with maximum efficiency and lowest cost
to taxpayers.
Who could deny that the contracts with Serco have turned out worse than
was anticipated. We can also learn from the United Kingdom: https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/18/taxpayers-to-
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 17:39:29 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,473 |