Why don't you set up a business making rockets, electric cars and AI, Lewis? It's obviously so easy to do, anyone can do it. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Winston Peters takes aim at National, own Govt at Fieldays: - Says NZ should leave Paris climate accord and 'stupid targets' - Questions whether Govt rates cap policy will work - Calls on farmers to change voting habits Also some campaigning with Nash, Randell Story below -

oh I know

Iran denies the existence of an agreement; Israel says no such agreement exists.

Yes. Labour says people will save an average of ~$1200 a year. And Labour says approximately ~1.3m people will benefit. And 1.3m x $1200 is $1.6b. Now maybe Labour's plan is Councils and bus companies pick up $1.535b of this, with Central Govt the other $65m. But yeah.

True to form for the Labour Party, the maths behind its very first election-year policy simply doesn’t add up. Labour is asking New Zealanders to trust them again, but the numbers in their own policy are already falling to pieces. If Labour can’t get their numbers right on what the policy will cost, they certainly can’t be trusted on their claims about how it will be paid for. We’ve all seen this from Labour before, and history tells us it’ll end up being funded by more taxes and more borrowing. Labour claims its fare cap policy will: ➡️ Cost $65 million per year. ➡️ Save the average person more than $1,200 per year. ➡️ Benefit around 1.36 million New Zealanders who use public transport every year. These three claims cannot all be true. If 1.36 million people are each saving more than $1,200 a year, the cost of delivering those savings would exceed $1.6 billion annually - not $65 million. On the other hand, if Labour’s $65 million cost estimate is correct, then spread across 1.36 million public transport users, the average benefit is less than a dollar a week. This is classic Labour. The headline sounds great. The maths falls apart the moment you look at it. Because Labour’s numbers do not stack up, one of four things must be true: ➡️ The cost has been dramatically understated. ➡️ The claimed savings have been dramatically overstated. ➡️ The number of people who will benefit is far lower than Labour claims. ➡️ Or some combination of all three. Labour says it has undertaken extensive modelling to support this policy. If that’s true, then Chris Hipkins should front up with it. Kiwis deserve to know who actually benefits, how much they benefit, and what this policy will really cost taxpayers. This is straight from the Labour playbook of scamming Kiwis with a glossy headline that sounds nice but will never be delivered. We saw it with light rail, and we saw it with KiwiBuild. Labour’s policies are riddled with holes. They can’t explain the Future Fund because of the Treaty, and they can’t explain where they will find the capacity to deliver the two million additional GP visits. Again and again, Labour announces big promises and then expects taxpayers to pick up the bill when reality catches up. And Kiwis know that Labour’s reality looks like more taxes, more borrowing, higher prices and rising interest rates.

How is what he's saying anti-immigration? He's talking about the need to bring the public with you and a current chaotic system. Maybe reread the post.

This is a shitpost, but the longer govts do nothing to allocate costs to emitters, the higher the residual liabilities rise The play is to run out the clock. At some point, paying these liabilities from general taxation will be impossible and we will have no choice but to renege