Who will win the 2011 election?

[shrub]

Im still waiting for his answers, not his vision we all got that, after being slammed earlier I was expecting a valid option with something to back it up with.
But I should know that this wont come from Shrub

*sighs...* I knew I was wasting my time. I refer you to post #327 where I have outlined some strategies that would work to turn NZ around. If you are unable to understand what I have written I will try and simplify things, but I have quite a lot to do today so don't hold your breath.

Is there a party that has them in their policies? Yes, National, Labour and the Greens all have aspects with Labour and the Greens well ahead. National are still stuck in the model of cut government expenditure and reduce taxes despite it having never worked anywhere. Ever. In fact it generally makes things worse.

[shrub]

So can you actually point to a policy from any of the left wing parties (Green, Labour or National) to acheive greater exports?

Talking about it, is not the same as doing something about it...mouth - trousers and all that. Let's pick a successful exporting company....how about Rakon? If the Greens had their way, the'd shut down half of what they do because it "goes into smart bombs". Successful companies are usually successful in spite of govt policy, not because of it.

Actually I can, but it's not just about greater exports; it's about exports that achieve higher productivity and are economically and environmentally sustainable. And your paranoid fear of the greens is amusing and probably based entirely on what Garth down that pub told you (you know Garth, the guy with the grouse ute and the hot missus, ya gotta listen to what he says).

[Banditbandit]

So can you actually point to a policy from any of the left wing parties (Green, Labour or National) to acheive greater exports?

Talking about it, is not the same as doing something about it...mouth - trousers and all that. Let's pick a successful exporting company....how about Rakon? If the Greens had their way, the'd shut down half of what they do because it "goes into smart bombs". Successful companies are usually successful in spite of govt policy, not because of it.

Do we want a company that is producing weapons for the world's killing machines???

My answer is NO. We need ethical industries ...

[Winston001]

I've never understood how fixed exchange rates work but I have the impression its not used by OECD countries. The inference is once you have a strong enough economy, you don't need the artificial barrier of a fixed currency.

If having a low value currency is the answer, why aren't North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Somalia the economic powerhouses of the world?

[rainman]

To get back to at least the spirit of the original question, "Who's gonna win?", the answer is almost certainly National. As to who should win, that's a bigger question of course.

To me the issue swings on asset sales. If you elect Key he will (probably rightly) claim a mandate to sell off anything not nailed down, plus a coupla things that are. To his credit, he's being pretty up front about this, which means it will probably be more extensive a sell-off than currently proposed - otherwise he'd have to hand in his "lying pollie" card. But asset sales are the main Nat policy - they've done F all else, really, even including the bloody cycleway.

So, dispassionately, what does this policy achieve? There are three approaches that might be advanced in favour of the proposal:

1) Selling the SOEs (or some of them, whatever) will bring in foreign investment. Unfortunately that is also undeniably the fast track to being impoverished tenant-serfs in our own country, so is at best a short-sighted sugar rush of cash, and for anyone with any attention-span and foresight, a Very Bad Idea.
1a) Further, selling 49% of something is a dumb idea. If you sell all of a thing worth a billion, you might get a billion. 49%? Probably gonna fetch $300 mil.
2) But, Mr Key might say, this is a way for "Kiwi mums and dads" to own shares, which is good, mmmkay? Problem is, they already do own these SOE's by virtue of their shared stake in the state. Much though the right don't like to acknowledge this, it is undeniably the case.
2a) If the SOEs are running well, making money and likely to grow (like, say, energy companies), then the contribution they make reduces the requirement to raise taxes or cut services, both of which actions hit ordinary Kiwi mums and dads.
2b) If they're not, but could be, then the solution is to fix them (unless you are irrationally wedded to option 3 below). Bring in some "business leader" mates and get them to fix the issues, while letting the opposition vent about the cronyistic nature of the appointments, as is the traditional way.
2c) If they're buggy-whip manufacturers, then by all means exit them and build something better. What, no ideas? Thought we had such good entrepreneurs?
2d) This is also highly distributionally regressive. Instead of all of us owning a stake and needing less tax to be raised, the wealthy will end up with the shares and the poor will be shafted yet again. I'll call it what it is: immoral, and just plain theft. Worse than bludging.
3) But, say the ACToids, "the state should not pick winners"/"...own anything"/"government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub"! Grow up. Seriously. Ideological fervour is so tedious, rational thought is the new thang. Or make a sensible case why this is always true. I can't. Hint: the plural of anecdote is not data.

So, having looked at this with an open mind, I can't see any sensible reason for asset sales. It's a shit idea and a shit policy, so National should be shitcanned for it, and someone else should win.

Unfortunately we're a nation of morons who will vote the blue team because they don't like Goff or something, and destroy the country in the process. That, based on polling, we seem to think that National is the best option is only testament to the idiocy and bigotry of the country, and the dire paucity of alternatives. If you chuck in the likelihood of energy and financial issues during the next term, National are, rationally, the Very Worst Political Party to vote for. They'll keep slashing and burning, and leaving it to the market, an approach that has never worked. At the end we'll be toast.

I was talking to a (different) mate yesterday who falls into the category of intelligent rightie. Property developer, forex trader, libertarian of the non-socialist persuasion. Voted Key last time, gave me endless shit about the Greens and "Uncle Helen". He's voting Labour /Green as they're rationally the best option, and says the Nats have nothing and will assuredly destroy the country. Lab/Green is simply the least worst option. He's donating money to the Labour campaign, what's more, and even evangelising among his social contacts. Yes, only an anecdote, but perhaps an encouraging sign of intelligent life.

[oldrider]

To get back to at least the spirit of the original question, "Who's gonna win?", the answer is almost certainly National. As to who should win, that's a bigger question of course.

We are on the same page up to there!

[rainman]

We are on the same page up to there!

So, you like asset sales, including the energy companies? Why?

[oldrider]

So, you like asset sales, including the energy companies? Why?

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues, they still have to obey our laws!

They can't take the assets away and the owners still pay taxes and rates etc and employ workers, what's the big deal?

How many assets do NZ companies own in foreign countries?

Our little town here has majority absentee house ownership, they still pay rates etc and if the permanent locals had to carry that burden on our own, we could not afford to live here.

[rainman]

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues

Well, you did disagree with all of my post, which was agin' asset sales, so logically I assumed you to be pro. I find it hard to understand why people would take a weak position on the issue. Either defend it or oppose it, can't really be middle-of-the-road here, it's too critical.

they still have to obey our laws!

Increasingly, we have to obey theirs: consider the Warners Hobbit dispute, and the distinct possibility that after the TPP is in place, we can be sued by foreign corporations to change our laws if they are seen to interfere with trade. Once upon a time we understood the concept of sovereignty.

They can't take the assets away and the owners still pay taxes and rates etc and employ workers, what's the big deal?

Short-term thinking there: they can take the return on the assets away, and bloody well do. We pour money out of the country and all end up poorer. Look what's happening in Africa - the Chinese are rolling in and buying up wodges of land and minerals and anything else they can get. Do you think it makes the locals wealthier? Like hell it does. This used to be called colonisation but these days we're such pussies you don't even need to bring an army along to steal a country, you just take the good bits and leave the social and economic problems behind. Remember colonisation is never for the benefit of the colonised (a.k.a. the losers).

A lot of jobs go in these scenarios, too - one simple example is the Telecom contact centre in Manila. All those jobs could go to Kiwis, so there would be fewer on the dole for people here to rant about (plus I daresay you'd get a better service). I've worked for several kiwi companies that were bought by overseas interests. Coupla years later all the good jobs are in Sydney or Singapore, the shit jobs are in Manila or Vietnam, and the locals are down the road to the dole office scratching to get by.

If asset sales was a silver bullet for economic trouble we'd be a powerhouse today, since we started selling things back in the 80s. Unfortunately we've wasted what money we got, and are still a puny little economy on the arse end of the planet. If we sell the last ones it's obvious we'll be even worse off over time. Yet people still vote National, and wonder why I think most of the population here are eejits.

Feel free to properly critique my logic in the original post you replied to, btw. I'm genuinely interested to discover if there is a sane and non-ideological reason for asset sales. I've discussed this with many, including on the right, no-one seems to have one. It's either "but Labour is crap", or "we need the money", or "I actually don't mind asset sales because (half-arsed reason)".All of which may be true but are no defence for wrecking the country.

[mashman]

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues, they still have to obey our laws!

I've seen us change the taxation laws for foreign "ownership" of a movie. I wouldn't count yer chickens on the obeying the laws thing. Laws can always be changed. And quite quickly it would seem.

I understand that they take the risk. But it's our communities that suffer if/when their investment fails.

[oldrider]

I do have an opinion on energy asset sales but only from the viewpoint of my involvement in preparation of an SOE for sale so it may be narrow from your point of view and therefore considered biased.

It would take me too long to post it today and right now I am rushing off to watch my Granddaughter play netball in Timaru. So I will for now!

[rainman]

I do have an opinion on energy asset sales but only from the viewpoint of my involvement in preparation of an SOE for sale so it may be narrow from your point of view and therefore considered biased.

Not at all, I'd be glad to hear your view. And good to see you've got your priorities straight...

[MisterD]

And your paranoid fear of the greens is amusing and probably...

Sheesh, touch a nerve much? Paranoia "oh noes! Teh merkins, teh dirty Joos!, teh GE Frankenplants will take over teh world!" is Green stock-in-trade. It looks like Russ is trying to drag them into some semblence of pragmatism, but boy has he a way to go.

Do we want a company that is producing weapons for the world's killing machines???

My answer is NO. We need ethical industries ...

So it's not ethical to produce something that makes a weapon, that would be dropped anyway, more accurate? Rakon could quite reasonably claim to have saved lives with their technology.

[mashman]

Perhaps we should import a star... That's where my vote would go. T'will make for great entertainment if nothing else... but I'm betting a smear campaign will ensue.

[puddytat]

I heard/saw/read somehere that some outfit did a poll when they asked folk who were supporters of either Nats or the Labs ,that if they were uninclined to vote for thier traditional party ,which other party would they vote for....
58% Nats & over 80% of Labs would vote for , yes you quessed it 'cause we all have a little common sense somewhere deep down inside us....

THE GREENS

What I found surprising was apart from the initial announcement Ive heard nothing more on it.To me that is the most telling shift in political thinking in a wee while...