Labour's $1 billion train set now worthless [Archive]

Tank

4th March 2009, 20:37

In the news this evening

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560007

Labour government, which bought the railway from Toll and renamed it KiwiRail, had made a string of commitments which added up to about $3 billion but it allocated only about $120 million.

"The Government is now the owner of a business which probably has no value, in fact negative value, having just eight months ago paid almost a billion dollars for it," Mr English said in Parliament.

"We will have to keep this business and try to make it work, because no one in their right mind would be prepared to pay anything like what the taxpayer put into it."

I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.

:corn::corn::corn::corn:

ACC at $1.5 Billion - say another $2 Billion for the train set - What a great legacy the left the country with.

Hitcher

4th March 2009, 20:51

This plus the ACC debacle. Labour really didn't have any intention of winning the election, now did they.

JimO

4th March 2009, 20:53

they were probably hoping they wouldnt

NighthawkNZ

4th March 2009, 21:00

I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.

me 2...... :mellow:

nallac

4th March 2009, 21:12

was Jon key elected prime minister or Liquidater of the country?,
thanks to labour....

hospitalfood

4th March 2009, 21:22

so let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?
who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !
thats like saying they will be blaming the previous party for failing on their election promises!

wise up suckers!!!!!!!!!
and no i did not vote labour.

Tank

4th March 2009, 21:25

sidecar bob

4th March 2009, 21:31

hospitalfood

4th March 2009, 21:31

You really have no understanding at all do you.

i cannot be bothered Tank.

Winston001

4th March 2009, 21:36

This plus the ACC debacle. Labour really didn't have any intention of winning the election, now did they.

Many a true word said in jest. :D The election victory is becoming a hospital pass to National. Seriously, they could be out on their ear in 3 years. Voters have short memories and the government accounts look grim. Plus Treasury are saying we won't recover growth until 2013.

So let me get this straight. the party in power is blaming the previous party for something?

Who would have thought? surely that cant be right ? they would never do that !

The thing is, this is real money, not fancy accounting. Labour really did buy NZ Rail, they really did know about the $Billion+ loss for ACC, and they also bought Air NZ which has just announced a big drop in profits.

The blame isn't anything to do with gay marriage, smacking, prostitution or the other social engineering carried out by Labour - those things can always be argued.

This is simple facts and cold hard cash. Yours and mine. :weep:

hospitalfood

4th March 2009, 21:40

No, i dont think theyre blaming them at all. I think the facts speak for themselves.

what facts, all you have to go on is one side of an argument that remains unproven at this stage.

and anyway, the investment in rail was never a short term thing ( same goes for the investment made in coastal shipping ) it was made because the cost of oil will continue to rise as it is a limited resource. when it gets to a certain price rail and costal shipping will be very valuable assets for the people of NZ to own.

it is no surprise that one party takes the short term view to bag another party, but do not think the current party in power is unaware of the motivation of the previous one, or doubts the wisdom of the previous one. its just about scoring points against each other, they are probably doing all they can to bag the previous party because they are going to do something soon that nobody will like.

Headbanger

4th March 2009, 21:47

hospitalfood

4th March 2009, 21:49

the other thing that is important to consider in political budgets ( as with any business ) is overall profit and loss.
you can still win losing $20 on potatoes when you are making $80 on rice.

so really the whole thread is pointless without knowing the overall profit/loss of the previous party in power.
and believe me when i say that the party in power will not inform you of the previous party's winnings.

hospitalfood

4th March 2009, 21:52

The logic in acquiring it is obvious, its the price paid for junk that hurts.

i tend to agree with this, it is a shame we sold it in the first place.
it was then asset stripped, then pissed about with, and now we have to pick up the bits and start again.

Winston001

4th March 2009, 21:57

and anyway, the investment in rail was never a short term thing ( same goes for the investment made in coastal shipping ) it was made because the cost of oil will continue to rise as it is a limited resource. when it gets to a certain price rail and costal shipping will be very valuable assets for the people of NZ to own.

Accepted. But as Headbanger says, it's the price that was paid. Seriously - who else was going to buy a bankrupt railway in the remote South Pacific? The NZ Government was always the only real bidder. If they'd been patient they could have bought it for $1. Plus liabilities, so there'd be a bigger cost on top, but not $500 million.

3umph

4th March 2009, 22:00

No, i dont think theyre blaming them at all. I think the facts speak for themselves.

yip yip yip :confused:

Clockwork

5th March 2009, 04:55

Accepted. But as Headbanger says, it's the price that was paid. Seriously - who else was going to buy a bankrupt railway in the remote South Pacific? The NZ Government was always the only real bidder. If they'd been patient they could have bought it for $1. Plus liabilities, so there'd be a bigger cost on top, but not $500 million.

Maybe, but then Toll could have sold the rolling stock for its scrap value and put thousands of workers on the dole and completely stuffed up the nations transport infrastructure.

Forest

5th March 2009, 05:28

I have no great love for Toll, but I'm seriously impressed by how well they screwed the last Govt.

I wish my staff had that level of commercial skill.

MisterD

5th March 2009, 06:36

I have no great love for Toll, but I'm seriously impressed by how well they screwed the last Govt.

I wish my staff had that level of commercial skill.

It's easy when it's obvious the other party is a desperate idealogue who doesn't care how much he spends of other peoples' money.

It's bloody obvious that this was nothing but an exercise in economic "scorched earth" by Sullen looking to spend everything in the kitty before he got booted out of office.

If a CFO of a listed company had acted the way Sullen has done...he'd be looking at jail time. Mickey's fucking off with a gold plated pension. Indy? Can I have a lend of your assault rifle when you get it?

marty

5th March 2009, 07:06

and they also bought Air NZ which has just announced a big drop in profits.

:weep:

Air NZ may have announced a drop in profits, but the value of the company has essentially remained - not to mention for an airline - it is one of the healthiest in the world - even Emirates is seriously in the red.

enigma51

5th March 2009, 07:14

How come our resident labour supporter havent posted any thing about this?

Where are you skyrider?

DougieNZ

5th March 2009, 07:29

Don't get me started on this one...

Sadly, and whoever is in power, rail will continue to need funding from govt while the current road user charges model remains.

Trucks do untold damage to our roads and pay a fraction of the cost for their repair and maintenance. Rail pay the full cost for any maintenence of the rail network.

We see billions spent on roading projects every year, while little (in comparison) is spent on improving the rail infrastructure.

I see a lot of brand new trucks driving around. Rail motive power is at least 30 years old.....

I say increase road user charges by a muliple of 5 (except where rail cannot service). Then we will start to see a level playing field between rail and road. Then you can start to make a fair comparison...

merv

5th March 2009, 07:44

Agreed, I am always amazed at the amount spent on roads doing rather small improvements at big cost. My favourite in that respect was the Southern approach to Foxton where they cut the corner slightly. Who really wanted to arrive 0.0215 seconds earlier into Foxton approaching the 50km/hr zone slightly faster? I can't believe that was a safety issue either because of the 50 zone nearby no-one would have been speeding around that corner anyway would they?

So through road improvements truckers get an improvement while generally joe biker is losing his fun roads to ride on (read curves) that are now more covered in trucks. Spend the money on rail infrastructure and discourage too many from using "our" roads so that they stay as bike friendly rides I say. We'll all miss the 'takas when they are totally straightened which is likely in the next decade or so at the rate things are going.

The Stranger

5th March 2009, 07:47

Trucks do untold damage to our roads and pay a fraction of the cost for their repair and maintenance. Rail pay the full cost for any maintenence of the rail network.

What fraction of the cost of damage do they cause and what fraction of the cost of damage do they pay please?

Flatcap

5th March 2009, 07:48

If a CFO of a listed company had acted the way Sullen has done...he'd be looking at jail time. Mickey's fucking off with a gold plated pension. Indy? Can I have a lend of your assault rifle when you get it?

Just to make him cry.....not to actually kill him, aye

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 07:49

Trucks do untold damage to our roads and pay a fraction of the cost for their repair and maintenance.

Aint that the truth!
And no, we don't want a return to the old 'protectionist' policies. I doubt that anyone wants to see Rail like it was until the mid-80s. Lange and Douglas began the swing to User Pays...which is how it should be...so why is the public still being screwed?

Tank

5th March 2009, 08:05

Air NZ may have announced a drop in profits, but the value of the company has essentially remained - not to mention for an airline - it is one of the healthiest in the world - even Emirates is seriously in the red.

Not quite right there. The value of the company has dropped siginifantley and the g'ment is a huge share holder.

Shares at the end of 2006 were $3.10 - they are now at $0.79.

With 1.06 Billion shares thats another 2.5 Billion that has been lost (not all the g'ment of course).

But hardly a fantastic investment.

EDIT: And whats worse is that they borrowed the money to spend on this - so not only is it worth 2.5 Billion LESS - we are paying interest on the entire amount. Which is why (in a nutshell) borrowing for the Cullen fund is a bad idea.

Marmoot

5th March 2009, 08:14

I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.

The "John Key had a share in the rail company" line?

Winston001

5th March 2009, 08:23

Trucks do untold damage to our roads and pay a fraction of the cost for their repair and maintenance. Rail pay the full cost for any maintenence of the rail network.

I'll confess to having romantic feelings about great big strong trains throbbing through the nation. There is a strong economic and environmental argument for using rail for mass delivery. But - its the last mile that matters. All very well getting a ton of oysters from Bluff to Auckland, but they are actually needed at restaurants all over the city - and rail can't do that. Trucks can and do.

I say increase road user charges by a muliple of 5 (except where rail cannot service). Then we will start to see a level playing field between rail and road. Then you can start to make a fair comparison...

Mmmm do you think NZ really needs a huge increase in our transport charges.....? A country slipping yearly down the OECD average. Its tough enough as it is to supply a nation of only 4 million spread over two long mountainous islands.......

Air ships - seriously, there is an answer. ;)

ManDownUnder

5th March 2009, 08:30

This plus the ACC debacle. Labour really didn't have any intention of winning the election, now did they.

ACC, Trains, and a couple of other commercial coffin passes to National along with a Global recession. Those personally responsible (I'm pointing at Clark and Cullen) both retire and I'm willing to bet somehow escape personal responsibility.

Key gets the coffin pass, has to make a number of unpopular decisions in order to keep the boat afloat, and things start to shore up just in time for a looming election.

I wonder if this is actually a strategy Labour/the left had intentionally set up? Credit where it's due - it's a clever one if those were their plans!

marty

5th March 2009, 08:40

Not quite right there. The value of the company has dropped siginifantley and the g'ment is a huge share holder.

Shares at the end of 2006 were $3.10 - they are now at $0.79.

With 1.06 Billion shares thats another 2.5 Billion that has been lost (not all the g'ment of course).

But hardly a fantastic investment.

EDIT: And whats worse is that they borrowed the money to spend on this - so not only is it worth 2.5 Billion LESS - we are paying interest on the entire amount. Which is why (in a nutshell) borrowing for the Cullen fund is a bad idea.

i never said it was a fantastic investment. please direct me to a share portfolio that IS at the moment.

with a group-wide yield increase from 08-09 of around 4.5% it is at least keeping it's head above water, unlike just about every other airline in the world.

vifferman

5th March 2009, 08:40

... they also bought Air NZ which has just announced a big drop in profits.
That's not really fair, Winston.
ALL airlines are finding it hard at the moment. Air NZ aren't losing money, it's their profits that are down, due to a huge worldwide fall in passenger numbers, due to the economic downturn.
Bailing out Air NZ was actually one of the good things Labour did - I wouldn't have wanted to see them go down the gurgler, or be sold to some overseas airline. Would you?
Their previous financial woes were due to having Gary Toomey at the helm; since Rob Fyfe took over, they've done very well, and it's a well-run company.
Unfortunately ALL airlines around the world are finding it difficult - first there was the huge rise in fuel prices, then the latest banking nonsense.

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 08:46

Bailing out Air NZ was actually one of the good things Labour did - I wouldn't have wanted to see them go down the gurgler, or be sold to some overseas airline. Would you?

Why not? Companies live or die on their profitability. Perhaps our geographic location makes a difference, but what other country of 4M has it's own national airline? Isn't pride in the Black Caps, Black Sticks, All Blacks, Tall Blacks and All Whites not enough for you?

vifferman

5th March 2009, 09:06

Why not? Companies live or die on their profitability. Perhaps our geographic location makes a difference, but what other country of 4M has it's own national airline? Isn't pride in the Black Caps, Black Sticks, All Blacks, Tall Blacks and All Whites not enough for you?
Well, I guess from a commercial perspective it's fair enough, and at the time I didn't care that much whether they went down the gurgler or not.
But that was before the vifferbabe went to work for Air NZ.

As for the "Black This" and the "White That", I don't have any pride in any of those - don't give a shit. Apart from motorsports, I'm not interested in sports. In any case, not sportspeople are really playing for their country or for altruistic or patriotic reasons; in the final analysis, they're playing for themselves.

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 09:10

And many of them for $$$.
I'm just saying that I can't see why having a national airline is necessary.

oldrider

5th March 2009, 09:16

That's not really fair, Winston.
ALL airlines are finding it hard at the moment. Air NZ aren't losing money, it's their profits that are down, due to a huge worldwide fall in passenger numbers, due to the economic downturn.
Bailing out Air NZ was actually one of the good things Labour did - I wouldn't have wanted to see them go down the gurgler, or be sold to some overseas airline. Would you?
Their previous financial woes were due to having Gary Toomey at the helm; since Rob Fyfe took over, they've done very well, and it's a well-run company.
Unfortunately ALL airlines around the world are finding it difficult - first there was the huge rise in fuel prices, then the latest banking nonsense.

The only reason that they bailed out Air NZ was to preserve their (the ploliticans) "extravagant" life long perks!

They depend on ANZ for that! Cynical maybe but factual just the same. :mad: John.

vifferman

5th March 2009, 09:18

The only reason that they bailed out Air NZ was to preserve their (the ploliticans) "extravagant" life long perks!

They depend on ANZ for that! Cynical maybe but factual just the same. :mad:
Yeah, and fucking stupid.
I think they're phasing them out now though.

Winston001

5th March 2009, 09:19

That's not really fair, Winston.
ALL airlines are finding it hard at the moment......

Bailing out Air NZ was actually one of the good things Labour did - I wouldn't have wanted to see them go down the gurgler, or be sold to some overseas airline. Would you?

Fair comment. Yes all airlines are having trouble. And maybe for a remote country like NZ with a significant tourism industry, having a flag airline is worth it. My thought at the time was a merger with Quantas (a successful airline) whereby Air NZ operated as a subsidiary would have worked.

Our government could have kept one special A share to protect the rights, just as they did with Telecom. Wasn't good for Telecom of course but we've learned from that. Bear in mind that every nation has the soverign right to control their air space. Thus you can only fly into NZ if you are allowed to. It would have been in Quantas interests to keep the NZ govt sweet, plus it would be good for CER and probably the domestic flying Australia/New zealand would have happened automatically.

Tank

5th March 2009, 09:25

Bear in mind that every nation has the soverign right to control their air space. Thus you can only fly into NZ if you are allowed to.

Or else we shoot you down with our fighter jets.

Oh hang on Helen got rid of them as well.

edit - well mothballed them - and paid Ernest and young over a million dollars to find a buyer.

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 09:39

You really have no understanding at all do you.

I think hospitlfood has a better understanding than you realise.

Skyryder

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 09:43

I think hospitlfood has a better understanding than you realise.

Skyryder

Only 40 posts to turn up, eh? You are slipping...
Actually though, you can bow out now that you've made the anticipated appearance...we've got the situation under control

Tank

5th March 2009, 09:43

I think hospitlfood has a better understanding than you realise.

Sorry guy - your comments in the political threads of late give me no confidence in your opinions of anyone's level of political or business understanding.

Still - thank God we can have a difference of opinion huh.

mmm

5th March 2009, 09:57

[QUOTE=vifferman;1965761].

Their previous financial woes were due to having Gary Toomey at the helm;

Gary Toomey was just a ring-in Ozzie yes man for Salmon Cushings,chairman of Air NZ and the major stakeholder BIL.Cushings paid about 580mill for full control of Ansett without doing proper due diligence,their planes were crap so CASA(the CAA of Aus) grounded the fleet once the deal was done,stitched up well in truely by the Oz govt and News Corp, but not surprising since Cushings spends most of his day sucking on a gin and tonic.
If National was in power when Labour bailed out Air Nz they most prob would have let Singapore Airlines take a majority shareholding,Air NZ would most probably just be a domestic brand and possibly Tasman player today,the long-haul flights taken over by Singapore,how important is it for New Zealanders to see the Koru tail in places like London and Los Angeles?I dont know,thats all a matter of opinion.

Tank

5th March 2009, 10:08

how important is it for New Zealanders to see the Koru tail in places like London and Los Angeles?I dont know,thats all a matter of opinion.

Most people I know will fly Singapore airlines over Air New Zealand if the flight is a few hundred dollars cheaper.

If thats the case - I think they would have a hard argument about us spending the 00's of millions for us to get the planes to LA and London simply for them to walk past and get on the Singapore Airlines flight.

Finn

5th March 2009, 10:30

Most people I know will fly Singapore airlines over Air New Zealand if the flight is a few hundred dollars cheaper.

I never fly Air NZ. Knowing how dysfunctional and incompetent their business is on the ground, it scares me to think how they keep their planes in the sky.

xwhatsit

5th March 2009, 10:30

supply a nation of only 4 million spread over two long mountainous islands.......
Could you have a better set-up for a rail network, though? You only need one main line -- it's a linear nation :2thumbsup

Would've been nice though if whoever is in charge could've insisted they built the locomotives in the Hutt workshops instead of in China, as mentioned in the article. It might've been a bit more expensive but they're all overseas components anyway and we all need a boost, don't we.

Tank

5th March 2009, 10:32

I never fly Air NZ. Knowing how dysfunctional and incompetent their business is on the ground, it scares me to think how they keep their planes in the sky.

Its OK - they outsource the important stuff.

vifferman

5th March 2009, 10:43

...how important is it for New Zealanders to see the Koru tail in places like London and Los Angeles?I dont know,thats all a matter of opinion.
I prefer flying Air NZ - I like the flight crew and (except when my wife torture my by ordering 'special' meals) the food served. Also, if I'm flying to Yurp, flying AirNZ via Hong Kong is still the quickest way to get there.

Of course, with my wife being staff, there are significant savings to be had on tickets.

I never fly Air NZ. Knowing how dysfunctional and incompetent their business is on the ground, it scares me to think how they keep their planes in the sky.
They've actually got very good engineering workshops, that until they were vastly undercut by China and other Asian workshops, were doing significant business servicing other airlines (and also jet turbines from naval vessels).
I'd much rather fly a NZ-serviced plane than some of the other crappy airlines.

Its OK - they outsource the important stuff.
Like what?

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 11:01

I sit here waiting waiting for Skyryder to tell me how this is Nationals fault as well.

Bill English’s diatribe should be seen for what it is. But in the interests of those with an open mind I shall refrain from commenting my views until later.

Treasury had been talks with Toll NZ over rail access agreements and track upgrade work. If the overseas owners on the tracks had have kept our rail system in proper repair there would have been no need for Labour to have repurchased the track network in the first place. So the start of this process was due to Toll’s refusal to allow Ontrack access to the rail network, for repairs, upgrades and maintenance. So the beginning of this was not Labours fault but that of the ‘private’ sector. This needs to be understood.

OnTrack [which owns and manages the rail network] was put in place to do the buy-back deal. This was in 2004.

The reasoning behind this is a bit more complex than that stated but in essence it revolved around two things. Business NZ refusal to invest in rail operations due to Toll’s uncertain future operating in New Zealand (they might sell up and any agreements with NZ business may have become null and void with new owners. No company is going to heavily invest if this investment is going to be subject saleable issues) and that political fall out that with continued taxpayer subsidies to an offshore company would inevitably occur.

I can remember reading in the NBR favorable comments from the business community at the time of the purchase. I do not have access to this as of now so the following comments will have to do to support my claim.

MainFreight chief executive Don Braid said the sale would give some certainty.
"There has been a problem with the debate and aggravation between Ontrack and Toll over access fees and I guess the seas were somewhat clouded as to how much infrastructure was being invested in by Toll," he told NZPA.
"Certainly we've seen a deterioration in services over the last couple of years as there's a lack of investment in infrastructure in New Zealand and this announcement may well see that infrastructure being improved which would be good for all of us."Stuff 5/5/2008

This is of course in complete contrast to what Bill English is now saying. And bear in mind that John Key bought rail shares hoping to make a buck out of this. So Key also thought the deal was good if not for us the taxpayer but then for himself.

The purpose of English’s diatribe is further acknowledgment of his failed attempt to embarrass the Labour of the ACC blow out and has now shifted his ground onto another issue in the hope that this will cause an additional smoke screen for subject in a previous thread.

Now some may think that English’s attack is politicks but in reality it is not. Just dumb, but then I have never given English too much grey matter in the best of times. There is no is no political gain to be made in blaming Labour they are not the Govt. and English needs to understand that. He’s acting like he is ‘still’ in Opposition instead of a Minister of the Crown.

As things now stand English has given Labour ammunition to fire back at the Nats. English by criticizing Labour for the buy back has expressed a lack of confidence in the rail system. It is never going to be a money maker and rail never will. Labour can point the finger at the Nats and stand back and accuse the Nats of running down Kiwi Rail. English is now on the defensive where previously he was not.

There’s no smoking gun here Bill just the smoke from your own backfire.

Skyryder

PirateJafa

5th March 2009, 11:06

I never fly Air NZ. Knowing how dysfunctional and incompetent their business is on the ground, it scares me to think how they keep their planes in the sky.

If you recall a little woopsie in the Mediterranean only a few months back, you'd realise that they don't actually keep their planes in the air.

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 11:13

If you recall a little woopsie in the Mediterranean only a few months back, you'd realise that they don't actually keep their planes in the air.

Eh wrong! Plane being checked out by (non-flying) AirNZ pilot prior to leased plane being accepted back. Germans had the plane and possibly didn't maintain properly.

Swoop

5th March 2009, 11:23

Aint that the truth!
And no, we don't want a return to the old 'protectionist' policies. I doubt that anyone wants to see Rail like it was until the mid-80s. Lange and Douglas began the swing to User Pays...which is how it should be...so why is the public still being screwed?
Ahh. The good old days when you could send anything by rail and GUARANTEE it would be crushed beyond recognition while "in transit"!:blink:

marty

5th March 2009, 11:30

And many of them for $$$.
I'm just saying that I can't see why having a national airline is necessary.

so jet* and whoever else, with questionable engineering and pilot contracts, would be more than happy to come in and out of Napier 10 times a day?

marty

5th March 2009, 11:35

Its OK - they outsource the important stuff.

Old news mate. All heavy maintennance on the whole international and domestic fleet is done in NZ. All domestic maintennance done in NZ. The only heavy stuff done offshore is the Trent engines, and that's because Rolls Royce have the contracts tied up (even though the RB211's are done in Auckland).

Unlike QF......Oh that's right - AIRNZ does their planes too.

Winston001

5th March 2009, 11:43

Would've been nice though if whoever is in charge could've insisted they built the locomotives in the Hutt workshops instead of in China, as mentioned in the article.

Agreed. However the Railway Union say Hillside are already busy and not geared up yet to build the locomotives from scratch. They can do it, just not as fast as China. They may build future locomotives and will be building rolling stock.

Treasury had been talks with Toll NZ over rail access agreements and track upgrade work. If the overseas owners on the tracks had have kept our rail system in proper repair there would have been no need for Labour to have repurchased the track network in the first place.....

Now some may think that English’s attack is politics but in reality it is not. Just dumb, but then I have never given English too much grey matter in the best of times.

I enjoy your debates Skyryder even while disagreeing. Keep it coming. I will say that Bill English is the equal of Michael Cullen in the intelligence stakes - I have great respect for both men's abilities. Michael Cullen however is the better politician.

English by criticizing Labour for the buy back has expressed a lack of confidence in the rail system. It is never going to be a money maker and rail never will. Labour can point the finger at the Nats and stand back and accuse the Nats of running down Kiwi Rail.

Hmmm.... you see this is a common belief and yet Toll holdings made money out of rail before they ever invested in NZ. It is possible - but perhaps not here where we have Cook Strait cutting the country in half. It's an expensive bottleneck.

I don't think any voter will blame National for the state of KiwiRail. All they will see is that the taxpayer is subsidising a lumbering business which few people even use these days.

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 11:52

so jet* and whoever else, with questionable engineering and pilot contracts, would be more than happy to come in and out of Napier 10 times a day?

If there is a need...why not? But Napier airstrip (sic) is apparently too short for commercial jets, the councils who own 50% cannot convince government with the other 50%, to extend the runway any time soon. So AirNZ with it's prop planes has the place tied up (barring the odd private Lear). Currently, I'd doubt there is ever a flight in or out that would be more than half full...the number of scheduled flights is a service that must lose money despite the filthy fares from here.

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 12:03

I don't think any voter will blame National for the state of KiwiRail. All they will see is that the taxpayer is subsidising a lumbering business which few people even use these days.

No they probably will not. But English's criticism of the 'buyback' now give Labour ammunition to fire back at the Nats. They never had that before. It basicly puts English on the defensive and he has only himself to blame. His comments on both ACC and Kiwi Rail were ill considered and he seems unaware of possible responses from Labour or for that matter anyone else.

Politics is both a game and an end result. The House in question time and media statements are games................. of point scoring. It's all about making the other guy look bad and yourself look good. No more and no less.
That is the nature of system that we call democracy.

The end result is the enactment of statute and by far the most seriouse of political pursuits.

Skyryder

SPman

5th March 2009, 12:04

Just as a counter to the true blue granny Harold...

"Last month, we saw National mounting a systematic attempt to blame the previous government for the budget cuts it intends to make, by accusing them of failing to allocate funds for its promises. The accusation was thoroughly refuted (http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/d/5/c/49HansD_20090217_00000015-Questions-for-Oral-Answer-Questions-to-Ministers.htm) by David Cunliffe - the short version is that that's what the Budget outyear contingency is for - but now National is trying to run the same scam with Kiwirail, claiming that Labour had made promises totalling $3 billion, but allocated only $120 million (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560007). There are two points to be made here: firstly, that that $3 billion (which dishonestly includes not just Kiwirail's $1 billion to remedy previous private owners running down of the network, but also the cost of regional council funded upgrades to the Auckland and Wellington suburban networks) will be spread over a number of years, while the $120 million (actually $200 million; English seems to be ignoring Labour's initial $80 million investment to make his figures look that little bit better) was only a first installment (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/govt-spend-121m-rail-improvements-35924). Secondly, the timing of the purchase in July 2008 meant that any long-term capital investment program could not be appropriated until Budget 2009. So as with National's previous claims, rather than being a case of unfunded promises, this is simply a normal part of the budget cycle.
But National's wild accusations are a smokescreen for what's really going on here: the running down of a public asset. Back in July 2008 Labour announced that it would invest $121 million (http://beehive.govt.nz/speech/121+million+investment+boost+rail) in buying new locomtives and carriages for the transscenic service. National froze that funding the moment it entered office. Now it has cynically reannounced it (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+invests+kiwirail+sets+infrastructure+un it) while labelling it a "stimulus" measure (despite there being no new money involved). Except now, Kiwirail will actually get only $40 million; the other $75 million it will have to borrow. So National's "stimulus" actually consists of a funding cut, and the loading of a public asset with debt. Yeah, that'll get the economy moving..." - Idiot/Savant

Tank

5th March 2009, 12:15

Just as a counter to the true blue granny Harold...
- Idiot Savant

Sorry - you're quoting Idiot Savant - this is the guy who says that repealing the Electoral Finance Act is "a disaster for our democracy"

You gotta find a better commentator than that.

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/02/election-funding-repealed.html

Mully

5th March 2009, 12:20

Hmmm.... you see this is a common belief and yet Toll holdings made money out of rail before they ever invested in NZ. It is possible - but perhaps not here where we have Cook Strait cutting the country in half. It's an expensive bottleneck.

Toll made an enourmous amount of money off rail in NZ. When they sold it.

vifferman

5th March 2009, 12:27

If you recall a little woopsie in the Mediterranean only a few months back, you'd realise that they don't actually keep their planes in the air.
What MSTRS said, except the latest news released to the media by the French investigators (BEFORE they'd told the families or Air NZ!) suggests that one of the NZers requested the German pilot do a low-speed test at an inappropriate altitude. Plane fell out of the sky and had insufficient altitude to recover.
But in any case - it had been in Yurp under contract for a couple of years, so the maintenance was all done there.

merv

5th March 2009, 12:38

MSTRS we're off trains, but didn't AirNZ Boeings once do the Napier to Christchurch route quite a few years back? Has the runway shrunk since then or safety margins increased?

MisterD

5th March 2009, 12:49

Sorry - you're quoting Idiot Savant - this is the guy who says that repealing the Electoral Finance Act is "a disaster for our democracy"

You gotta find a better commentator than that.

More to the point, why does anybody take any notice of a blogger with comments switched off?

Ixion

5th March 2009, 12:53

I'll confess to having romantic feelings about great big strong trains throbbing through the nation. There is a strong economic and environmental argument for using rail for mass delivery. But - its the last mile that matters. All very well getting a ton of oysters from Bluff to Auckland, but they are actually needed at restaurants all over the city - and rail can't do that. Trucks can and do.

The ton of oysters from Bluff will be shipped on a honking big Kenworth B train longhaul (well, actually they'd probably be sent by air, but, for the sake of argument ). No way is that B train going to wiggle down the narrow alleys to deliver a couple of pottles to that little restaurant.

The oysters will be off loaded at a depot and the oysters crossdocked to small vans for local delivery.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference to the delivery whether the goods were carried to the depot by line haul or by train.

The door to door argument is completely fallacious except for stuff that rial never claims or claimed to compete in - fresh flowers, urgent courier and such like.

Tank

5th March 2009, 12:53

Its OK - they outsource the important stuff.

Like what?

Old news mate. All heavy maintennance on the whole international and domestic fleet is done in NZ. All domestic maintennance done in NZ. The only heavy stuff done offshore is the Trent engines, and that's because Rolls Royce have the contracts tied up (even though the RB211's are done in Auckland).

Unlike QF......Oh that's right - AIRNZ does their planes too.

OK - Sorry - I stand corrected.

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 12:56

MSTRS we're off trains, but didn't AirNZ Boeings once do the Napier to Christchurch route quite a few years back? Has the runway shrunk since then or safety margins increased?

You are right - they did - and yes.

xwhatsit

5th March 2009, 13:19

They've actually got very good engineering workshops, that until they were vastly undercut by China and other Asian workshops, were doing significant business servicing other airlines (and also jet turbines from naval vessels).
I'd much rather fly a NZ-serviced plane than some of the other crappy airlines.
Yes I've heard that, there's a guy I know who's from Seattle. He works for Air Honululu? Some sort of Hawaiian airline, I'm not familiar. He comes to Auckland and stays for a couple of weeks every few months, to supervise Air New Zealand doing work on their jets. I asked him why on earth they would do that, why not do the work closer to home or with their own workshops -- his reply was that Air NZ does a very good job and has been for a long time. Piece of mind.

Bring back rail! :D

The Stranger

5th March 2009, 15:12

The ton of oysters from Bluff will be shipped on a honking big Kenworth B train longhaul (well, actually they'd probably be sent by air, but, for the sake of argument ). No way is that B train going to wiggle down the narrow alleys to deliver a couple of pottles to that little restaurant.

The oysters will be off loaded at a depot and the oysters crossdocked to small vans for local delivery.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference to the delivery whether the goods were carried to the depot by line haul or by train.

The door to door argument is completely fallacious except for stuff that rial never claims or claimed to compete in - fresh flowers, urgent courier and such like.

Seriously Ixion. What are the odds the oysters would actually arrive at all using rail?
IF they did, and you will note that's a big if, they would no doubt be here just in time for next season.
You could forget entirely about distribution to the end user if they were delivered by rail.

Tank

5th March 2009, 15:25

The ton of oysters from Bluff will be shipped on a honking big Kenworth B train longhaul (well, actually they'd probably be sent by air, but, for the sake of argument ). No way is that B train going to wiggle down the narrow alleys to deliver a couple of pottles to that little restaurant.

The oysters will be off loaded at a depot and the oysters crossdocked to small vans for local delivery.

All this talk of Bluff Oysters - in the paper the other day they said:

"The dash for the first Bluff oysters of the season is becoming a stampede after Niwa scientists and fishers reported that the first shellfish taken are the largest and healthiest they have seen for years."

And Im heading down there tomorrow by Bike - yippie-kai-yay motherfuckkers (yes I'm that excited)

Ixion

5th March 2009, 16:10

Seriously Ixion. What are the odds the oysters would actually arrive at all using rail?
IF they did, and you will note that's a big if, they would no doubt be here just in time for next season.
You could forget entirely about distribution to the end user if they were delivered by rail.

That's probably true for oysters. Hence why I said they'd go by air. Ditto things like fresh flowers. I only used oysters cos they woz already in the plot.

Same objection for trucks , but. Reckon how long it'd take to drive from Bluff to Dorkland.

Point is, rail is no different to trucks in terms of needing to be transferred for delivery to end users.

And back when NZ Rail had the long distance monopoly they had no trouble getting the stuff I sent twice a week, from Auckland to New Plymouth and Hawera, delivered next day. In good nick . And ditto return.

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 16:10

Sorry guy - your comments in the political threads of late give me no confidence in your opinions of anyone's level of political or business understanding.

This is from Keys opening speech in Job summit.

While New Zealand is in a better position than many other economies, we are feeling the effects of the global recession and we will continue to do so.

I do want to remind you all today about what New Zealand has to be grateful for.

Our banks are in a stronger financial position than those in many other countries.

Not the sort of thing he was saying during the election. Ok I can understand how he wants to dumb down the NZ economy to get himself elected but ask ya self how many shares were NZ buisness and our economy did he dumb down too along with losses to NZ investors. Now he is saying the complete opposite to the movers and shakers of NZ. He is not in any postion to bullshit these people as they clearly know the state of our economy and Key clearly states that our enconomy is in better shape than most other countries. Seems to be a pretty good endorsemnt of Cullens expertise don't ya think??

Like I said English is in bullshit mode and you are falling for it. And you question my level of political nous.

Skyryder

MSTRS

5th March 2009, 17:02

..... Cullens expertise .........

Contradiction in terms. With the burgeoning money-go-round that he had his hooks into, there was almost no way that man could have completely fucked up. Face it, at the time (pre-Election) there was little sign of an imminent fiscal meltdown and he could afford to have things like ACC shortfalls hanging around while he worked on things like the rail debacle. As it's turned out, he has left a somewhat nasty legacy for Key to deal with. You can be sure that Liarbour's response to this global crisis would have been (more) fumbling and every bit as expensive. But you would have liked that, saying they were doing the best they could in a bad situation. Go figure.

Robert Taylor

5th March 2009, 17:06

This is from Keys opening speech in Job summit.

While New Zealand is in a better position than many other economies, we are feeling the effects of the global recession and we will continue to do so.

I do want to remind you all today about what New Zealand has to be grateful for.

Our banks are in a stronger financial position than those in many other countries.

Not the sort of thing he was saying during the election. Ok I can understand how he wants to dumb down the NZ economy to get himself elected but ask ya self how many shares were NZ buisness and our economy did he dumb down too along with losses to NZ investors. Now he is saying the complete opposite to the movers and shakers of NZ. He is not in any postion to bullshit these people as they clearly know the state of our economy and Key clearly states that our enconomy is in better shape than most other countries. Seems to be a pretty good endorsemnt of Cullens expertise don't ya think??

Like I said English is in bullshit mode and you are falling for it. And you question my level of political nous.

Skyryder

If the Labour party had been actually honest about all the skeletons they were leaving in the closet then they would have lost with even more humiliation. Yet again the National party has inherited a poisoned chalice from a free spending Labour government.
Just a reminder to you, NATIONAL WON, LABOUR LOST. ( Excellent result )

oldrider

5th March 2009, 18:43

If the Labour party had been actually honest about all the skeletons they were leaving in the closet then they would have lost with even more humiliation. Yet again the National party has inherited a poisoned chalice from a free spending Labour government.
Just a reminder to you, NATIONAL WON, LABOUR LOST. ( Excellent result )

Elections in New Zealand are never won they are always lost by the incumbent! :rolleyes:

The nation was sick to death of Helen and her mob of socialist dictators. :nono:

The majority have no idea what National even stands for and they don't even care! :drool: John.

SPman

5th March 2009, 18:44

If the Labour party had been actually honest about all the skeletons they were leaving in the closet then they would have lost with even more humiliation. Yet again the National party has inherited a poisoned chalice from a free spending Labour government.
Just a reminder to you, NATIONAL WON, LABOUR LOST. ( Excellent result )
Until next time, when Labour will inherit the Nats poisoned chalice.......etc etc etc........

and so it goes, forever and a day!
They're all egocentric little twerps, anyway. I don't know why we have to listen to any of them!

SPman

5th March 2009, 18:51

More to the point, why does anybody take any notice of a blogger with comments switched off?Because he was sick to death of being continually abused by raving right wing loonies?

Robert Taylor

5th March 2009, 18:56

Because he was sick to death of being continually abused by raving right wing loonies?

And you should be ashamed of your current avatar, a left wing loonie who has oppressed his people for decades.

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 19:17

Elections in New Zealand are never won they are always lost by the incumbent! :rolleyes:

The nation was sick to death of Helen and her mob of socialist dictators. :nono:

The majority have no idea what National even stands for and they don't even care! :drool: John.

Agreed again. Maybe we should form our own political party. Problem is who is going to be leader.:girlfight: Well it was a nice thought. Still when we go for a ride together you can be leader going out and I'l be leader going in. Hey Old rider
Now that's the way to do it
Dire straights.

Skyryder

Hitcher

5th March 2009, 19:46

Dire straights.

Money for nothing and your chicks for free?

Can I be the Sultan of Swing?

Mully

5th March 2009, 20:03

Agreed again. Maybe we should form our own political party. Problem is who is going to be leader

You can be like the Greens and enshrine co-leaders into your constitution. Just ot be really PC

Mully

5th March 2009, 20:07

Skyryder

5th March 2009, 20:21

Skyrider, Can you please provide a link to a speech where John Key said that NZ banks were in a worse financial position than those in many other countries?

Also, can you please explain how a 9 day work fortnight (an idea from the Job Summit which you claim was a front for John Key's portfolio, tourism) is a tourism based policy?Thanks,

No such link exists. re read my post then read yours.
You realy need to read more carefuly what I write.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559036

para 15

The nine day work fortnight is now a no goer. It never was.

Skyryder

Finn

9th March 2009, 14:51

No such link exists. re read my post then read yours.
You realy need to read more carefuly what I write.

This link works Slyricer...

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nevil-gibson/wall-streets-pat-back-john-keys-handling-crisis

A little quote:

“Over the past nine years, Helen Clark's left-wing Labour government rode the global economic expansion and used the revenue surge to expand government welfare programs, renationalize industries, and embrace causes like global warming. As a result, the economy stagnated while Australia took off.”

trustme

9th March 2009, 16:08

“Over the past nine years, Helen Clark's left-wing Labour government rode the global economic expansion and used the revenue surge to expand government welfare programs, renationalize industries, and embrace causes like global warming. As a result, the economy stagnated while Australia took off.”

Exactly. She grew the countries overheads not it's business.
Now with falling govt revenue & fixed overheads that have gone wild the new govt is faced with massive deficits. The cuts will start, ACC is only the beginning. National Super may well go back to being means tested, don't be surprised if the student loan scheme starts to balloon out & becomes unsustainable, there won't be much money to upgrade rail if you want to maintain a welfare system of any sort. The hard times of the late 80's early 90's are on their way back. If they don't make the cuts we will end up in the same mess Muldoon created, Many are too young to remember either of those periods, hard lessons are about to be learnt.

Skyryder

9th March 2009, 18:16

If they don't make the cuts we will end up in the same mess Muldoon created, Many are too young to remember either of those periods, hard lessons are about to be learnt.

Yep I remember Muldoon............and all the right wingers and those from the left who should have known better loved him. Nothings changed but the name.

Skyryder

trustme

9th March 2009, 19:22

Talk sense

Skyryder

9th March 2009, 21:14

This link works Slyricer...

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nevil-gibson/wall-streets-pat-back-john-keys-handling-crisis

A little quote:

“Over the past nine years, Helen Clark's left-wing Labour government rode the global economic expansion and used the revenue surge to expand government welfare programs, renationalize industries, and embrace causes like global warming. As a result, the economy stagnated while Australia took off.”

Here's another from Key himself.

While New Zealand is in a better position than many other economies, we are feeling the effects of the global recession and we will continue to do so.
I do want to remind you all today about what New Zealand has to be grateful for.
Our banks are in a stronger financial position than those in many other countries.

Seems there is some conflict. He's either lying again or our economy is better shape than he is acknolwledging

Skyryder

trustme

10th March 2009, 06:30

Our economy is in the shit but our banks are still OK, unlike the US where both are buggered .
If the govt borrows to the 100% of GDP the UK has reached we will be truly buggered & generations ahead will pay the price , remember Piggies legacy.

He is not lying , our economy is not healthy , you are being mischievious & talking nonsense again.

MisterD

10th March 2009, 07:32

Here's another from Key himself.

While New Zealand is in a better position than many other economies, we are feeling the effects of the global recession and we will continue to do so.
I do want to remind you all today about what New Zealand has to be grateful for.
Our banks are in a stronger financial position than those in many other countries.

Seems there is some conflict. He's either lying again or our economy is better shape than he is acknolwledging

The fact that reserve bank has done a good job of regulating our banking sector has nothing to do with the fact that C&C pissed the best ten years of economic weather we've seen straight up the wall...

trustme

10th March 2009, 07:42

We were already in recession prior to the global meltdown reaching here.
Causes, the labour govt & the reserve bank. The reserve bank can take none of the credit for our banks being in a relatively strong position.
They are Aussie owned so ultimately the reserve bank has FA control over them, they were however far more conservative than many of the international big boys so they have not got burnt like the rest.

MisterD

10th March 2009, 07:49

The reserve bank can take none of the credit for our banks being in a relatively strong position.
They are Aussie owned so ultimately the reserve bank has FA control over them,

Er no, they want to trade here, they have to abide by the regulations set by the Reserve Bank. They key one with respect to the current crisis, is that they be adequately capitalised...the RB basically went round when it was obvious to those in the know what was about to happen and said "lay in some more cash reserves, pronto"...

trustme

10th March 2009, 10:22

I guess I take a more global view, the aussie banks that by & large own our banks have soared up the list of viable profitable banks, from being relative minnows in world terms they are now mostly in the top 20. That happened because unlike many of the big boys they had little exposure to the sub prime market & other smoke & mirror schemes, they have remained in a sound state when many others have failed & that was not due to the peripheral tinkering of the reserve bank. I don't rubbish what the reserve bank did, but it is not what makes our banks strong , there are far bigger issues at play.
It is like saying Holden is OK they are making a profit [ I doubt it ] & ignoring the fact that GM is all but bankrupt, the problem is not Holdens profiability but GM's lack of it.