The full English quote
August 4th, 2008 at 10:25 am by David Farrar08wire has a transcript of the audio recording of Bill English. It is copied below:
ENGLISH: The basic point is… We spend a lot of time on this. The basic dynamics of it are… you look at it from the punters point of view – they’re saying they don’t like the government, and Clark, they took all this frickin’ tax off me and they spend billions of it, and it went on What’s Up badges and websites and bullshit
NATIONAL DUDE: Yeah
ENGLISH: They got a bit fat.
NATIONAL DUDE: Yeah.
ENGLISH: And all our work tells us they’re pretty keen to keeping the bit they’ve got. And we call them Labour-plus voters – and they’re sitting there thinking “that nice man Mr Key is pretty smart – he’ll get me a bit more.” They’re not saying “that nice man Mr Key will take something off me” – they’re saying “he’ll give me a bit more”.
And the reality is if we had been the government with the surpluses they had, we would have had something, like working for families, but not the same. We would have given them quite a bit of cash back. And what happens is – you go in there to try and change it, frankly Don and co got a bit carried away, cos they didn’t understand it. If you give people money then, it is very hard, there’s a set of inevitable problems. It’s like physics, right. If you push something up its gonna drop. If you give people cash, you have high marginal tax rates. OK, that’s it. You can’t get round that. Don thought he could but he couldn’t. So did John, actually – but you can’t. So the only – the raw choice is: fix the problems; or take money off them. And there’s no way you can fix the problems without taking money off them. So we’re sitting here saying the punters are keen to keep it. They’re facing a recession. The last thing we want is to spend the whole election campaign with families of four on TV saying “Mr Key’s taking money off us”. You can’t do that.
NATIONAL DUDE: Yeah.
ENGLISH: So later on we’re gonna have to have a bit of a sort out. Yeah, we’re gonna do something, but we can’t do it now.
NATIONAL DUDE: What about selling Kiwibank?
ENGLISH: And actually, we just have one guy with a spreadsheet. And it’s bloody complicated.
NATIONAL DUDE: I’m sure you’ve Lockwood Smith’s spreadsheet…
ENGLISH: Oh yeah yeah, it is.
NATIONAL DUDE: What about getting rid of Kiwibank, I mean…
ENGLISH: Well, eventually, but not now. Well, its working. A lot of our supporters get a bit antsy about it, but its working. It’s like a lot of things…
The Working for Families aspect is very interesting. People forget National actually introduced child tax credits and the like. Labour gave it a slogan, and extended it. So it is quite unremarkable that Bill says National would have done something like WFF, but not the same. I expect it would have been like the 96 and 98 packages where National both cut taxes and put money into family support/child tax credits. It has been the lack of balance from Labour which has been the problem.
The comment on high marginal tax and abatement rates are the same comments I made last week – it is a very challenging trade off.
The full Kiwibank quote is revealing also, because it has Bill saying Kiwibank is working, that there is no need to change anything despite supporters being antsy. That is pretty obviously saying nothing will happen against the policy – just a desire for the future.
This will of course be messy, as any taped conversation is where an MPs personal opinions differ from a party’s position. A tape recording of what Michael Cullen really thinks of tax cuts would be fun. But does that mean a party will break its election promises? Nope – both Labour and National did that in the 80s and 1990, and have been scarred by the experience since. No one wants to be a one term Government.
I fully expect National in Government will look at Working for Families (in fact I strongly urged them to do so) and also ownership of certain assets. And if they come up with a good case for change, will include them in their manifesto for the 2011 election.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Labour has passed National a hand granade with the pin removed. They have to hang onto it otherwise it will blow up in their faces. Let me explain ….
Bill has provided on this tape a very honest description of the problems that Labour has created. Bad policy puts the country’s future at risk. Cullen has done this deliberately, just to make things hard for National. He must know how bad high marginal tax rates are for the country – they remove incentives etc. However, he’s so cynical that he doesn’t really care.
National should spell all this out a lot more clearly.
Bill is right that you cannot take stuff off people easily. The only other way is to rely on inflation to gradually reduce the value of benefits, but you are in for a long wait.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
DPF: Care to have a crack at answering any of the questions about the English quote? For convenience, they’re appended below:
1. Given how much the media bit into Mike Williams for a gaffe about election pamphlets, how hard will they go after English for admitting that National’s stated policy program is a sham? (The answer had better be”every bit as hard, if not harder”)
2. Did Brash and Key know, before today, that English thinks he knows more about economics than either of them?
3. If National would have introduced something “like Working for Families” if it had been in government, why are they still calling it “communism by stealth”?
4. When can we expect this “sort out” on Working for Families? And what might it look like?
5. Why would National commit to “eventually” selling Kiwibank, when as English says “it is working… it’s like a lot of things?”
6. Is National planning on running “Labour plus” as a slogan? (We think it would be great: “Labour plus debt, Labour plus lower wages, Labour plus fewer work rights, Labour plus more inequality…”)
[DPF: 1 – The full quote actually reveals English arguing in favour of National’s policies to keep WFF and nto sell Kiwibank in its first term. He was explaining why to someone challenging those policies. Also Williams problems were magnified when he lied blatantly on Agenda multiple times about what was said.
Vote:2. English did not say that. But generally it is a good thing the Finance Spokesperson works out the details of what will and will not work.
3. National did introduce the components of WFF. But they did not extend it so that people earning $130,000 got it and that there was 89% marginal rates for people on $60,000.
4. I would hope if National is in Govt they can use the resources of Govt to come up with an improved mixture between tax and WFF.
5. Bill did not “commit” National to selling Kiwibank. He said it could be sold eventually.
6. I don’t think “Labour plus fewer … ” is good English
August 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Was the guy asking the questions the one who was taping the conversation?
[DPF: Yes I think so]
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
interesting transcript.. maybe national will get my vote..
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:49 am
of course..this is the money-quote..
“..So the only – the raw choice is: fix the problems; or take money off them.
And there’s no way you can fix the problems without taking money off them.
So we’re sitting here saying the punters are keen to keep it.
They’re facing a recession.
The last thing we want is to spend the whole election campaign with families of four on TV saying “Mr Key’s taking money off us”.
You can’t do that.
NATIONAL DUDE: Yeah.
ENGLISH: So later on we’re gonna have to have a bit of a sort out.
Yeah, we’re gonna do something, but we can’t do it now..”
how is that not confirmation of a secret agenda..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I did not see TV3 but did they do the whole quote? The left will take what they want to do from it but frankly if Bill was recorded saying that he was a big fan of the third way they would say it was a secret agenda to sell children or something.
“But frankly its working well…” Was that in the news or was it just a beat up?
And who taped the conversation (is there a delegate requiring a visit from the boys??)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“But frankly its working well…” was not in the TV3 broadcast
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/audio/0808/english1.m3u
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Also in terms of “secret agendas” can someone point me to where Labour campaigned on blowing well over a billion dollars on the railways? If they were honest they would have campaigned on that as a point of difference in this election. Would have been interesting – National $1.2b on broadband, Labour $1.2b plus on railways…
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“NATIONAL DUDE: What about getting rid of Kiwibank, I mean…
ENGLISH: Well, eventually, but not now.”
Thats was about the extent of the TV3 sound byte
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“..“But frankly its (not) working well..”
..would summarise the convention fall-out..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Freedom101
“Bill has provided on this tape a very honest description of the problems that Labour has created. Bad policy puts the country’s future at risk. Cullen has done this deliberately, just to make things hard for National. He must know how bad high marginal tax rates are for the country – they remove incentives etc. However, he’s so cynical that he doesn’t really care.”
This comment sums up Cullen. In a perverse sort of way it makes you wonder if Labour cobbling together a coalition won’t give Cullen and co their just deserts. They will be incapable of managing their way out of their own mess and could ultimately see Labour and the Greens disappear for from the political landscape forever.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I think the money quote is “that nice man Mr Key is pretty smart – he’ll get me a bit more.” He is smarter than Clark and Cullen, so he will get me more. Simple really
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Yeah, we’re gonna do something, but we can’t do it now..”
how is that not confirmation of a secret agenda..?”
Because they agreed no asset sales in the first term, after that maybe. No hidden agenda Philu. Keep spinning though.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“..Simple really..”
yes you are..
aren’t you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The full Kiwibank quote is revealing also, because it has Bill saying Kiwibank is working, that there is no need to change anything despite supporters being antsy. That is pretty obviously saying nothing will happen against the policy – just a desire for the future.
Which is why I can’t understand why the John Key Hate Sites are bouncing off the walls about this huge ‘scandal’.
On the other hand maybe I can — their parties are sorely in need of traction about *something* — like a laid-out corpse whose waxen pallor cries out for rouge.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
It’s a shame that National don’t seem to have considered a combination of a tax free threshold and income splitting as a way around the problem that Bill English describes.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
philu:
If you would let go of the pipe/bong/whatever for a moment, allow me to explain it to you in simple terms.
1. National has stated they will not sell any assets in their first term.
2. This does not preclude asset sales in their second term.
3. Any such sales will form part of their next election campaign.
4. This allows the public to make an informed choice on their government.
That is not a secret agenda. Their plan is open to see. National will campaign on what they intend to do and allow the New Zealand public to elect the politicians who they think is best for them. That’s called democracy. Unlike that thing that was foisted on us in the last election when it was won through deceit with stolen funds.
And I suspect National’s plan will depend on how badly Labour has managed to poison the government coffers with their electoral lolly scramble combined with their scorched earth spending policy.
But hey. You’re going to vote for whomever allows you to stay at home and bludge off the rest of us. No amount of logic will help you anyway.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
It is extremely unlikely this recording was made by a National Party delegate. There were fake delegates trying to get in to the conference all weekend. It is far more likely this was the work of a Labour spy.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“National dude”???!? Is this for real?
But on the Kiwibank thing: Didn’t people choose to keep their money in Kiwibank for LITERALLY the same (trite?) reasons that make up their tv adverts – because of the NZ government ownership?
So if National sells Kiwibank, “electoral mandate” or not, then National are as good as saying to Kiwibank’s customers “Hey, guys – f*ck you!”
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“..ENGLISH: So later on we’re gonna have to have a bit of a sort out.
Yeah, we’re gonna do something, but we can’t do it now..”
um..!..pascal..
i don’t see any ‘second term’ qualification in there..
do you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Mallard was on Agenda a few weeks ago and told Guyon Espiner “I’m happy for things which are not part of the core to be partially floated”.
The only “non-core” subsidiary of an SOE that is big enough to be a meaningful float is Kiwibank – happy for someone to point me at any other options that Mallard could have been referring to but Kiwibank seems the only one that’d be (i) non-core and (ii) a mature business worth at least $100m.
I point to Kiwibank being “non-core” because I really don’t see the connection between delivering the mail and owning a bank. The linkages between those businesses are illusory, and NZ Post’s job is to deliver the mail not give me a mortgage.
So … I take it this means Labour has a “secret agenda” to sell Kiwibank too?
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
philu:
You’re probably not seeing the qualification because it:
(a) is implicit, based of announced National Party policy
(b) relies on the reader being able to put events into a context that does not consist solely of a soundbite
If you need that explained I cannot help you, because you’d struggle working out the difference between your mouth and your arsehole unless you left yourself Post-it notes.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Can’t see any first term qualification there either phule.
You just go on making things up to suit yourself though.
I find it interesting that the only two people who have thought fit to declare on this site that they have honour’s degrees in politics are you and Dodger Nome.
Now there’s a conspiracy theory worth pursuing.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
you do make/present a strong case for the need for tertiary study..
..don’t you chicky..?
..educated as you were..
..in the fetid backwaters of talkback radio..
..eh..?
phil(wghoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Chicken Little:
Every single Political Science student I have ever met is a socialist and have an elevated sense of intellect and self importance. And uniformly won’t acknowledge truth unless it was taught in one of their lectures. So as a breed I tend to avoid them now, they’re just too thick skulled for a rational conversation.
I’m sure there must be some with the ability to reason past their indoctrination, but I haven’t met any yet in my 12 years amongst students and professionals. Of course – they might be the ones who do not go around announcing: “I have a PS degree!”
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
>>So … I take it this means Labour has a “secret agenda” to sell Kiwibank too?
Maybe, but Labour definately have a “secret agenda” of nationalisation, the fifth Labour government has never campaigned on it
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
WTF is going on with you people with the constant tag team abuse, some of which is out right libel and heaven help manolo etc if PhilU had 100k to pay a team of sharks, and threats of physical violence directed at PhilU. You may not like what he has to say, and you really are out there sometimes PhilU, but the man doesn’t hide behind a nome de net and and appears to have the courage of his convictions. Honestly, this shit is playtime bullying and serves as a reminder that arseholes will always be arseholes and I reckon some of you were right little shits at playtime and nothings fucking changed. end rant …..
And on topic, which ever way you look at it this is the major fubar from English.
the raw choice is: fix the problems; or take money off them. And there’s no way you can fix the problems without taking money off them
Oh to be fly on the wall this morning, with recorder, of course.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Philu, its a storm in a teacup calm down deep breaths help
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Philu:
You do make/present a strong case for the need for PRIMARY study..
..Don’t you DRUGGY..?
..Ignorant of capital letters..
..Or just forgetting how to depress the shift key..
..In the fetid backwaters of bong effluent..
..eh..?
PS
Vote:Misspelling your own website name… Thats hardcore… Did you forget to clean your crack pipe?
..eh?!
August 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
And on topic, which ever way you look at it this is the major fubar from English.
I would wait until the next poll before claiming that. The blogosphere does not speak for most people – it it did ACT would not be sitting on 1% or whatever they are.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
i don’t think it is a storm in a teacup..actually..
..it’s more a sea-change moment..
..the moment when the scales fell from everyones’ eyes..
..and key was revealed as a ‘suit’..
…of little substance..
..with a secret privatisation/selling of state assets..agenda..
(which if memory serves us well…
..always mean the punters pay the bill..and keep on paying..
..as the delights of the ‘free market’ then bite..
(c.f…electricity..remember how we were promised how it would result in lower power prices..?
eh..?..)
do we really want more of the same..?
..and when everyone suddenly had that rush of memory..at how much we were all fucked over..
..the last time we believed nationals’ lies..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Agreed Ruth but if this gets legs on the six o’clock news etc National supporters wont be happy that English has let the cat out of the bag and everybody else will see those nasty nats planning to take money off them.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“But on the Kiwibank thing: Didn’t people choose to keep their money in Kiwibank for LITERALLY the same (trite?) reasons that make up their tv adverts – because of the NZ government ownership?”
Some went with Kiwibank for commercial reasons, others were sick of all the other banks and wanted to try something new. I reckon only a very small minority joined Kiwibank simply because it was owned by the government. The ownership of a company is just not that important to most customers. There is nothing special about it.
“everybody else will see those nasty nats planning to take money off them.”
Idiot.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Fascinating full quote, if I was Helen I would be really worried, this National Leadership are as pragmatic behind the scenes as in front. It’s a disaster for conspiracy theorists ( who have any balance left ).
Vote:I must confess I came into this post thinking National had stuffed up, but after reading the full quote I think it’s pure gold for them & will end up really hurting whoever has tried to play dirty politics with the recording ( which smells of a desperate meto attack to retaliate for the Mike Williams mess ).
August 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This was a tape recording of a private conversation.
Private conversations are where we should be able to explore ideas and put up counter factuals and then test them.
As Socrates said, the essence of democracy is that any idea can be held up to the light for examination.
If being a politician in NZ means that you cannot explore an idea in a private conversation without some nasty person with no respect for the democratic ideal, let alone the right to individual privacy, can tape that conversation and allow the soundbiters at TV3 to corrupt it to suit their perverse hidden agendas, then we are in deep trouble.
We are getting to the stage where politicians must first be neutered at birth and then totally programmed so they can only spout party policy and never ever have an idea of their own anywhere, at any time.
Why would anyone with more than two neurons ever bother? Let alone two testicles or ovaries.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
wow..!..
that’s some serious denial you’ve got going on there..nigel..
carry on..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
PHILU , how are YOUR dogs ,My wife is training one YANK Rico toniight , DAD 4 JUSTICE was more laid back in a understandable way, but kiwi bank is a NON AVENT PHILU, take deep breaths only the poor use it KIWI BANK (WORTH A COMMENT
) os in the real world evertthings fucked and MR KEY WHO HAS WORKED in the real world WILL MAKE US PROUD AGAIN , and the 6 FOOT sickie druggies WILL HAVE TO WORK PHILU
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Actually, I thought Bill was really tame and reserved with his comments. The party position is quite clear, and I’m sure many people share his realistic views that although you don’t necessarily agree with what you have, you have to live with it. Like the bloody train set for another one.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I thought Bill gave an outstanding speech at conference. It was measured, thoroughly researched and set out one or two dififficult policies to sell. Borrowing for infrastructure being a key one and the WFF committment (in terms of some of the membership). He would have known that Clark and co would scream about borrowing for tax cuts and every other scare tactic they could think of but policy detail was required and he gave it. From my POV it may not have been the most idelogically sound speech I have heard from a National Finance spokesperson (and for that matter nor was Key’s) but it was an inclusive one.
And that is important. It is all very well being idelogically pure on policy (as I am tempted to be) but the reality is that an incoming government is governing for all New Zealanders. Quite apart from the electoral difficulties how can an incoming government say, particularly during tough times, we are going to take money out of the already tight budgets of families? It might be rubbish policy but that would be cold comfort to a family who can no longer afford a block of cheese every second week if WFF was canned.
In a social setting I think Bill applied similar logic to his general comments. And whatever way you spin it Bill was entirely consistent with National policy and National’s commitments.
Hell, I bet anyone from any party (except NZ First where Winston has to advise the MPs what they think) who has had anything to do with MPs in a social setting would have had a number of conversations that would play a hell of a lot worse than this one. Hell, at least he agreed with the policies being put forward.
Getstaffed – is it BSA material for bias? If you are playing a secretly taped conversation I would have thought it would be absolutely vital to show scrupulous fairness in what was broadcast. To me that would include, at the least, a contiguous qualifier.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
JSF2008, keep up the role of “anti-philu”, it suits you……….
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I feel sorry for Philu he reminds me of my father,in the year 2020 he is going to vote Labour because thats what he does,it makes no difference how much they screw him its all for the cause.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
i vote green..andretti..
so..another theory of yours down the crapper..eh..?
not the brightest lamp in the lighting shop..?..eh..?
didn’t inherit your old mans brain/intelligence/humanism..eh..?
you must be a bloody disappointment to him..
..his offspring turning out to be a snivelling tory..
..are you suffering from class-shame..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Dear oh dear you seem to have a large tree on your shoulder
Vote:I know you vote green.It was the point I was making.Over the years I have voted labour/nats/act,i can choose who i vote for unlike yourself.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“you must be a bloody disappointment to him..”
Vote:coming from an ex-con, druggie on welfare he’s talking about a dads dissapointment
August 4th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“And the reality is if we had been the government with the surpluses they had, we would have had something, like working for families, but not the same. We would have given them quite a bit of cash back. And what happens is – you go in there to try and change it, frankly Don and co got a bit carried away, cos they didn’t understand it. If you give people money then, it is very hard, there’s a set of inevitable problems. It’s like physics, right. If you push something up its gonna drop. If you give people cash, you have high marginal tax rates. OK, that’s it. You can’t get round that. Don thought he could but he couldn’t. So did John, actually – but you can’t. So the only – the raw choice is: fix the problems; or take money off them. And there’s no way you can fix the problems without taking money off them. So we’re sitting here saying the punters are keen to keep it. They’re facing a recession. ”
And this man is going to be the next Minister of Finance?
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Im new here and dont know Phuilu but I have a nephew that went to UC and discovered P and he talks in much the same way ie abusive?.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
i have never used ‘p’..andretti..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
What a beat-up on TV3. Lead story. Apparently any disinclination to rule out a sale of Kiwibank at any time 3+ years out is now regarded as a confirmation of an intended sale. Absolute bollocks.
What’s more 100% of the off-the-street interviewees was aghast at the impending sale (like it was confirmed..!). And this is somehow a major policy conflict between Key and English.
This is the MSM seizing on this minor matter to try to bring some bad-press equity to National after the unfolding sleaze that is Winston Corruption Peters, Owen Glenn etc. Must be hard for the MSM to be judicious like this. So little beat-up content on National that they’ll probably need leap on difference in Keys’ & Englishs’ favourite jam flavours to ‘create’ conflicts to report on.
andretti: just imagine if he did!
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Did Labour campaign on buying back rail?
It is about time the Gnats started asking what’s next on Labour’s secret nationalisation agenda. Fonterra? Insurance industry? the local butcher?
Having said that, what a dork English is. Everyone knows National will never sell Kiwibank but he has just given Labour a big stick to beat them with and Phil a rare chance to cream his jeans with excitement.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
English is saying they’re keeping Working For Families so they don’t lose voters. It’s not what Key said, but when Labour won the last election with cheque book politics, it’s not surprising that National believe that’s what they have to do to win the coming election.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Jeses H Christ – someone gag Bill.
Anyway, the gummint should float Kiwibank on the sharemarket, it kinda helps if NZ had ONE financial services company on the index. Makes us look a little less yokel.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Yes he is NPOG, get used to the idea.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“Yes he is NPOG, get used to the idea.”
Given Minister of Finance is the post reserved for the most talented and eloquent of the front bench, it suggests that if anyone tried diving into National’s talent pool they would end up with a broken neck in 6 inches of water.
Probably explains why internation business consultand and former senior bank executive, Brian Connell, gets forced out.
Far better to have a good ol’ boy gibbering this sort of nonsense
Vote:“So the only – the raw choice is: fix the problems; or take money off them. And there’s no way you can fix the problems without taking money off them. So we’re sitting here saying the punters are keen to keep it. They’re facing a recession.”
August 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Pascal
There’s always the 1984 defence – the books were in a much worse state than we realised, in all decency, we couldn’t keep our election promises, we just had to do it – for your good. TINA. Most voters remember the 1984 defence, and they remember the late 80s and early 90s, and they’re not actually all that convinced by any politician saying “I won’t do it, promise”. Whether there is no alternative, or not.
FWIW, I think promising to keep WFF as it is was a very, very big mistake (any family earning over $100K, without extraordinarly sick children, does not need govt subsidies. Such people might need to lower their lifestyle expectations, however.) It was one of the things that has got me thinking, hmmm, maybe not.
I think even hinting at selling KiwiBank is electoral suicide. I may be wrong, I don’t know, but I suspect this one hint may change the polls significantly.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Kimble
Sorry, but from where I’m standing, you’re wrong. I’m not a KiwiBank customer, but absolutely everyone I know who is joined precisely because it was Kiwi owned. I’ve considered it at times, mainly because it has some damned fine deals.
But from observation, that hasn’t been the rationale of its acutal customers, or at least those I know of. Last week I was working in an office and had a conversation with one of my colleagues there. She told me that when her mortgage came up for renewal next year, she and hubby were going to take it to KiwiBank. It’s not that Westpac had done anything wrong, indeed Westpac had been very good during times of financial hardship, switching the mortgage to interest-only for a while etc. But they “just liked” the idea of an NZ-owned bank.
Which is precisely the reason my parents have switched all their banking over to KiwiBank, and then announced to the family that “it felt really good”.
People decide on actions with their emotions, then search for a rational explanation. This is one emotional attachment politicians tinker with at their very, very strong peril.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
(emphasis mine)
Do the NZ sheeple now believe that any significant business is either state or foreign owned? If so the socialist routing of private enterprise is complete. Stalin will be smiling up at us.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Getstaffed
I don’t think you get it. It’s not that it’s “confirmation of an intended sale”. It’s an indication that they might sell. And to KiwiBank customers, that’s as good as. Now, FWIW, I’m in favour of partial floats of SOEs. I’m bloody pissed off that the experiences of the late 80s and early 90s have led to a pathological fear among the NZ electorate of any sale of an SOE, be it partial or otherwise. I’d have no problem with a partial sale of KiwiBank.
But I also realise that the USP of KiwiBank is that it’s Kiwi-owned. And that absolutely does matter. It must, this bank has 600,000 customers and it’s been going how many years? Fuck with that USP and watch the customers decamp to TSB and SBS.
And suggest you’ll fuck with that USP, and watch your poll ratings take a hit. I’m not convinced it will be a fatal hit – there’s too much else in play – but I do believe it will be a signficant hit.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Getstaffed
Yes, they do. But it doesn’t matter if it’s Kiwi state or Kiwi individuals, just that it’s Kiwi. If you don’t understand that, never go into sales or marketing!
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
People just do not know.
Vote:I heard two people chatting about the New Zealand owned Kiwibank while in the queue at the Countdown supermarket. I tried to be as polite as I could when I asked why didn’t they shop at New World? No damned good was the reply. I was too polite to point out that New World, as part of the Foodstuffs group, is N.Z. owned whereas Countdown is owned by the sons of sheepstealers. Helen Clark needs voters like those two chatterboxes. Thick as pig’s excrement and twice as dangerous.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Penelope, I’m not happy that being tagged ‘Kiwi’ requires me or you or anyone else to surrender our intelligence to the self-ascribed omniscience of the state.
It is perfectly possible for ‘Kiwi Owned’ to be just that… without it being state owned. But our socialist masters have very successfully sold the lie that they alone should decide who owns what. Witness the hypocrisy of the AIA and Vector deals.
I take your point about messing with public sentiment and sensitivities (actually I know a bit about marketing!) , but the fear of causing strife against a backdrop of fundamentally poor understand is no excuse make 2nd best decisions. It just mandates a few re-education steps in advance.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Also, a pretty important service proposition in respect of banking services is the cost. Kiwibank has often led on mortgage rates and I’d not be at all surprised if patronage flourishingly attributed to nationalistic pride was often more often based securing a good deal. A bit like Tauhei’s shoppers.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Getstaffed
I know that Kiwi-owned doesn’t necessarily mean state-owned, witness TSB. But Kiwis have incredibly long memories about bad sales that cost them a lot, and as a result, want to hang on to what they’ve got. And their experiences of the late 80s and early 90s mean they believe if something that is state-owned is privatised, it will automatically become foreign owned. Or owned by corporate pricks who are only just kept in check by a Kiwi Share.
And you know what? You actually can’t blame them for that belief. That’s been their experience, and they have no good examples to counterbalance the very, very bad ones. Now, those of us who have looked even superficially (me) at such things know that the crap outcomes occurred because of over-exuberance and idealism on the part of the sellers, selling to people/entities much more versed in the ways of making a buck. Such are the learning experiences we all individually go through, usually to our financial cost but with a corresponding gain in wisdom. But when a government does it on the part of the people it represents, who may or may not have the sophistication to think through these things, it tends to lead to widespread, and long-lived, suspicion. Especially if they’ve lost a lot of money in the fallout.
Which is precisely where NZ is at the moment. Look at what’s happening in the finance sector – runs on perfectly sound companies because people who are entirely decent, but don’t understand the finer points, are thinking “87 all over again” and trying to get the hell out of there. And you can’t actually blame them.
Politicians in NZ who don’t understand this unique part of the national psyche are bound to stuff up.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Nah, not with you there, Getstaffed. The overwhelming reason I hear from the people I know is “It’s Kiwi-owned”. And I don’tjust hear it, I feel it. I’m prepared to give you 40% of KiwiBank’s customers being attracted by the competitive deals. That gives you 240,000. But I’m prepared to be the other 360,000 are doing it out of sentiment, and would be there even if KiwiBank were giving exactly the same deals as other banks. I’m also prepared to bet 40% of their customers would be with them even if the deal was marginally worse than the mainstream banks.
I suspect they understand this emotional drawcard. Witness their advertising campaign. And it works.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Penelope >Yes, they do. But it doesn’t matter if it’s Kiwi state or Kiwi individuals, just that it’s Kiwi. If you don’t understand that, never go into sales or marketing!
I pick my bank because it provides the products that I think best suit me. But you’re saying that there are people who pick their bank based on the race of the shareholders? So… if this were early 1960s USA, there would be people selecting their bank on the basis that they didn’t have any “damned nigger” shareholders. And that would be okay?
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The sale of kiwi bank is a GREAT opportunity for the New Zealand government. Consider the chain of events.
1. The NZ Government starts up a bank
2. People flock to it for being a locally owned.
3. It succeeds because of government backing and patriotic sentiment.
4. We sell it to the Aussies.
5. People are disappointed, and start to defect.
6. The NZ Government starts up a bank …
But memories are short. People already seem to have forgotten Postbank. You should be guided by these immortal words: “All this has happened before, and all this will happen again”. Heh heh heh.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“I pick my bank because it provides the products that I think best suit me. But you’re saying that there are people who pick their bank based on the race of the shareholders? So… if this were early 1960s USA, there would be people selecting their bank on the basis that they didn’t have any “damned nigger” shareholders. And that would be okay? ”
Well being “New Zealander” is not a race. I expect that the racial mix of the New Zealand taxpayers that own Kiwibank is far more diverse that the old rich white men that own the Australian holding companies of the other New Zealand banks.
But a fascinatingly revealing false analogy you threw in there.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Penelope, we’re gonna disagree on those ratios. When it comes to banking, and industry that I spent close to 10yrs in, the quality of the deal has a huge bearing on where business is placed. Inter-bank business churn has increased as competition has become more fierce, and as technology has the lowered the impact of that churn. Bottom line: it’s now much easier to move business to/from any bank on a price point. We call these customers ‘mercenaries’ !
But I accept that some of Kiwibank’s success has been the result of a protest against the foreign incumbents (as opposed to some dreamy-eyed commitment to something owned by the government)
I’m pretty much in agreement with a much of the balance of your commentary. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Milo, I always opposed the demutualising of AMP for that reason. It seemed a shame that something that built up a great asset on a mutual non-profit basis that put great pressure on the other financial instituitions to keep their margins low should sell out for a one-off gain that benefitted a generation that hadnt put the hardwork into building up the asset in the first place.
It was inevitable that it would demutualise and I guess demonstrates a key point about human nature, that we find it difficult to forego an immediate personal gain for a long-term social good.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Penelope
Good posts, and you hit the right nail about selling a bank
called KIWI bank, punters out there saying, is there anything that
will not be sold if it is making a profit.
Privatisation, or partial, no problem, but I want my share certificates
so I can decide if I wish to sell.
I am surprised after National kept the bribe for the students, that they
Vote:would go looking for trouble by opening up ACC to what is Aussie insurance companies.
The next Labour hoarding up will be, National, whose interests, Kiwis or
Aussies
August 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
NPOG – yes, I sympathize over de-mutualisation.
But here’s the really funny thing. National hasn’t sold Kiwibank. But Labour did! I just googled and found that Labour sold the previous incarnation of Kiwibank – Postbank, in 1989. When one Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour. Bad luck for all those branch employees, eh? She also sold the Rural Bank.
So let’s get this right. Labour aren’t opposed to the sale of the post-office owned bank. They’re opposed to the sale of the post-office owned bank again. There’s a word … starts with H …
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
NPOG>But a fascinatingly revealing false analogy you threw in there.
Nothing false about it. We’re hearing about people who’d rather they didn’t do their banking with banks owned by foreigners. If the product is right, then why would you care? Unless you don’t like foreigners. And you’re bizarrely claiming that it isn’t racism because some Australians and some NZers are the same race. That’s the sort of argument you’d expect to hear from Karadzic in the Hague… that he wasn’t racist because the Bosnians he hated were the same race as him.
Like, I know that this Labour Government doesn’t have a good record on race, given that one of their Ministers is blatantly anti-Asian. But NZ has moved on from the reactionary 1960s. Most of us are reasonably cosmopolitan and comfortable with people from other countries and with other cultures. You Labour and NZ First supporters (and the Kiwibank customers interviewed on TV3 tonight) need to catch up because you’re looking like cavemen.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Milo – Helocrisy?
Remember that feeding the poor is abhorrent if National have anything to do with it, while shooting them is just fine if the socialists say so. Only this sentiment is a little more classily dressed with a nice pink ribbon for voters – it’s hidden in situations like the one you’ve described.
Vote:August 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Here is Helen Clark’s privatisation batting record in her term as Deputy Prime Minister. Anything questionable I’ve ruled a dead ball.
1989 Air New Zealand
1989 PostBank
1989 NZ Shipping Corporation
1989 Rural Bank
1990 National Film Unit
1990 NZ forests
1990 State Insurance Office
1990 Tourist Hotel Corp
1990 NZ Liquid Fuel Corporation
1990 Export Guarantee Ltd
1990 Telecom NZ
So did she oppose those? Or was she just prepared to do anything for power? Or what, exactly? I just can’t figure it out. Any help from the Standardistas on this one?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 12:47 am
“If the product is right, then why would you care? Unless you don’t like foreigners. And you’re bizarrely claiming that it isn’t racism because some Australians and some NZers are the same race. ”
Thats bizarre???!!!!???!!! It seems pretty damn obvious to me.
Economic nationalism is not the same as racism.
“That’s the sort of argument you’d expect to hear from Karadzic in the Hague… that he wasn’t racist because the Bosnians he hated were the same race as him.”
I don’t suppose Karadzic was racist, but he certainly was a Serb nationalist. I personally don’t believe you can sheet home overall responsibility for the Bosnian civil war on individuals, particulary individuals from one particular side. Incidently , the first bosnian president and leader of the Bosnia breakaway movement, Alija Izetbegović, was a former SS officer under the Nazis.
Anyway fascinating though it would be argue Balkan politics it seems a long way away from your contention that people who choose to use Kiwibank as it is New Zealand owned are n****** haters and potential ethnic cleansers.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I realise this is a little late in the piece, but I have watched this story grow from a secret recording to a private converstation to a question of Bill English’s loyalty to John Key and joy of joy’s given credence to the theory of a “secret agenda”.
For my five cents worth:
I am pissed off, and not at the media, they are doing exactly what we all expect them to do. I am pissed off at Bill English! Why, because he has been caught out at his own conference. The place where it should be easiest for a politician to stay on script. The people there expect to hear the party line. This has shown him to be an arrogant little shit who obviously believes he should be the leader.
He has just given the Labour party all the ammunition they need to help move swing voters back to the left. He has just let winston off the hook. He has just opened the door for a momentum change in the polls.
I don’t think this should be an argument about the rights and wrongs of selling kiwibank. This is about seeing a change in government, and this type of thing is not going to help that. Just to go for some negative demerits, the best thing the stupid little prig could do is resign his finance portfolio and go sit in the corner like the dunce that he is.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I am genuinely not sure how I feel about this, one one hand I am livid at English for opening the door for the bilious maggot and her band of lying left wing wankers, part of me feels that Key should sack the prick immediately and install Judith Collins as deputy forthwith, at the very lease that would secure a few more female votes for the Nat’s (just proves that Shelia’s are stupid if they vote for Clark simply because it is alleged that Clark is a Shelia)
On the other hand I am glad that English has the balls to state what the intentions of the Nat’s should be, English is of course 100% in as much as the govt SHOULD sell Kiwibank, Kiwirail and all other things Kiwi as no government has a right to own businesses.
Vote:The only problem with this is that English has had a personality bypass and could not lead a thirsty horse to water let alone lead a political party to an election victory, perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be for Key to sack English, install Collins and hope like hell that Collins wins a leadership battle early in the first term of the new National government leaving the Nat’s free to make the changes that the country so desperately needs.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Common Pennie, who gives a toss if Kiwibank is owned by “the people” i.e. the gummint. Its an emotional crutch. Float it on the sharemarket, vest each taxpayer a share option and get it out of the gummints reach. And get a NZ bank on the NZX.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Milo: yes.
And why did Hulun PRIVATISE all thos gummint depts?
because they were shit.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Journalists and Campaigning 17/07/2008
By Michael Bassett
“How many people have wakened to the assistance that is being given to the Labour Party by state-paid broadcasters and a collection of Labour supporters within the print media? For months they have been crying for the National Party to release its policies. We’ve had editorials and speeches from them accusing National of being a “me too” party, with suggestions that John Key is too scared to front up. However, those cries are now being revealed as nothing more than strategic ploys by Labour and a swag of sympathetic reporters in the media. The position is becoming so serious that some might find themselves caught up under the Electoral Finance Act unless they mend their ways.
Of recent weeks National has been releasing policy on a variety of subjects. This week it’s been early childhood education, the arts and ACC. But before the policies appear, Labour seems to have primed media types with headlines and slogans to attack those policies, no matter their merits. I have been watching the way the media handled National’s plan for early childhood education and ACC. The first thing to remember about early childhood education is that Labour’s new scheme is not working as promised. In other parts of the papers there is evidence that many providers don’t qualify for government subsidies, especially in Auckland. But in the Herald and on TV1 the headlines attached to National’s plans were Labour’s negative comments rather than the proposals themselves. The Nats, they say, will “destroy” Labour’s “free” scheme. Hello there? If people aren’t benefiting, how can change “destroy” that scheme? Why has no journalist been able to put these facts together and expose Labour’s claims for the fraudulence that they are?
It’s the same with ACC. For perfectly sensible reasons National has suggested that they would “investigate” opening the area to competition. They want to scrutinize the components of the existing scheme, and in particular investigate cross subsidies that usually occur everywhere in monopoly arrangements. And in particular, the Nats want to have an independent disputes tribunal so that ACC isn’t judge and jury on disputed claims. Perfectly sensible, I’d have thought. The present system is certainly open to the charge that lack of competition enables it to work in that way.
But no, a collection of doom merchants with slogans that bore little relationship to the most important parts of the Nats’ announcement, received prominent coverage in radio, on TV, and in the print media. Only Geoff Robinson of Radio NZ this morning made a valiant effort to sort the wheat from the chaff, and the lines coming from Helen Kelly and Hazel Armstrong of the CTU were quickly revealed as being the latter. After Armstrong had been reminded on air that National’s policy made no reference to any intention to “privatize” all ACC, she went on using the word, presumably because her minister Maryann Street had told her to do so.
My plea to the media is not to ignore criticism of National policy. But journalists most certainly need more guts if they are to avoid being labeled “biased”. Surely they have an obligation to do what Geoff Robinson did and try to get beneath the patch protection that underlines so much of the primeval protests from Labour’s piteous parade of privileged people?
Before 1984, and during the years of reform that followed, the same sorts of interest groups wailed about the erosion of their privileges. The then Labour government sought to sift genuine concern from the bleats of people like Kelly and Armstrong. What eventually resulted from those years was an economy where inflation, never a friend of the worker, was reduced, and the country’s economy started being competitive with the wider world. It is impossible ever to freeze any economy for long periods of time. Entrenching inadequate people in privileged positions is a sure fire way to make New Zealand an irrelevant backwater.
Let’s hear some more National policy. And let’s also demand higher standards from the journalists dealing with it.”
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
y’know..phil-the-inferior..
a lot of us could copy/paste other peoples words all day long..
every day at whoar i have stories i could quote screeds of interesting/’new’ stuff..
..i was wondering just why you feel the need to copy/paste the same tired rightwing hacks/apologists..?
..over and over again..?
i think part of this whole comment/blog aspect of this internet beast..
..is people using their own/original words..
..not just copy/pasting vast screeds of others’ prose..
..link if you must..
..otherwise you are just a spam-artist..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“big bruv (1182) +2 Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I am genuinely not sure how I feel about this, one one hand I am livid at English for opening the door for the bilious maggot and her band of lying left wing wankers, part of me feels that Key should sack the prick immediately and install Judith Collins as deputy forthwith, at the very lease that would secure a few more female votes for the Nat’s (just proves that Shelia’s are stupid if they vote for Clark simply because it is alleged that Clark is a Shelia)”
Glad to see I’m not completely off the planet. Give you credit, by sacking English, Key would show a tougher side to his persona – and its not as if Clark can pick holes in that decision. At least Key wouldn’t be waiting for court action before making a decision.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
isn’t it illegal to secretly tape conversations?
Vote:August 6th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Richard Nixon didn’t seem to think so
Vote:(but look what happened to him)