http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 14:58:48 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
No more SOE asset sales you plonker.
Are you really that think that you think a government could or should stop selling general assets? You think they should just hang onto anything, even if it is broken, useless, redundant or loss-making?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:12:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>selling general assets? You think they should just hang onto anything, even if it is broken, useless, redundant or loss-making?
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 14:58:48 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
No more SOE asset sales you plonker.
Are you really that think that you think a government could or should stop
These are not "general assets" - they are a strategic holding to
ensure that the government can meet the foreseeable and continuing
need to provide housing assistance. "General assets" do not cost
around $400 million!
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 15:43:51 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:if
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:12:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 14:58:48 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
No more SOE asset sales you plonker.
Are you really that think that you think a government could or should stop >> >selling general assets? You think they should just hang onto anything, even
No JohnO he will not because he is intellectually dishonest which is one of the worst types of dishonesty; because he is not stupid he is therefore culpable! Tonyit is broken, useless, redundant or loss-making?
These are not "general assets" - they are a strategic holding to
ensure that the government can meet the foreseeable and continuing
need to provide housing assistance. "General assets" do not cost
around $400 million!
You are wandering into conjecture. Dragging you back to thread... they are not >SOEs. And that is what Nats said - no SOE asset sales. Will you *ever* stop >your dishonest twisting of other people's words?
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the heat >has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the heat >>has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short
listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for
formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>heat
wrote:
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short
listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for
formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services,
smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but
profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefully
fudge answering how many . . .
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Stated as a fact but of course it is not fact, it is opinion at best.
wrote:
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the heat >>>has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short
listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for
formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services,
smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the >government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but
profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefullyWhy do you have to lie? The number of houses sold from stock is always reported annually!
fudge answering how many . . .
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Stated as a fact but of course it is not fact, it is opinion at best.
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the heat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short >>>listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for >>>formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services, >>smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the >>government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but >>profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefullyWhy do you have to lie? The number of houses sold from stock is always reported
fudge answering how many . . .
annually!
If you were to criticise the government in a balanced way you would not attract
accusations of lying and many would debate with you in a reasoned way. But you >will have to accept the abuse you so well deserve as long as you continue to >lie!
On Friday, 18 March 2016 06:25:25 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the heat
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short
listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for
formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services,
smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the
government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but
profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefully
fudge answering how many . . .
No they don;t you pathetic little liar. First of all it is not up to the Nats to sell houses - it is the Housing New Zealand Corporation that manages their stock. And they are very transparent and always have been with such information.
http://www.hnzc.co.nz/our-publications/annual-report/2014-15-annual-report/Annual-Report-2015.pdf
From which you can easily see they sold 519 of 68,229 houses in the period.
You would also see, if you bothered (or were capable of) reading it, that there are some 487 new builds added with a target of 2000.
No carefully fudged answers there. Just simple numbers.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:07:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Stated as a fact but of course it is not fact, it is opinion at best.
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the >>>>>heat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the >>>>>> state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short >>>>listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for >>>>formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to >>>>be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups >>>>if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services, >>>smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the >>>government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but >>>profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefullyWhy do you have to lie? The number of houses sold from stock is always >>reported
fudge answering how many . . .
annually!
If you were to criticise the government in a balanced way you would not >>attract
accusations of lying and many would debate with you in a reasoned way. But >>you
will have to accept the abuse you so well deserve as long as you continue to >>lie!
A bit strong, Tony, but I understand where you are coming from. Rich
and others strongly opposed to National will have to find a better way
to capture public support. That they have failed to make inroads on >National's popularity since the general election in 2008 says more
about them than National and John Key (who are not good, just the best
of a poor choice).
--Yes Crash it is a bit strong; I have an aversion to people who betray the gift of intellect they have by indulging in lies.
Crash McBash
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:12:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 14:58:48 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
No more SOE asset sales you plonker.
Are you really that think that you think a government could or should stop >>selling general assets? You think they should just hang onto anything,
even if it is broken, useless, redundant or loss-making?
These are not "general assets" - they are a strategic holding to
ensure that the government can meet the foreseeable and continuing
need to provide housing assistance. "General assets" do not cost
around $400 million!
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:12 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>So you'd rather see the houses sold to a national company rather than to
wrote:
On 17 Mar 2016 04:37:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@clear.net.nz> wrote:
On 2016-03-17, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:58:37 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Sell, then we allow the new owners to have no management rules when the >>>heat
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
I quote: "The Government was now asking these community housing
organisations to submit formal proposals to purchase and manage the
state houses."
What's your issue here, Rich?
has died down. Step by step to sell as in it is yours.
You know this Gordon? If so how come - the article names the short
listed organisations and specifies that the Government is asking for
formal proposals. Nothing signed and sealed, and proposals are yet to
be made let alone accepted.
As a taxpayer I am happy that state assets be sold to community groups
if they can do better than civil servants.
Fragmented ownership will make it more difficult to provide services,
smaller owners will increase unit costs, and history suggests that the government will allow 're-development' with less social housing - but
profit for he new owners.
The Nats have already sold quite a lot of houses - they carefully
fudge answering how many . . .
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 14:58:48 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11607233
No more SOE asset sales you plonker.
Are you really that think that you think a government could or should stop selling general assets? You think they should just hang onto anything,
even if it is broken, useless, redundant or loss-making?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 134:49:47 |
| Calls: | 2,000 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,111 |
| Messages: | 943,141 |