National Thus Far - Page 47

Cynos · 4th June 2010, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Depends who buys it. If the govt keeps a share majority, is that so bad?

No.

But this repeated mentioning of "Mum and Dad investors" has all the hallmarks of a smokescreen for a private sale that'll gradually allow foreign interests to take control. Someone mentioned Auckland Airport's share issue earlier, I think? Didn't they have a Canadian pension company try and take a controlling stake that only got stopped by direct government intervention? Small share issuing sizes merely delayed it.

We need Kiwibank as a viable source of competition. What stopped Aussie-owned bank branch closures? Kiwibank. Why did my Westpac account fees drop? Kiwibank.

Kiwibank is ensuring actual competition occurs. Nothing grinds my gears more than a political party that's supposed to like free markets characterized by healthy competition who don't actually encourage it.

fidgit · 4th June 2010, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

Someone mentioned Auckland Airport's share issue earlier, I think? Didn't they have a Canadian pension company try and take a controlling stake that only got stopped by direct government intervention? Small share issuing sizes merely delayed it.

The majority shares in Auckland Airport are owned by Auckland City Council. There are a lot of smaller bundles of shares held by individuals.

I'm not in favour of the sale of Kiwibank, but I am willing to suggest it could be privatised without being sold to overseas investors. I'm not naive enough to think the Government would hold on to assets that it could sell for enough to justify a round of tax cuts or to better balance it's books - our current Government are not in the business of providing competing services to well serviced industries by choice. Their popularity at the moment suggests they will have, at least, one more term in power, long enough they can sell the Bank and justify they had a mandate to do so.

The reason that Canadian Pension Fund, and the Dubai Government, and probably others we've never heard about, wanted to buy the Airport is because it's a guaranteed money spinner. Kiwibank isn't nearly as secure an investment as the Airport. I don't think we'll see such groups interested in buying it. (Though I might be wrong on this one).

I don't want Kiwibank sold - I want it to remain owned by the Government. But there is rapidly decreasing likelihood that this will happen.

And as for "only got stopped by direct Government intervention" - that happens all the time. When a massive asset gets a take over bid, the Government gets interested. It's why the Warehouse isn't currently owned by Woolworths Australia or Foodstuffs. They were only allowed to buy up to 10% each and had the breaks put on. Why do you think Kiwibank being in the public arena would be any different?

Ab · 4th June 2010, 16:30

And yet the Labour government allowed a Chinese company to buy the Wellington electricity network in 2008. Wellington, you know, capital of the country. Where the government is. Probably uses electricity for a lot of important things.

xor · 4th June 2010, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by fidgit

The majority shares in Auckland Airport are owned by Auckland City Council.

All the city councils except Manukau sold theirs years ago AFAIK

fixed_truth · 4th June 2010, 17:28

What would be the advantage for taxpayers (whom already own Kiwibank) if Mr “No, we won’t be selling Kiwibank” Key sells part of Kiwibank?

fidgit · 4th June 2010, 17:29

As an aside, I did find that it's not that easy to find out who owns shares in things. Or if it easy, I don't know how.

-edit-
Hang on, is there anyone here that's actually for selling?

JP · 4th June 2010, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandalador

Says the blindly socialist pinko from the cheap seats.

I agree with crocos.
On paper he is the ideal type of person to be a leading politician in that he damn sure isn't doing it for the money/perks so there has to be at least a good size portion of him that actually wants to do the job for the country and not for himself.

Ahaha. I love it when retards get all uppity. Oh noes, someone who at a guess probably doesn't even know what socialism actually is called me a socialist. OMG

crocos · 4th June 2010, 18:47

Well he's closer calling you a socialist than a communist

Cynos · 4th June 2010, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by fidgit

As an aside, I did find that it's not that easy to find out who owns shares in things. Or if it easy, I don't know how.

-edit-
Hang on, is there anyone here that's actually for selling?

For companies with large shareholdings you can request the share register in writing at the Address For Share Register listed in their Companies Office record.

Bandalador · 4th June 2010, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP

Ahaha. I love it when retards get all uppity. Oh noes, someone who at a guess probably doesn't even know what socialism actually is called me a socialist. OMG

Do you really love it? Or does it make you rage so much you call people retards and uppity (using the word uppity well out of context).
And keep your guess to yourself, socialist.
I just find political e-crusaders like you fucking embarrassing. Especially when you resort to ridiculing others to make your point. Carry on.

Lightspeed · 4th June 2010, 21:22

I don't think you have any ground to make any criticisms, using "socialist" as a whip-word.

Bandalador · 4th June 2010, 21:44

Who's criticising? It's like calling you 'christian'.

Lightspeed · 4th June 2010, 21:55

You're criticising. And being a general prick. Which is your MO.

Ab · 4th June 2010, 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10648512

National take a 10% dip (5 points) in the polls but Labour support remains unchanged lol. When are they gonna make the move and replace Goff?

New numbers (Roy morgan this time):

Quote:

The latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows support for John Key’s National-led Government has strengthen considerably to 57.5% (up 3.5%), comprising National Party 52.5% (up 4%), Maori Party 3.5% (up 1%), ACT NZ 1% (down 1.5%) and United Future 0.5% (unchanged).

Support for Opposition Parties has fallen to 42.5% (down 3.5%); Labour Party 30% (down 3.5%), Greens 9.5% (up 0.5%), New Zealand First 2.5% (down 0.5%), the Progressive Party 0.5% (unchanged) and Others 0% (unchanged).

National up 4, Labour down 3.5, and ACT invisible.

Lightspeed · 4th June 2010, 23:43

I'm an ACT opposer before I'm a Labour supporter, so this is good news.

Ab · 5th June 2010, 00:12

It's a shame, really - in the last year or so of the Clark government, Hide seemed to be one of the few MPs actually doing his job. The "perkbuster" image didn't take long to disappear.

fidgit · 5th June 2010, 00:21

I guess with National pulling the reigns on public spending, and cutting taxes, ACT's losing its point of difference.

Of course, they're also getting behind environmental schemes, so that doesn't explain why the Green's are still surging forward. It's got to be white/Asian ex-Labour people that just can't bring themselves to back National at this point... (Maori of course, explain the increase for the Maori party). At this rate, the next election is going to be a Maori Party/Greens coalition vs. National.

Lightspeed · 5th June 2010, 00:53

I don't think you'd get many people who are ideologically left to support National. It makes sense that the people who aren't thrilled with Labour right now would support Greens.

As for the Maori party I think they're doing pretty well, all things considered, and I hope they continue to gain support.

fixed_truth · 5th June 2010, 10:39

Definitely not good for Labour, Goff really needs to hand over his leadership (like National done with English in 2003).

Though it's not necessarily all bad for the 'left' depending on how you look at it. ACT fading into obscurity could be good down the line when those ADD center swing voters get bored and National eventually need a coalition partner (as they can't count on the Maori party to sleep with the devil forever).

Also with Greens getting very close to breaking the 10% mark their status as a fringe party decreases & they become more & more a viable alternative.

ZoSo · 5th June 2010, 11:32

Maybe this is the reason for greens bump, heh.
As some of us said previously, her going = good for the greens!

chubby · 5th June 2010, 12:33

.... and there's whispers of an old-school farming based center-right party slowly being formed.
can anyone say 'support base fragmentation'?

wugambino · 5th June 2010, 14:39

looking forward to my tax cut tbh

fixed_truth · 5th June 2010, 16:42

What has David Farrar been smoking?

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/la..._as_mayor.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPF

Michael Laws has announced he will stand down as Mayor of Whanganui, but is standing for both the Council and DHB.

I may be wrong, but I would not surprised to see Michael No 2 on the NZ First list next election, and helping run Winston’s campaign to get back in.

If they succeed, that will help Labour’s chance of getting back into Government, and Laws would be a Minister in a Labour-led Government.

fixed_truth · 22nd June 2010, 10:47

It seems the wool has been stretched too thin.

Quote:

3 News asked, should the Government sell Kiwibank or partially privatise it?
An overwhelming 85 percent said no. Just 9 percent said yes, and 6 percent didn't know.

Almost 9 in 10 Kiwis against selling Kiwibank

Ab · 22nd June 2010, 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What has David Farrar been smoking?

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/la..._as_mayor.html

So what part of Farrar's theory strikes you as crazy?

fixed_truth · 22nd June 2010, 14:38

He stood down from Mayor to spend more time with his family only to become a MP?

Also Winston doesn't look ready to leave NZ First and he won't deal with National, so Laws would have to go into coalition with a party which is imo ideologically opposed to his views.

Ab · 22nd June 2010, 15:17

Mental notes:

It strikes me that guys who want to spend more time with their families don't run for Council and the District Health Board simultaneously.

Laws is a cunning political strategist. He ran NZ First's 1996 campaign, winning 2 seats in a FPP election and 8.4% of the vote.

NZ First's base is elderly pakeha racists, and Laws has polished his skills at appealing to that group.

NZ First has only one policy: Winston First. Laws likes the sound of his own voice. Phil Goff has already said that Labour would work with Winston if he were elected (christ, that's reason enough to never vote Labour again). So I can picture an arrangement where Laws comes up with a race-based strategy to get either Winston elected in an electorate or NZ First more than 5% of the vote (things he's done before), NZ First re-enters Parliament, Labour sells its soul to Winston again, and Laws gets a Cabinet seat from which he is guaranteed high-profile media coverage of his own voice. Everyone wins. Except us, I mean.

fixed_truth · 22nd June 2010, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

It strikes me that guys who want to spend more time with their families don't run for Council and the District Health Board simultaneously.

That was three years ago. So his priorities may have changed, we'll have to wait and see what eventuates though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by herald

Mr Laws said he wanted to spend more time with his family, including his "three wonderful young children", Lucy, 5, Zoe, 3, and Theo, 1.
"Almost losing Lucy to leukaemia two years ago had a profound effect upon how I view fatherhood. It reminded me that there is no role anywhere near as important," he said.
"The mayoralty, plus my paying jobs, have made me a very busy person. Simply, I want to spend more time with my family and children. They deserve nothing less."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Laws is a cunning political strategist. He ran NZ First's 1996 campaign, winning 2 seats in a FPP election and 8.4% of the vote.
NZ First's base is elderly pakeha racists, and Laws has polished his skills at appealing to that group.

True.
In my opinion if he does go back to being a MP, and if him & Winstons ego's could handle the same room, then NZF could get up to 10%. Though these votes won't come from the left, they will be NACTs more conservative voters. National will become isolated and centre-swing voters will shift back to Labour. So if Labour/Greens/Maori etc even need NZF, it will be a token relationship (see Maori - National)
/speculation based on the seemingly unlikely event of Laws returning

(btw I'm not sure even Laws could help Labour next election. Lucky for us upper-middle + professionals though ;P)

Saladin · 22nd June 2010, 16:45

I wouldn't write off Winston working with the Nats.

fixed_truth · 22nd June 2010, 16:53

^Didn't Key burn that bridge after the Owen Glenn saga?

Ab · 22nd June 2010, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Though these votes won't come from the left, they will be NACTs more conservative voters. National will become isolated and centre-swing voters will shift back to Labour.

And I'm assuming that's what Farrar meant by "that will help Labour’s chance of getting back into Government, and Laws would be a Minister in a Labour-led Government". I don't think Farrar was spouting nonsense - it's a not-entirely-impossible future.

fixed_truth · 22nd June 2010, 18:16

Yes it's a not-entirely-impossible future, but imo it's a pretty random blog entry unless Farrar has information we don't.

Ab · 22nd June 2010, 19:17

He may just be trolling for ad impressions, but hell... anything that involves the remotest possibility of that fucking vampire Peters returning to Parliament gets a rise out of me.

CCS · 22nd June 2010, 20:02

okay.... so he's not seeking re-election as mayor because he wants more time with his family but he also says he will 'make himself available' for the council and DHB elections... But there's also speculation he'll be #2 on the NZ First party list... how the hell can he possibly have time for all of that when he really just wants to spend time with his family?

chubby · 30th June 2010, 18:34

Quote:

PM admits public face hefty ETS bill

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10655155

Ab · 30th June 2010, 19:38

Well, like, duh.

Spoon1 · 30th June 2010, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10655155

Luckily the ETS will hit polluting companies in the pocket so it makes it all worthwhile.

fidgit · 30th June 2010, 22:46

No one actually thinks this has anything to do with the environment right? I mean, how does charging companies a tax they can just pass on to their customers help the environment? By having them pass more of that money on the Government? Who'll...not do anything useful with it? ETS was always the stupidest way to do anything.

fixed_truth · 1st July 2010, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by fidgit

No one actually thinks this has anything to do with the environment right? I mean, how does charging companies a tax they can just pass on to their customers help the environment? By having them pass more of that money on the Government? Who'll...not do anything useful with it? ETS was always the stupidest way to do anything.

ETS's and similar schemes are a response to global warming. But yeah it can be argued that NZ is just getting inline with it's Kyoto obligations to protect it's trade interests.

Business that don't pollute won't be passing on the cost to customers and so will have a price advantage over those that do. The incentive to change here is that generally customers when given a similar choice of products will go for the least expensive.

John Key explains the ins and outs and what the Govt. will do with the money. http://www.3news.co.nz/John-Key-on-t...6/Default.aspx

David · 1st July 2010, 10:39

Thing is, looking at it from either a Management and Sustainability viewpoint where companies must increase prices in order to pay for the green technologies that will sustain their companies without using old style energies.....

OR... an economics viewpoint where the increase in production costs must make the product be seen as a higher value item than a competitor who doesn't use green technologies so they can justify having a higher price setting than old style energies.....

You're going to take a hit regardless, it's like buying a pair of socks made in NZ vs a pair made in China. Only in this example, you don't really have a choice.

Although most of you would probably argue we do need to do something for the environment, right?

4th June 2010, 17:29	#1846
fidgit Always itchy	As an aside, I did find that it's not that easy to find out who owns shares in things. Or if it easy, I don't know how. -edit- Hang on, is there anyone here that's actually for selling? __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

5th June 2010, 00:21	#1857
fidgit Always itchy	I guess with National pulling the reigns on public spending, and cutting taxes, ACT's losing its point of difference. Of course, they're also getting behind environmental schemes, so that doesn't explain why the Green's are still surging forward. It's got to be white/Asian ex-Labour people that just can't bring themselves to back National at this point... (Maori of course, explain the increase for the Maori party). At this rate, the next election is going to be a Maori Party/Greens coalition vs. National. __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

22nd June 2010, 20:02	#1874
CCS Stunt Pants	okay.... so he's not seeking re-election as mayor because he wants more time with his family but he also says he will 'make himself available' for the council and DHB elections... But there's also speculation he'll be #2 on the NZ First party list... how the hell can he possibly have time for all of that when he really just wants to spend time with his family? __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

30th June 2010, 22:46	#1878
fidgit Always itchy	No one actually thinks this has anything to do with the environment right? I mean, how does charging companies a tax they can just pass on to their customers help the environment? By having them pass more of that money on the Government? Who'll...not do anything useful with it? ETS was always the stupidest way to do anything. __________________ 4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36°

4th June 2010, 16:30	#1843
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	And yet the Labour government allowed a Chinese company to buy the Wellington electricity network in 2008. Wellington, you know, capital of the country. Where the government is. Probably uses electricity for a lot of important things.

4th June 2010, 17:28	#1845
fixed_truth	What would be the advantage for taxpayers (whom already own Kiwibank) if Mr “No, we won’t be selling Kiwibank” Key sells part of Kiwibank? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

4th June 2010, 18:47	#1848
crocos	Well he's closer calling you a socialist than a communist __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية

4th June 2010, 21:22	#1851
Lightspeed	I don't think you have any ground to make any criticisms, using "socialist" as a whip-word. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

4th June 2010, 21:44	#1852
Bandalador	Who's criticising? It's like calling you 'christian'.

4th June 2010, 21:55	#1853
Lightspeed	You're criticising. And being a general prick. Which is your MO. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

4th June 2010, 23:43	#1855
Lightspeed	I'm an ACT opposer before I'm a Labour supporter, so this is good news. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

5th June 2010, 00:12	#1856
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	It's a shame, really - in the last year or so of the Clark government, Hide seemed to be one of the few MPs actually doing his job. The "perkbuster" image didn't take long to disappear.

5th June 2010, 00:53	#1858
Lightspeed	I don't think you'd get many people who are ideologically left to support National. It makes sense that the people who aren't thrilled with Labour right now would support Greens. As for the Maori party I think they're doing pretty well, all things considered, and I hope they continue to gain support. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

5th June 2010, 10:39	#1859
fixed_truth	Definitely not good for Labour, Goff really needs to hand over his leadership (like National done with English in 2003). Though it's not necessarily all bad for the 'left' depending on how you look at it. ACT fading into obscurity could be good down the line when those ADD center swing voters get bored and National eventually need a coalition partner (as they can't count on the Maori party to sleep with the devil forever). Also with Greens getting very close to breaking the 10% mark their status as a fringe party decreases & they become more & more a viable alternative. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

5th June 2010, 11:32	#1860
ZoSo	Maybe this is the reason for greens bump, heh. As some of us said previously, her going = good for the greens!

5th June 2010, 12:33	#1861
chubby	.... and there's whispers of an old-school farming based center-right party slowly being formed. can anyone say 'support base fragmentation'? __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

5th June 2010, 14:39	#1862
wugambino Electric Boogaloo	looking forward to my tax cut tbh

22nd June 2010, 14:38	#1866
fixed_truth	He stood down from Mayor to spend more time with his family only to become a MP? Also Winston doesn't look ready to leave NZ First and he won't deal with National, so Laws would have to go into coalition with a party which is imo ideologically opposed to his views. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

22nd June 2010, 15:17	#1867
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Mental notes: It strikes me that guys who want to spend more time with their families don't run for Council and the District Health Board simultaneously. Laws is a cunning political strategist. He ran NZ First's 1996 campaign, winning 2 seats in a FPP election and 8.4% of the vote. NZ First's base is elderly pakeha racists, and Laws has polished his skills at appealing to that group. NZ First has only one policy: Winston First. Laws likes the sound of his own voice. Phil Goff has already said that Labour would work with Winston if he were elected (christ, that's reason enough to never vote Labour again). So I can picture an arrangement where Laws comes up with a race-based strategy to get either Winston elected in an electorate or NZ First more than 5% of the vote (things he's done before), NZ First re-enters Parliament, Labour sells its soul to Winston again, and Laws gets a Cabinet seat from which he is guaranteed high-profile media coverage of his own voice. Everyone wins. Except us, I mean.

22nd June 2010, 16:45	#1869
Saladin Nothing to See Here!	I wouldn't write off Winston working with the Nats.

22nd June 2010, 16:53	#1870
fixed_truth	^Didn't Key burn that bridge after the Owen Glenn saga? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

22nd June 2010, 18:16	#1872
fixed_truth	Yes it's a not-entirely-impossible future, but imo it's a pretty random blog entry unless Farrar has information we don't. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

22nd June 2010, 19:17	#1873
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	He may just be trolling for ad impressions, but hell... anything that involves the remotest possibility of that fucking vampire Peters returning to Parliament gets a rise out of me.

30th June 2010, 19:38	#1876
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Well, like, duh.

1st July 2010, 10:39	#1880
David	Thing is, looking at it from either a Management and Sustainability viewpoint where companies must increase prices in order to pay for the green technologies that will sustain their companies without using old style energies..... OR... an economics viewpoint where the increase in production costs must make the product be seen as a higher value item than a competitor who doesn't use green technologies so they can justify having a higher price setting than old style energies..... You're going to take a hit regardless, it's like buying a pair of socks made in NZ vs a pair made in China. Only in this example, you don't really have a choice. Although most of you would probably argue we do need to do something for the environment, right?