Referendum on Asset Sales

[oldrider]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

I saw a documentary on TV where they were complaining about all the interlopers from Britain and all round Europe sponging on their system!

Have never seen it repeated though and was quite a while ago.

[Clockwork]

I saw a documentary on TV where they were complaining about all the interlopers from Britain and all round Europe sponging on their system!

Have never seen it repeated though and was quite a while ago.

Dosn't sound like the Brits. We'd be too lazy to learn the lingo and anyway, from what I hear the price of booze there would be way too high.

[Zedder]

Sorry, got distracted.

I honestly don't know too much about it other that it seems to work well for them. They may well have more of a social conscience with less pressure for tax cuts from the wealthier and/or more social resposibility from their beneficiaries.

Put that finger away, you may need it later.

Yep, it does seem to work well for them and apparently some Asian countries, including China, are looking to them for guidance which is a significant change.

Don't worry, as mentioned the finger was imaginary.

[Ocean1]

Depends how he spins it. Neglecting to mention it was a quick cash grab by selling assets paints a wholly different picture than saying the economy has turned a massive profit this year...

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

[mashman]

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

All true if they actually cared about what they were voting for in the first place. T'would seem that some right wingers will happily cut their noses off to spite their faces.

[bogan]

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

Yeh I got no problem with that. It how it is portrayed after the fact, and after this term that could lose my vote.

[Ocean1]

All true if they actually cared about what they were voting for in the first place. T'would seem that some right wingers will happily cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Presumably those voting did so because they cared enough about the options to do so.

Those not caring about the options get the same response from those that do. We don't give a flying fuck about them, they literally don't count.

[Ocean1]

Yeh I got no problem with that. It how it is portrayed after the fact, and after this term that could lose my vote.

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

[Oscar]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

The spin that pisses me off is the whole "asset sales" malarkey.
It's a partial asset sale.

[mashman]

Presumably those voting did so because they cared enough about the options to do so.

Those not caring about the options get the same response from those that do. We don't give a flying fuck about them, they literally don't count.

Isn't that what I just said?

However I believe that people have the right to exercise their veto. Shame some silly auld buggers can't grasp that and need to get all bitter and twisted such people breathing oxygen, let alone their ability to contribute.

[bogan]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

Ok, last go at it. It might not be good if they try and 'sell' it as a fuck yeh we got NZ way less debt cos we're awesome and there is no downside to this at all. Less debt, less assets, tis not a win-win and should not be portrayed as such. I have this likely naive view that within the MMP mixer, voting for those who seem the least cunty might just be the best way to prevent dickish policies from being scooted through; so I weigh up my votes accordingly, labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

[carbonhed]

labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

Probably both.

Fuck it. Definitely both!

[Ocean1]

Ok, last go at it. It might not be good if they try and 'sell' it as a fuck yeh we got NZ way less debt cos we're awesome and there is no downside to this at all. Less debt, less assets, tis not a win-win and should not be portrayed as such. I have this likely naive view that within the MMP mixer, voting for those who seem the least cunty might just be the best way to prevent dickish policies from being scooted through; so I weigh up my votes accordingly, labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

Of course they'll sell it as a good thing, just as the opposition will trash it. You don't actually have to listen to the mandatory bullshit to know how each will behave, do you?

For me, most times "least cunty" is "not spending more than we earn" and/or "encouraging productive enterprise". And while none of the various parties do either very well it's usually pretty obvious which is threatening to come closest without going to the extremes of watching too many political party broadcasts.

[husaberg]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

[Ocean1]

john-key-asset-sales-

Haven't heard the story change much since then. It was always just one of a few, mostly painful measures to get back into the black.

Me? I'd have been a bit more aggressive in spending cuts back in '09 instead. Possibly as well. But I'm an arsehole.