Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing
quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any
overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Tony
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat makes no sense.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Tony
time until elections are restored
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more
polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishingMore nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any
overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat makes no sense.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Tony
time until elections are restored
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
Tony
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThey did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple really. >http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThat makes no sense.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Tony
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was
also not well regarded:
In late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was tooI can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that, so the government had to step in."
risky: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smith
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7
elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving
themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs
not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with
those proposals not being well supported either: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment of commissioners is democracy in action.
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed
to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater
problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss
over selling water rights.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment of commissioners is democracy in action.
and the proposed legislation is here: >>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
What Canterbury rivers are dry, Dickbot?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThey did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >really.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was.
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
Tony
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was
also not well regarded:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
In late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too
risky: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smith
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs
not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with
those proposals not being well supported either: >>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx >You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment of >commissioners is democracy in action.
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that, so >the government had to step in."
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed
to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss
over selling water rights.
Tony
On 2016-04-26, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:people
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment of
and the proposed legislation is here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
commissioners is democracy in action.
In so far as the central Government appointed the comissioners. The local
had no say.
Now one of the rules of a democray is No tax without representation. The Central Government has not explained how the comissioners represent the
local people. Rates (tax) are still being paid to E-can and I can not see
how to vote to get the representation which local people in other regions have.
That is the point. Central Government pulling rank when it suits them.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense come from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with commissioners - end of story.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThey did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>really.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was
also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16
they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you
claim this is because of the previous government?
The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did that! They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. Democracy in action!http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nationYou cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment of >>commissioners is democracy in action.
In late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>risky: >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smith
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs
not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with
those proposals not being well supported either: >>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body
that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky.
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that, >>so
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed
to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss
over selling water rights.
the government had to step in."
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:54:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou had better find a cite for that or be branded as a liar! Well?
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government gave as a reason for extending the time before fresh
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense >>come
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:They did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>>>really.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>>>>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>>>>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was >>>>>also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16
they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you
claim this is because of the previous government?
from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with >>commissioners
- end of story.
The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did >>that!You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment >>>>ofIn late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>>>risky: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smithhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs >>>>>not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with >>>>>those proposals not being well supported either: >>>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
commissioners is democracy in action.
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body >>>that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >>>representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >>>elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky.
They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. >>Democracy in action!
elections was that democracy was too risky. Do you find that
acceptable?Appears to whom? You or someone with credibility? Cite?
The results from the period of commissioner control appear to be at
least as controversial as when there were elected councillors
- theAgain any cites? From credible sources only please!
people of Canterbury are duffering from dryer and more polluted
rivers, and a lack of control over an important resource. The
appointees have failed the public.
Feel free to ask but all I have talked about is the incompetency of the presvious incumbents - you are the one that has talked about incompetency afterwards, so do you have any proof of that?I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that, >>>>so
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed >>>>>to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss >>>>>over selling water rights.
the government had to step in."
The government did step in - I am asking about evidence of competence
after the government took that action!
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government gave as a reason for extending the time before fresh
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense come >from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with commissioners
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:They did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>>really.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market" >>>>>>>>solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case >>>>>>>>of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was >>>>also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16
they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you
claim this is because of the previous government?
- end of story.
The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did that!You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment ofIn late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>>risky: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smithhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs >>>>not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with
those proposals not being well supported either: >>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
commissioners is democracy in action.
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body
that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >>representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >>elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky.
They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. >Democracy in action!
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that, >>>so
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed >>>>to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss >>>>over selling water rights.
the government had to step in."
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:54:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou had better find a cite for that or be branded as a liar! Well? http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smith
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government gave as a reason for extending the time before fresh >>elections was that democracy was too risky. Do you find that
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:I did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense >>>come
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:They did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>>>>really.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>>>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers! >>>>>>>>>>
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free market"
solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was >>>>>>also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16
they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you
claim this is because of the previous government?
from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with >>>commissioners
- end of story.
They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. >>>Democracy in action!You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The appointment >>>>>ofIn late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>>>>risky: >>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smithhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>>>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>>>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs >>>>>>not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with >>>>>>those proposals not being well supported either: >>>>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>>>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
commissioners is democracy in action.
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body >>>>that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >>>>representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >>>>elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky. >>>The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did >>>that!
Appears to me - I have given as much proof as you gave that pooracceptable?Appears to whom? You or someone with credibility? Cite?
The results from the period of commissioner control appear to be at
least as controversial as when there were elected councillors
Look at all those news articles about pollution and water problems in Canterbury and rivers in Canterbury. You know - where you got your- theAgain any cites? From credible sources only please!
people of Canterbury are duffering from dryer and more polluted
rivers, and a lack of control over an important resource. The
appointees have failed the public.
Feel free to ask but all I have talked about is the incompetency of the >presvious incumbents - you are the one that has talked about incompetency >afterwards, so do you have any proof of that?
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does that,
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed >>>>>>to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>>>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss >>>>>>over selling water rights.
so
the government had to step in."
The government did step in - I am asking about evidence of competence
after the government took that action!
Tony
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:15:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netThe title is of course misleading. Nick Smith at no point says that democracy is too risky, he says that the model does not work in Canterbury (paraphrasing to assist your comprehension).
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:54:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netYou had better find a cite for that or be branded as a liar! Well? >http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smith
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government gave as a reason for extending the time before fresh >>>elections was that democracy was too risky. Do you find that
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:I did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense >>>>come
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:They did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>>>>>really.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>>>>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers! >>>>>>>>>>>
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free >>>>>>>>>>>market"
solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the >>>>>>>>>>>case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was >>>>>>>also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16 >>>>>they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you >>>>>claim this is because of the previous government?
from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with >>>>commissioners
- end of story.
They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. >>>>Democracy in action!You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The >>>>>>appointmentIn late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>>>>>risky: >>>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smithhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>>>>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>>>>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs >>>>>>>not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with >>>>>>>those proposals not being well supported either: >>>>>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>>>>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
of
commissioners is democracy in action.
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body >>>>>that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >>>>>representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >>>>>elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky. >>>>The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did >>>>that!
Of course it appears like that to you - but you have yet to prove your point therefore I have nothing to defend.Appears to me - I have given as much proof as you gave that pooracceptable?Appears to whom? You or someone with credibility? Cite?
The results from the period of commissioner control appear to be at
least as controversial as when there were elected councillors
performance by ECANZ was all prior to the Commissoners being replaced
- you made that claim, and I have been disputing it.
That is not the same as saying that democracy is too risky (which is a generalistaion which he did not use), he is referring to the model that does not work.Look at all those news articles about pollution and water problems in >Canterbury and rivers in Canterbury. You know - where you got your- theAgain any cites? From credible sources only please!
people of Canterbury are duffering from dryer and more polluted
rivers, and a lack of control over an important resource. The
appointees have failed the public.
evidence that the commissioners have performed well enough for
elections to be deferred again, and for the basis of elections later
this year to be diluted so that the government retains effective
control of this local organisation.
Remember from the cite I gave:
"Nick Smith says a fully democratic regional authority carries "too
many risks"."
Time for you to justify your defence, TonyNot at all Rich - you have yet to demonstrate that you know the difference between an emotive headline and what was really said.
Feel free to ask but all I have talked about is the incompetency of the >>presvious incumbents - you are the one that has talked about incompetency >>afterwards, so do you have any proof of that?
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does >>>>>>that,
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed >>>>>>>to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>>>>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss >>>>>>>over selling water rights.
so
the government had to step in."
The government did step in - I am asking about evidence of competence >>>after the government took that action!
No reply from Dickbot. As expected, given he was making shit up. As usual.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:30:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
No reply from Dickbot. As expected, given he was making shit up. As usual.
Was in Canterbury last weekend. Didn't see one dryed up river
I also didn't see Patrick in Ashburton
May be they are not real?
Look at all those news articles about pollution and water problems in >Canterbury and rivers in Canterbury. You know - where you got your- theAgain any cites? From credible sources only please!
people of Canterbury are duffering from dryer and more polluted
rivers, and a lack of control over an important resource. The
appointees have failed the public.
evidence that the commissioners have performed well enough for
elections to be deferred again, and for the basis of elections later
this year to be diluted so that the government retains effective
control of this local organisation.
Remember from the cite I gave:
"Nick Smith says a fully democratic regional authority carries "too
many risks"."
Time for you to justify your defence, Tony
On 4/28/2016 12:09 PM, Liberty wrote:Maybe but there has been no notice in the papers.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:30:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>What is surprising is just how many creeks have reduced flows over
No reply from Dickbot. As expected, given he was making shit up. As usual. >>Was in Canterbury last weekend. Didn't see one dryed up river
I also didn't see Patrick in Ashburton
May be they are not real?
summer and when it starts raining in the Ranges just how quickly the
water levels in those same streams rise 4 or 5 meters in a day.
And to see Patrick in Ashburton you have to visit the cemetery
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:03:51 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netI did not mention the previous government, where did that bit of nonsense come
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:15:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:They did all of this because the previous regime was incompetent - simple >>>really.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In 2010 the National government suspended elected members of ECANZ,and >>>>appointed Commissioners.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:35:48 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:That makes no sense.
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35780-nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extractionIf that was the case there would not have been the need to extend the >>>>>>time until elections are restored
More nonsens Rich. Democracy was not rejected, incompetemce was. >>>>>>>Tony
You would think that having developed a market economy for fishing >>>>>>>>quotas, it should not be too difficult to have a similar system for >>>>>>>>commercial use of water - allowing for other water usage and any >>>>>>>>overriding community needs, such as actually having rivers!
Instead both in the USA and here, we have a rejection of "free >>>>>>>>market"
solutions and instead we have stealth changes to rules and in the >>>>>>>>case
of Canterbury, a rejection of democracy when it was not delivering >>>>>>>>sufficiently farmer and business friendly results.
In 2012 they announced that the suspension would continue, which was >>>>also not well regarded:
So in 2012 they amended what they promised in 2010, and in 2015/16
they are only pretending to restore the elected council - and you
claim this is because of the previous government?
from? The current government replaced an incompetent council with commissioners
- end of story.
The government has a duty to the people to replace incompetence, they did that!You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The >>>appointment ofIn late 2015 the government decided that restoring democracy was too >>>>risky: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/67438119/Democratic-ECan-carries-too-many-risks-says-Nick-Smithhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/7636520/Black-day-for-democracy-in-Canterbury-and-the-nation
and introduced legislation to hold partial elections in 2016, with 7 >>>>elected members, and up to 6 appointed members - presumably giving >>>>themselves sufficient safeguard against the horrors of elected membrs >>>>not being in sufficient agreement with the government . . - with
those proposals not being well supported either: >>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/289492/council-wants-elections-over-govt-appointments
and the proposed legislation is here: >>>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
commissioners is democracy in action.
Rubbish. And the retention of the removal of democrcy? This is a body
that has the power to tax - what happened to no taxation without >>representation? Even Nick Smith said when extending the period with no >>elections that the reason was that restoring democracy was too risky.
They also have a duty to determine when the commissioners should withdraw. Democracy in action!
I can only hope you will understand what I wrote - "Incompetence does >>>that,
- what makes you think we haveIncompetence does that, so the government had to step in.
competence now? So many of Canterbury's rivers are now dry, or more >>>>>>polluted - why did it all go so wrong?
What evidence do you have of competence after 2010? If it was supposed >>>>to fix previous incompetence, we now have dryer rivers, and greater >>>>problems with both flow and pollution in the Avon - before the fuss >>>>over selling water rights.
so
the government had to step in."
Tony
No reply from Dickbot. As expected, given he was making shit up. As usual.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:32:07 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 4/28/2016 12:09 PM, Liberty wrote:Maybe but there has been no notice in the papers.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:30:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>What is surprising is just how many creeks have reduced flows over
wrote:
No reply from Dickbot. As expected, given he was making shit up. As
usual.
Was in Canterbury last weekend. Didn't see one dryed up river
I also didn't see Patrick in Ashburton
May be they are not real?
summer and when it starts raining in the Ranges just how quickly the
water levels in those same streams rise 4 or 5 meters in a day.
And to see Patrick in Ashburton you have to visit the cemetery
On 4/26/2016 9:22 PM, Gordon wrote:
On 2016-04-26, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:I seem to remember Helen Clarks government doing exactly the same with a local body they thought weren't up to scratch
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot restore democracy when it has not been removed. The
and the proposed legislation is here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0060/latest/versions.aspx
appointment of
commissioners is democracy in action.
In so far as the central Government appointed the comissioners. The local
people
had no say.
Now one of the rules of a democray is No tax without representation. The
Central Government has not explained how the comissioners represent the
local people. Rates (tax) are still being paid to E-can and I can not see
how to vote to get the representation which local people in other regions
have.
That is the point. Central Government pulling rank when it suits them.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 229:23:02 |
| Calls: | 2,088 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,140 |
| Messages: | 948,528 |