Who will win the 2011 election?

[puddytat]

When one voice rules the nation
just because they're top of the pile
doesnt mean their vision is the clearest
the voices of the people
are falling on deaf ears
our politicians all become careerists

They must declare their interests
but not their company cars
Is there more to a seat in parliament
than sitting on your arse?
and the best of all this bad bunch
are shouting to be heard
above the sound of Ideologies clashing

Outside the patient millions who put them into power
expect a little more back for their taxes
like school books, beds in hospitals
and peace in our bloody times
All they get is old men grinding axes

Who built their private fortunes
on the things they can rely
the Courts, the secret handshake
the stock exchange & the old school tie
for God & Queen & Country
and the things they justify
above the sound of ideologies clashing

God bless the civil servants
the nations saving grace
While we expect Democracy
they're laughing in our face
and though our cries get louder
their laughter is gets louder still
Above the sound of ideologies clashing

Blliy Bragg

[oldrider]

Well, I live in hope...And we've covered the "assets stay here" nonsense before - so you either didn't get it first time around or are peddling spin and ideology. Which is it?

Mate, there'd be screaming about "expensive bloody contractors". And also my guess is over time the core service would get smaller and more would end up being "contractors". With no employment rights, but no large extra pay... seen that before.

Absolutely true, this was extremely badly executed both by believers and non believers, shows what poor management delivery capability is out there in NZ!

In my own experience, I know it can work but only where it is applicable!

Horses for courses, whatever method fits best business practice at the time, one size does not fit all!

It makes a huge difference if the (smaller rather than larger) team is involved in the whole business strategy and is accountable for the strategy as well as the outcome!

Life is too precious to be wasted by some fuckwit who has no idea about his own life let alone fucking up someone else's!

When you are totally committed and totally involved in your work everything else picks up as well, it needs to be balanced, sleep, health, leisure, protection from the elements, sustenance and an exciting workplace!

If you are lucky enough to have a wife and family, your happiness will become their happiness!

Nothing succeeds like success and there is absolutely no reason why you can't have it, just kick the fuckwits out of your way and it's yours!

Been there, done that and the greatest reward you get out of it (if you are the leader) is the growth and development in the people involved with you!

I hate being stifled by incompetent fuckwits who only paint by numbers! (Nick Smith springs to mind)

[Winston001]

I'll stand by the comment about 49% - I have said why it's a dumb idea. Feel free to persuade me I'm wrong. Note I'm not saying you are dumb, in this case - only that your idea seems really stupid to me.

Actually you did viz. "You're either really dumb..."


So anyway, I've searched your past posts and couldn't find where you construct an argument explaining why selling 49% is dumb. You may well have done so, it just didn't jump out. Could you please update?

Why is it all magically OK if the assets stay here, but belong to someone else who gets the returns from them?

I do tire of this: yet another example of catastrophic all or nothing thinking.

The assets will not "belong to someone else": 51% will continue to be owned by you and me. 51% of nett distributed profit will belong to you and me. Control will be held by you and me.

We must be accurate in our language or else the whole discussion gets derailed.

[rainman]

Actually you did viz. "You're either really dumb..."

The key is "in this case" - being the 49% point. On the "assets stay here" point, different story. But I'm sorry if you took offence - people call me and my ideas dumb all the time and it doesn't bother me one bit, so I tend to assume the same is true of others.

why selling 49% is dumb. You may well have done so, it just didn't jump out. Could you please update?

Sure thing. Selling all of a thing worth a billion dollars may get you a billion. Selling less than half of it will get you proportionally less - a.k.a. control is worth something. Selling less than half and putting some kind of restriction that means it can only be sold to Kiwi mum and dad investors means it's worth even less again.

People are greedy, groups of people (gummints, corporations) doubly so. Therefore it won't stay restricted 49% for long, if at all. If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down, and I just don't trust them to stick to 49%. The kiwi mum and dads line is 100% pure BS anyway. Betcha a beer they won't implement a meaningful ownership/resale restriction.

And besides, the mum and dad investors already own the assets, and won't be the typical people that own them at the end of the process, so it's basically theft.

Here's an idea: why don't we transfer all the SOEs into a sovereign wealth fund or similar, with a documented long term growth strategy, appoint some capable non-politicised administrators to run it, and legislate that the returns aren't used for general spending, tax cuts etc. Changes to the portfolio would need a robust business case approval process, and performance should be reported transparently to the public as owners of the assets. Set some rules about how much can be in each asset class held, what return gets paid to the government for general purposes, and vary these high level parameters only on a supermajority or similar. Legislate some growth targets so it doesn't all get sold off and end up an empty vessel.

Probably got a bunch of holes in it, but might have promise? We have a savings problem as individuals, perhaps the state should be leading by example.

I do tire of this: yet another example of catastrophic all or nothing thinking.

The assets will not "belong to someone else": 51% will continue to be owned by you and me. 51% of nett distributed profit will belong to you and me. Control will be held by you and me.

Well, no, control will be held by whatever muppets we elect come 26 November, Personally I don't trust either of them to act in my best interests. Particularly if they are National, and particularly if they win by a big majority.

Question: if we sell 49% of all of these things, what do I get out of it? Lower taxes? Better government services? Lower energy prices? More local jobs? Or to watch the rich get even richer and the dole queue longer?

And why do we want to sell them, again? Isn't our economy "fine", according to Billy E? Haven't we " got our debt under control"?

It's pure ideological bullshit, mate, and more fool you for believing it.

[oldrider]

Here's an idea: why don't we transfer all the SOEs into a sovereign wealth fund or similar, with a documented long term growth strategy, appoint some capable non-politicised administrators to run it, and legislate that the returns aren't used for general spending, tax cuts etc. Changes to the portfolio would need a robust business case approval process, and performance should be reported transparently to the public as owners of the assets. Set some rules about how much can be in each asset class held, what return gets paid to the government for general purposes, and vary these high level parameters only on a supermajority or similar. Legislate some growth targets so it doesn't all get sold off and end up an empty vessel.

Haven't you just basically described an "SOE" of SOE's?

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

SOE was supposed to be only a temporary situation ... not permanent!

Labour saw them as a cash cow and stopped the sales, all the savings in production costs were soon gobbled up and costs to the end use consumer sky rocketed!

I.E. The government holds a monopoly position in power production distribution and sales, there is inadequate competition and they can almost charge what they like!

[Winston001]

But I'm sorry if you took offence - people call me and my ideas dumb all the time and it doesn't bother me one bit, so I tend to assume the same is true of others.

LOL understood. You are intelligent and capable of expressing yourself. So I accord your words more weight - and respect, than the average KB poster. As you rightly said earlier, describing an idea or position as dumb is not offensive.

Sure thing. Selling all of a thing worth a billion dollars may get you a billion. Selling less than half of it will get you proportionally less - a.k.a. control is worth something.

Agreed. Nevertheless, you assume a fire sale. What if the bids/offers are too low? No sale.

Selling less than half and putting some kind of restriction that means it can only be sold to Kiwi mum and dad investors means it's worth even less again.

Correct. Although I think the Auckland Airport sale was handled this way and that worked.

People are greedy, groups of people (gummints, corporations) doubly so. Therefore it won't stay restricted 49% for long, if at all. If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down, and I just don't trust them to stick to 49%. The kiwi mum and dads line is 100% pure BS anyway. Betcha a beer they won't implement a meaningful ownership/resale restriction.

And here is where the wheels fall off in these arguments. Moving from the specific to the general viz If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down....

The current argument is part-sale of 6 SOEs versus borrowing $6ish billion. The proposed CGT isn't an alternative because in the short run, when the money is needed, the govt will have to continue borrowing. CGT takes about 15 years to become fully effective.

And besides, the mum and dad investors already own the assets, and won't be the typical people that own them at the end of the process, so it's basically theft.

Oh dear. Once again a shift from comprehensive consideration of specifics to a broad brush exhortation of fear.

Specifically - how can a sale for money be theft? Mums and dads are "paid" the money in the same way they "owned" 49% of the asset.

Well, no, control will be held by whatever muppets we elect come 26 November, Personally I don't trust either of them to act in my best interests. Particularly if they are National, and particularly if they win by a big majority.

You raised some interesting ideas above but time is short.

Control is held by the New Zealand government no matter who sits on the Treasury benches. Unlike you I do trust all of our MPs to do their best. They are flawed and human just like you and I. There are some I would cross the road to avoid but mostly their hearts and passions are in the right place.

[rainman]

Haven't you just basically described an "SOE" of SOE's?

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

Nope, just a wealth fund, sorta like the one the Norwegians have.

I don't know the history that you refer to, with SOEs planned to be temporary. When was this?

Agreed. Nevertheless, you assume a fire sale. What if the bids/offers are too low? No sale.

So how will you and I know the value of "too low", or whether we got a fair deal? You trust these buggers too much, I think. (And as I asked earlier, what do we get out of this anyway?)

I think the Auckland Airport sale was handled this way and that worked.

Dunno about that, only 15% is held domestically by private investors, with 40% overseas and the rest by ACI. Actually a good example to prove my point.

And here is where the wheels fall off in these arguments. Moving from the specific to the general viz If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down....

Well, I think it's a fair prediction based on previous form. What makes you think they won't? They've telegraphed their intentions re asset sales clearly.

The current argument is part-sale of 6 SOEs versus borrowing $6ish billion. The proposed CGT isn't an alternative because in the short run, when the money is needed, the govt will have to continue borrowing. CGT takes about 15 years to become fully effective.

Agree the CGT is a slow cure, but asset sales by comparison are a quick poison. And we don't have a huge government debt problem, even Billy says so.

We should earn more, spend less, claw our way out of debt. And maybe have some policies for fixing things other than "bash bludgers", "tough on crime" and "leave it to the markets". Oh and "build a cycleway". I have to say I like Labour's policies for solving those problems better than National's.

\how can a sale for money be theft?

I take something you (part-)own, and sell it to someone else. You lose, they gain.
Hey, it's as valid as the "taxation is theft" line you hear on the other side of the fence...

Like I say, put them all in a well-regulated wealth fund. Then when you sell, it's to buy a better one. Or is National opposed to building up the nation's wealth?

Mums and dads are "paid" the money in the same way they "owned" 49% of the asset.

Only if they are sold overseas, otherwise it's just more redistribution to the wealthy.
Btw, I regard the incurring of excessive debt with no mandate to be tantamount to theft too.

Look at it this way (2010 figures):
- In financial terms we have and assets of $223bn and liabilities of $128bn.
- Of the liabilities only $69bn is borrowings, and only $30bn of that is short term
- We have investments to cover our main obligations such as pensions etc although these do need to be looked at over time
- Our total net worth is $94bn
- Net debt is $27bn, 14% of GDP - up from $10bn in 2008 when the Nats came in
- Gross debt is almost double since 2008: $31bn to $53bn
Somebody made the choices that led to this.

- We didn't handle the GFC well:


Not a crisis. Hardly Portugal or Greece. But still some dodgy management since 2008, Yes, I know times are hard. What are we doing about it?

See why I don't trust them?

Unlike you I do trust all of our MPs to do their best. They are flawed and human just like you and I. There are some I would cross the road to avoid but mostly their hearts and passions are in the right place.

You would be in the minority with that view. Furthermore, in rebuttal, I give you Murray McCully.

[Winston001]

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

SOE was supposed to be only a temporary situation ... not permanent!

No John. That is what people feared but it isn't what happened.

For the record, it was a LABOUR government which conducted the bulk of govt asset sales. And good on them for taking a courageous step.

Stated Owned Enterprises (SOE) were deliberately established to remove political interference. They were required to act as businesses. It worked.

I can recall at least three occasions over the past decade when a Minister called for electricity price reductions...and failed. 75% of the generation in NZ is held by SOEs. If the politicians had their way they'd have made the SOEs sell at a loss but fortunately the law (SOE Act 1986) prevented that.

If selling SOE's is so easy, so greedy, why have they lasted 25 years?

The answer I suggest is that sales are a last resort or the particular service no longer needs to be held in public hands.

[Winston001]

:

You would be in the minority with that view. Furthermore, in rebuttal, I give you Murray McCully.

And Gerry Brownlee.


But you see, if my Pollyanna view of the decency of our elected leaders is not shared by the silent majority...then why does anyone ever vote??

If you listen to talkback or posters on here and the TM boards etc, you'd never vote for anybody.

All politicians are bad. You bring up an exception and I'll guarantee somebody else will think they are awful. You cannot win.

We live in a socialist democracy in a small country at the edge of the world. We are also the least corrupt nation on the planet. Our society needs leaders to make the big decisions. So...I give our politicians the benefit of the doubt.

[Winston001]

So how will you and I know the value of "too low", or whether we got a fair deal? You trust these buggers too much, I think. (And as I asked earlier, what do we get out of this anyway?)

We get money to repay loans. That improves the nations financial health plus it reduces our interest bill. Anybody would do the same if their debt was crippling.

Value? Business journalists, economists, entrepreneurs, and Labour will examine any sale in fine detail and shout to the rooftops. I do not think that John Key or Bill English could face that if they made a mistake. Their integrity is on the line.

Besides it isn't rocket science. And despite all the puff and noise over previous asset sales the only mis-step was Government Print which was sold for half price.

Well, I think it's a fair prediction based on previous form. What makes you think they won't? They've telegraphed their intentions re asset sales clearly.

The National government have specified six SOEs for part sale. Six. Part-sale. Not everything that isn't nailed down. That's a nice sound-bite but lets debate the facts.

And we don't have a huge government debt problem, even Billy says so.

Every Minister of Finance in the developed world is saying exactly the same thing. You may have noticed the markets aren't so convinced...

We should earn more, spend less, claw our way out of debt. And maybe have some policies for fixing things other than "bash bludgers", "tough on crime" and "leave it to the markets". Oh and "build a cycleway". I have to say I like Labour's policies for solving those problems better than National's.

Fair enough. I don't like Labour's solutions. No problem.

I do agree with you that beneficiary bashing is poor stuff and we need a stable public service. The crime noise is crass. We have one of the highest imprisonment rates in the Western World.

The fact is, I don't think there is anything any government can do for us to bring about a radical upswing. What we need is a Nokia or a Microsoft.

I take something you (part-)own, and sell it to someone else. You lose, they gain.
Hey, it's as valid as the "taxation is theft" line you hear on the other side of the fence...

You won't hear the tax = theft from me or anybody who considers the wider picture.

If you part-sell something of mine - and I agreed to it - and you use the money for my benefit, I do not lose. In fact it might be just the hand up I need.

Not a crisis. Hardly Portugal or Greece. But still some dodgy management since 2008, Yes, I know times are hard. What are we doing about it?

See why I don't trust them?

No I don't see why you don't trust them. The govts response to the GFC was classic Keynsian economics. As I write I can remember my father describing what it was like in the 1930s in NZ after the depression. The govt didn't spend money to ease the pain and instead, improved its position. That was laissez faire economics.

Keynes pointed out the harm of such policies and since then governments generally borrow and spend to cover the tough times.

But that has to be repaid. No free meals in real life.


I agree that NZs debt falls in the middle range of nations but if you scan the list, we are alone geographically. And we are tiny. New Zealand cannot afford to be vulnerable to money markets which is exactly what happens if you owe a lot.

[rainman]

\For the record, it was a STUPID government which conducted the bulk of govt asset sales.

FIFY.

If selling SOE's is so easy, so greedy, why have they lasted 25 years?

The answer I suggest is that sales are a last resort or the particular service no longer needs to be held in public hands.

I disagree; it's because the bulk of voters hate the idea. The only reason it's getting some air now is because the bulk of voters also hate Labour. It's National taking a political opportunity to further their ideological aims, that's all.

EDIT: In support, I give you today's Yahoo poll:
Attachment 244650

why does anyone ever vote??

Because more people are pragmatists than perfectionists. A set of shit choices is better than no choice at all.

Anybody would do the same if their debt was crippling.

Ours isn't. Although the Nats are doing their best to fix that.

I do not think that John Key or Bill English could face that if they made a mistake. Their integrity is on the line.

Sorry, but bwhahahahahahahaha!

The fact is, I don't think there is anything any government can do for us to bring about a radical upswing. What we need is a Nokia or a Microsoft.

Geography may not be destiny, but it's close. What do you think is the likelihood of us spontaneously generating a huge high tech corporation, having the skill to manage it, and being able to attract and retain sufficient talent to run it. All the while outcompeting China, India, and the developed world? Half the world doesn't even know where we are.

Plus, as I've noted before, the world is changing, and that sort of thing isn't getting easier.

If... you use the money for my benefit

There's the rub.Who won during the last round of privatisations? Wasn't the common man, it was a handful of cronies.

No I don't see why you don't trust them.

Because their performance has been poor, and they have a tendency to lie. Their last budget is enough to convince me they have no credibility as financial managers.

But that has to be repaid.

Sure, but when? I suggest there's no huge rush. You don't have to outrun the lion, just he slowest people running with you, which we're doing easily. And what's happening to inflation in the long term? Might be a good reason not to rush this.

That's no reason to add to our debt burdens big time either, of course. Have another look at the graph. Who chose to increase our debt? You can say "it's Keynesiansim, everyone's doing it" but I believe in accountability. If you spend the stimulus, you have to make sure it works.

And we are tiny. New Zealand cannot afford to be vulnerable to money markets which is exactly what happens if you owe a lot.

Which is why we should be more self-sufficient and less of an open trading market, too.


Btw, 3am? Good effort.

[mashman]

The Government is looking to put tighter controls on the way teen beneficiaries can spend their money, including allocating them payment cards that can be used to pay for basic living costs only, not cigarettes and alcohol that'll learn them for being unemployed

[puddytat]

The 20 mill would be better spent on training them i reckon....

[shrub]

The 20 mill would be better spent on training them i reckon....

Probably, but it wouldn't have pleased the party faithful as much.

Spending $20m to reign in the financial conduct of 2600 people, or whom probably on 1000 are a problem is a little extreme. Personaly I believe this is the first stage in a series of similar strategies - in 12 months Pavlova Bennet will stand up and announce it has been mind numbingly successful and that it will be extended further, and then a little more and a little more again, until the government are controlling the finances of a significant percentage of people.

George Orwell is becoming frighteningly prescient in his vision of the future.

[Oscar]

Probably, but it wouldn't have pleased the party faithful as much.

Spending $20m to reign in the financial conduct of 2600 people, or whom probably on 1000 are a problem is a little extreme. Personaly I believe this is the first stage in a series of similar strategies - in 12 months Pavlova Bennet will stand up and announce it has been mind numbingly successful and that it will be extended further, and then a little more and a little more again, until the government are controlling the finances of a significant percentage of people.

George Orwell is becoming frighteningly prescient in his vision of the future.

I'm no fan of Bennett, but it seems to me that money spent on encouraging young people to get a job and avoiding the whole beneficary lifestyle as a career is a good thing.