Referendum on Asset Sales

**SPman** · 18th December 2013, 21:22

If you believe they are doing it to "balance the books", have I got a harbour bridge to sell you........

**husaberg** · 18th December 2013, 21:34

Originally Posted by Ocean1

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.

Yeah but the whole time the Nats were in opposition they were bleating on how if they were were in they wouldn't be running surpluses they would be doing massive tax cuts, Yet now they are in have been borrowing more and more money and bailing out stuff they have no responsibility for like the fiance companies etc... The fiscal responsibility is a bit odd with that one don't you think, Smacks of the wall street bail out the yanks did.

**Ocean1** · 18th December 2013, 21:36

Originally Posted by SPman

If you believe they are doing it to "balance the books", have I got a harbour bridge to sell you........

I wouldn't buy anything from someone with the economic sense to have bought that bridge in the first place.

**Ocean1** · 18th December 2013, 21:39

Originally Posted by husaberg

Yeah but the whole time the Nats were in opposition they were bleating on how if they were were in they wouldn't be running surpluses they would be doing massive tax cuts, Yet now they are in have been borrowing more and more money

As would I, then.

Now, I'd be trying to regain the economic strength we had then. And as I said, I'd have been cutting spending harder and borrowing less.

**Scuba_Steve** · 18th December 2013, 22:09

Originally Posted by Oscar

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

... for now

**oldrider** · 18th December 2013, 22:48

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

... for now

That apprehension is quite legitimate but the unrest created by the referendum has always been there!

Remember it was the Labour government that set those government departments up as SOE's specifically for selling!

The National led coalition has probably only gone for partial sales (maintaining a controlling share) because the country has so clearly proven that it is not (mature enough?) ready to accept total sales as of yet.

Add to that the fact that some of Labours fire sales of SOE's didn't go very well in the first round of selling ... they went too far too fast for their supporters!

Remember David Lange's panicky "time for a cup of tea" malarkey!

**Brian d marge** · 19th December 2013, 01:33

Originally Posted by Ocean1

As would I, then.

Now, I'd be trying to regain the economic strength we had then. And as I said, I'd have been cutting spending harder and borrowing less.

Where does most of the spending occur and how are you going to reach productivity in order to reduce your borrowing ??

Stephen

**SPman** · 19th December 2013, 15:16

Originally Posted by oldrider

That apprehension is quite legitimate but the unrest created by the referendum has always been there!

Remember it was the Labour government that set those government departments up as SOE's specifically for selling!

The National led coalition has probably only gone for partial sales (maintaining a controlling share) because the country has so clearly proven that it is not (mature enough?) ready to accept total sales as of yet.

Add to that the fact that some of Labours fire sales of SOE's didn't go very well in the first round of selling ... they went too far too fast for their supporters!

Remember David Lange's panicky "time for a cup of tea" malarkey!

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

**husaberg** · 19th December 2013, 15:38

Originally Posted by SPman

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

Its an interesting quandary until you see just who does better with all this "Global financial crisis" and "recession" commodity item prices sure go up a lot.
People don't demand/ask for more wages when they are worried about their jobs. Unions get smashed etc etc.......
I actually had a dark thought the other day,the 49% shares "the Mom and Pop" investors brought becomes pretty worthless when they (the government) hock off the 51% controlling interest to another party.

**Ocean1** · 19th December 2013, 16:45

Originally Posted by Brian d marge

Where does most of the spending occur and how are you going to reach productivity in order to reduce your borrowing ??

Stephen

During a labour govt.

Arsehole the labour govt.

**oldrider** · 19th December 2013, 19:07

Originally Posted by SPman

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

I was commenting about Scuba Steve's apparent expression of apprehension in his "for now" post!

National and Labour actually swapped idealogical places in 1984 and hardly any of their died in the wool followers (voters) actually even noticed!

They did however cling onto their traditional name tags so like it or not your Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole et al were a Labour government!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

I don't know! Today's National and Labour party politicians are so much of the same ilk and so interchangeable that you can't really tell the difference!

Difference between National and Labour Governments that I have seen since the first Labour government has only been cosmetic when you really think about it!

Statistics are there to serve whoever and whatever and they all put their own spin on them anyway same as they have done with this referendum!

Ownership of the assets doesn't matter that much just as long as the service, products or price don't change because that's all I want off them.

The only reason Clark bought back into Air NZ was to secure their (politicians) life time travel perks! ... (which cost the taxpayers plenty)

The old Left/centre/right political bullshit can go out the window now because in truth almost everybody these days tries to claim the middle ground as their own anyway.

Governments are a coalition lucky dip pulled out of a hat and "they will decide" what's good for us regardless what we think we are voting for at any election!

**mashman** · 19th December 2013, 21:55

Originally Posted by oldrider

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

NOW this is a question I can get behind. Tin foil hats at the ready... chaaaaaaaarge. Because the function of political parties is thus: The right wing fiscally adept (honestly, I'll wee if I continue) are here for a single reason. Take a look back through history and in general (more than 50% of the time), the right have been voted in when there's a financial crisis. So we have the right who pare everything back to money and the left who pretend that they're doing it for the sake of the people. Essentially, one side, the left, spend spend spend on the people in the hope that the current financial model fits. When the current financial model doesn't fit (which it never does, E...V...E...R), the right end up in power. The sole objective of the right is to "steady the ship" whilst the world does a stock take i.e. devalues what the left have allowed companies to be valued at... well, the free market

. The left doesn't care for people, but has to "show" that it does because that is their historical function... anything else would be called something like New Labour, or if you want to get pedantic, right of centre. Meanwhile, the Right does nothing but moan and bitch about how bad people are in general, especially lefties or greenies or anything other than the right whinge. At the end of the day, they both fulfill their functions almost flawlessly. Dickheads who identifies with the Right will never vote for the left (just coz they're fuckin moronic), because they believe that the left are a bunch of commie fucks... whilst those who identify with the left berate the right for screwing people over as they have this overwhelming need to prove that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector (a completely stupid stance, but hey, the right whinge really are fuckin stupid.. bordering on psychotic. True story).

Moral of the story: Most of you, Left or Right, are a bunch of mindless, selfish, narrow minded, ignorant, compliant fucktards. Facts don't lie. If you had an inkling about the rest of the world outside of good ole stable glad we're not any country that's suffering from the GFC NZ... I'd think that you were a millisecond away from an aneurism... which unfortunately isn't an often enough given the propensity for dipshitedness that ya'll display. Still though, a man can dream whilst children play.