Is John Key the man to lead NZ?

[Hinny]

I think this article sums up John Key.

Strong Men and Political Theatres - The "Being There" Syndrome
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book "Being There". It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The "Being There Syndrome" is now manifest throughout the world.

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to "strong men", leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but "guarantee" a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-plusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

[Indiana_Jones]

What sort of bike would he ride?[/LIST]

I'm picking a Harley

-Indy

[Hinny]

I'm picking a Harley

-Indy

Low seat height.

[Robert Taylor]

Despite what the media would have you believe, there are other parties than National, Labour, Act, Maori, & Greens. I say choose a small party & run with them it's about time we kicked da "big boys" out!!!

The Conservative party has an excellent manifesto

[Robert Taylor]

What is an election issue is how Key has handled the whole thing. I want the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be someone who is smart, honest and copes under pressure. I don't want a PM who says stupid shit in public, tries to bully the media into shutting up (after all, their job is to keep politicians under the spotlight) and throws tantrums.

And I do give a shit what is on the tape - if John Key and John Banks don't want the public to hear what they said, that worries be because we're about to give those guys the job of running the country and making decisions that impact on our lives. I want to know what they are planning to do and what they are trying to hide.

First, John Key made a decision and has stuck to it, that in itself is strong leadership

Second, that cameraman knew jolly well that he had left that recorder on the table and that it was recording

Third, that cameraman could have done the decent thing and wiped the recording immediately, consistent with his reasoning that it was accidental. But no it wasnt accidental and he is lieing through his teeth. Which are probably left wing teeth. I hope he gets nailed in court, big time.

Fourth, why is there no more noise about the defacing of National party billboards by a Green party activist? With the numbers that were involved please convince me otherwise that he didnt have the help of a load of other Green party activists? This is worthy of a police investigation and laying of charges in itself.

Good luck to Banksy next Saturday.

[Robert Taylor]

the problem is we're bereft of choices...

Key might have handled this badly.. but he hasnt really handled anything else badly.. He has been PM in some fairly bad times, and done fairly well, so 1 little odd thing in 3 years is really not so bad. He is a bit of a dork..

If the PM was Goff, or Peters, or one of the others, there'd probably be a lot more carp we'd be dealing with rather than one badly done promotional politicy thing.

Surely the media and Winnie must think we're dumb if they think we are going to get sucked into making us focus on this instead of the big picture?

Actually that all makes a lot of sense. But the reality is a lot of people will get bitter and twisted about this storm in a teacup, when there are rather more important things to be concerned about.

[Robert Taylor]

The typical bullshit that gets thrown around at election time.

Sadly the average brain-dead kiwi voter cannot remember anything long term. Invent some crap about a private discussion to divert the attention of the media nd the voters.



The really bad news is that the country doesn't have a decent alternative. Labour "leading us" through a major recession? The greens? Mana party?
After the election: Shane Jones leading labour? I guess the MP's will at least get free porn to jerk off over.

Rent a Mobs John Minto is number 3 on Manas party list. If those racist idiots get into Parliament we will have Minto in Parliament. That HUGELY sucks.

I had to laugh at Haraweras light hearted comment MMP stands for ''More maoris in Parliament''. That was genuinely funny. But the sad reality is that if we get the likes of Minto it will mean ''More Meatheads in Parliament''

[Robert Taylor]

I think this article sums up John Key.

Strong Men and Political Theatres - The "Being There" Syndrome
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book "Being There". It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The "Being There Syndrome" is now manifest throughout the world.

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to "strong men", leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but "guarantee" a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-plusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

In fairness that is a great post and we have seen this time and again. It certainly sums up Obama, all rhetoric and no substance. Ive just finished reading a huge book on the life of Enoch Powell. I highly reccomend it as he had ethics and brainpower beyond any of his contemporaries. And so much that he had warned of has become reality. Because he wasnt a team player ( so essential in politics ) and stuck rigidly to his beliefs he enjoyed little support from fellow parliamentarians. It also appears he was totally uncorrupted.

[Winston001]

.

The prospective sale of irreplaceable state owned assets, and the given reasons for such a sale, could easily be considered an example.
Previous sales have become cash cows for the new owners and, if historical energy costs were used as a forecaster of future pricing, they have not delivered the cost savings so wildly trumpeted. Their dividends have become part of the 15Billion dollars a year flooding out of this country.
Security of energy supply, security of food and water supply are paramount objectives for any govt. committed to making the people of their country better off.
Security of natural assets is also hugely important. If you take the examples of Chile and Jamaica one can see what happens to countries who lose control of their assets.
In Chile Kennacot Copper controlled the copper production. Allende came to power pledging to make the wealth of the country for the people of the country. The Yanks ousted him and put Gen. Pinochet in power. Good move?
Much like the Australian example where Goff Whitlam said " the wealth of Australia should be for Australians". They got rid of him too.
In Jamaica the wealth of the country and most of the land has been 'acquired' by multi-national corporations.
Despite the abundance of natural wealth the Jamaican people are desperately poor.

In NZ, 30 years ago, 4/5ths of the Taranaki province was owned by foreigners.

Arguably the greatest dairying area in NZ. The industry that provides the majority of our income. This is an example of a slide down the greasy path which the current talk of misappropriation of NZ assets is now poised upon.
An indicator that this is a con job must surely be the constant changing of reasons and excuses for the sales.
These assets are our heritage and should be our legacy.

Good post and you have my respect.

Couple of points: the common belief that SOEs once sold can never be recovered is trumped by two examples of exactly that occurring - NZ Rail and Air New Zealand.

Contact Energy is a previous SOE. Sold to the public at $3.15 in 1996. The price for this "cash cow" 15 years later...$5.60. A very poor investment which I hoped would pay my children's university fees.

Finally, are you saying that 80% of Taranaki farmland was owned by foreigners back in 1980?? Thats extraordinary.

I think this article sums up John Key.

Strong Men and Political Theatres - The "Being There" Syndrome
Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book "Being There". It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The "Being There Syndrome" is now manifest throughout the world.

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to "strong men", leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but "guarantee" a change of course for the better.
These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.
Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.
The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-plusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

Clever stuff. Maybe too clever. The description fits almost every political leader since the 1960s. No more Churchills, Roosevelts, Castros, De Gaulles, Brandts etc. Does the author provide any useful wisdom with his thesis?

[Paul in NZ]

And its a damned shame Enoch Powell ended up cast as a raging racist loony by the media due to his 'rivers of blood' speech.... Sadly a lot of his comments have become history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

Shorter story of the man - I have to say I didnt agree with everything he stood for but....

[Winston001]

The prospective sale of irreplaceable state owned assets, and the given reasons for such a sale, could easily be considered an example.

Previous sales have become cash cows for the new owners and, if historical energy costs were used as a forecaster of future pricing, they have not delivered the cost savings so wildly trumpeted. Their dividends have become part of the 15Billion dollars a year flooding out of this country.

Security of energy supply, security of food and water supply are paramount objectives for any govt. committed to making the people of their country better off.

Security of natural assets is also hugely important. If you take the examples of Chile and Jamaica one can see what happens to countries who lose control of their assets.
In Chile Kennacot Copper controlled the copper production. Allende came to power pledging to make the wealth of the country for the people of the country. The Yanks ousted him and put Gen. Pinochet in power. Good move?
Much like the Australian example where Goff Whitlam said " the wealth of Australia should be for Australians". They got rid of him too.
In Jamaica the wealth of the country and most of the land has been 'acquired' by multi-national corporations.
Despite the abundance of natural wealth the Jamaican people are desperately poor.

In NZ, 30 years ago, 4/5ths of the Taranaki province was owned by foreigners.

Arguably the greatest dairying area in NZ. The industry that provides the majority of our income. This is an example of a slide down the greasy path which the current talk of misappropriation of NZ assets is now poised upon.
An indicator that this is a con job must surely be the constant changing of reasons and excuses for the sales.
These assets are our heritage and should be our legacy.

Good post, I lost my reply so...

State assets can be recovered by govt at any time. Two examples: Air NZ and NZ Rail.

Contact Energy was an SOE, sold to the public in 1996 at $3.15 per share. The price of this cash cow 15 years later...$5.60. Its been a dog of an investment.

Are you saying that 80% of Taranaki was owned by foreigners by 1980?? Thats astonishing. Source?

[davereid]

Good post, I lost my reply so...

State assets can be recovered by govt at any time. Two examples: Air NZ and NZ Rail.

Contact Energy was an SOE, sold to the public in 1996 at $3.15 per share. The price of this cash cow 15 years later...$5.60. Its been a dog of an investment.

Are you saying that 80% of Taranaki was owned by foreigners by 1980?? Thats astonishing. Source?

It works like this.

When a business is being run by the state and making a profit, it is clearly able to be managed better by private owners, and can be sold.

Then, if it is mismanaged, the taxpayer gets to bail it out, as it is "too important to fail".

So we all have to bail out that railway, airline, bank, or finance company with our tax dollars.

Which once it is financially secure can throw off the shackles of poor public management, and go back to private ownership.

With care, this cycle can be repeated over and over. All that is required is regular changes of name to ensure that the public never remembers that it has already rescued this company several times in the past, and paid inflated fees all the rest of the time.

[oldrider]

It works like this.

When a business is being run by the state and making a profit, it is clearly able to be managed better by private owners, and can be sold.

Then, if it is mismanaged, the taxpayer gets to bail it out, as it is "too important to fail".

So we all have to bail out that railway, airline, bank, or finance company with our tax dollars.

Which once it is financially secure can throw off the shackles of poor public management, and go back to private ownership.

With care, this cycle can be repeated over and over. All that is required is regular changes of name to ensure that the public never remembers that it has already rescued this company several times in the past, and paid inflated fees all the rest of the time.

Meanwhile instead of selling the asset (or liability) completely, allow a minor share (less than 50%) to be sold to investors from where ever, in order to free up some tax payer finance to either prop up the asset or be freed up to help some other struggling public asset/liability!

Left wingers on the other hand want the Taxpayer to continue to monopolise the pain of public ownership whether positive or negative, no matter what the cost burden that goes with it .... ie ACC, health, railways, airways, etc etc etc!

[davereid]

Meanwhile instead of selling the asset (or liability) completely, allow a minor share (less than 50%) to be sold to investors from where ever, in order to free up some tax payer finance to either prop up the asset or be freed up to help some other struggling public asset/liability!

Left wingers on the other hand want the Taxpayer to continue to monopolise the pain of public ownership whether positive or negative, no matter what the cost burden that goes with it .... ie ACC, health, railways, airways, etc etc etc!

If it is a liability, by definition, you wont be able to sell it. Investors buy when they smell a profit.

So, you are quite right when you point out that the dogs always remain in public ownership, as the canny investor simply wont buy them.

But if its an asset, selling 49% allows you to (just) dominate the board. But the profits are lost at the exact ratio you sold.

Im no lefty.

But when I was a kid, we had chooks. They laid a few eggs and we got to eat a few, but we were never happy. We always wanted more. Our Ozzie neighbour had more chooks than us, and we were always jealous.

One day, Uncle Bill came to stay. He sold our chooks to the neighbour. He spent the money wisely, and came home with bacon, eggs and a pack of beer. plus he retained ownership in the rooster, it was our share.

He was wildly popular.

A bit later we had no chooks, no bacon, no beer, and got woken up at 5am every day by the rooster.

Luckily our neighbour was still happy to sell us eggs.

You keep assets, thats why they are assets. You dump liabilities if you can.

And you invest in a way that allows you to control MORE assets. Thats how wealth is made. The accumulation of profit making assets is the key to wealth.

Anyone who advises you to sell quality assets, is undoubtedly working for the man that you will sell them to.

[Hinny]

Good post, I lost my reply so...

State assets can be recovered by govt at any time. Two examples: Air NZ and NZ Rail.

Contact Energy was an SOE, sold to the public in 1996 at $3.15 per share. The price of this cash cow 15 years later...$5.60. Its been a dog of an investment.

Can be recovered when they go broke or have been run down to the point where they need massive capital input.
Contact Energy share price.
Return on investment: year One = 38.7%
I would say that was pretty good. Better than those Aussie banks will give you.
You should have sold out before the effects of a National govt. hit home. Share price fell from close to $10 at the end of the 'Golden Weather'. i.e. the end of the period when we had a Labour govt.
Source: Yahoo finance. CEN.NZ.

Admittedly this was a $1 / share blip 6 months after the Global economic crisis hit but as predicted the Nat. govt. led recession saw a reasonably steady fall since then.

On current earnings it looks like the return on investment in the new assets lined up for disposal would be double the interest rate that 'Debt ridden Italy' pays for its money; given that Nill English is saying they don't think they will realise as much as they first thought. . . . but they have kept the higher figures on their web site and in their literature.
On Bill's scenario it looks as though with 100% debt financing you could realise a profit in excess of the interest you would gain by investing that in a bank. Not bad when it is money you don't actually have. Wish I could borrow enough for a 15% stake. Dividend return alone looks like a net profit of $40,500,000.00 per year. Add tax free capital gain on top and life is looking pretty rosy.