Key signals less debt while Goff promises more debt
January 26th, 2011 at 11:48 am by David FarrarOver two days we’ve seen two dramatically different paths outlines for the Government. Yesterday Phil Goff promised more borrowing and more debt. Today John Key announced the opposite – that National would reduce future spending to reduce debt – and also flagged allowing the private sector to invest in four current SOEs (which will also reduce debt).
This is excellent – both the reduced spending cap, and the flagging of an election policy to allow minority shareholdings in some energy companies.
Some extracts from Key’s speech:
Growth over the last decade was built on all the wrong things – debt, consumption, and government spending.
People borrowed heavily to buy houses and farms, property prices soared and New Zealanders felt wealthier as a result. They spent a lot on consumer goods, which led to a bubble of economic activity.
The Labour Government thought this bubble, and the tax revenue it generated, would go on forever and spent up large on permanent new spending programmes. The Government’s spending increased by more than 50 per cent in just six years.
Labour literally had to keep thinking up new ways to spend money, as their refusal to drop tax rates led to fiscal drag and large surpluses. Rather than have modest spending growth, and lower taxes, they did nothing except huge spending increases.
The internationally-competitive sectors of the economy actually went into recession in 2004, and experienced a 10 per cent drop in output over the next five years.
A five year recession for the competitive sector of the economy.
By the time the National-led Government came into office at the end of 2008 the economy was deep in recession, and inflation was the highest it had been in 18 years.
The Government’s books had been left in a mess, with Treasury projecting no end to budget deficits and government debt spiralling out of control.
This is worth remembering – the official forecasts were for deficits and debt to be so big, that we would never ever return to surplus.
As an incoming government, we moved quickly to steady the ship, help the economy through the recession and set a credible path back to surplus.
Even so, when we tally up everything the Government is spending this year, we still need to borrow $300 million a week on average to pay the bills.
In the worst of the recession, running a budget deficit was the right thing to do, as it gave much-needed support to the economy.
Now, as the economy recovers, borrowing $300 million a week is unaffordable and is holding the economy back.
It is crowding out our internationally-competitive sectors of the economy, keeping the exchange rate high, and tying up resources that could be better used elsewhere in the economy.
And this borrowing will, of course, have to be repaid in future years, with interest.
Annual interest payments on our debt will, in four years time, cost more than spending on the Police, defence and early childhood education combined.
Which is why we need policies to reduce the growth in debt and lead us back to surplus.
When we are borrowing $300 million a week, have an overvalued exchange rate, and face the prospect of a credit rating downgrade, the Government believes it should be spending less and therefore borrowing less.
I have therefore challenged my Ministers to balance the books more quickly.
Government spending will continue to increase each year in dollar terms, but at a slower pace than the rest of the economy.
As the first step in reducing spending growth, we will run a tighter Budget this year than was indicated in the Budget Policy Statement in December.
Currently we have a new spending allowance of $1.1 billion each year, compared to Labour’s average of $2.8 billion a year over its last five budgets.
Our plan is to reduce that new spending allowance in Budget 2011 even further, to around $800 to $900 million.
Nonetheless, this year’s Budget will continue to prioritise new spending to health and education in particular, and to initiatives that promote economic growth.
This would be a good time for the PPTA to reconsider the wisdom of ongoing strike action for their 4% pay claim.
Key says that Treasury project this reduction in future spending will see NZ get back into surplus in 2014/15 instead of 2015/16. This of course will only occur if the 2011 – 2014 Government has tight fiscal discipline.
Now onto the capital side:
The Investment Statement shows that the government, on behalf of taxpayers, owns $220 billion of assets across a whole range of social, financial and commercial investments – everything from hospitals, roads, prisons, schools and Police stations to the Super Fund, electricity companies and coal mining operations.
We also expect to acquire $33 billion of net new assets over the next five years, including new schools, operating theatres, ultra-fast broadband and major investments in our state highways and other transport infrastructure. That is a considerable spend by any reckoning.
At the margin there are two ways we can acquire new assets – either we can borrow more or we can change the mix of assets we own.
Indeed, and it is stupidity to insist that our current mix of assets is perfect, and in no way can any existing asset be sold or even sold down.
The greatest scope to change the mix of assets lies with the government’s portfolio of commercial assets.
In particular, the sort of mixed-ownership model under which Air New Zealand operates – where the government owns most of the company but there is a minority of outside equity – gives the best of both worlds.
Under this model, the government has a controlling stake in what is a crucial piece of transport infrastructure and guarantees that it will be majority New Zealand owned. But by not owning 100 percent of the airline, the government also has capital free to invest in other assets.
This model could be extended to more of the government’s commercial assets.
As well as freeing up capital, there are three other potential benefits of a mixed ownership model.
The first is that it broadens the pool of investments for New Zealand savers, either directly themselves, or through investment funds such as KiwiSaver.
New, quality listings on the stock exchange would give “mum and dad” investors the option of putting their savings into large and proven companies, rather than relying, as is so often the case, on property investments.
The second is that the company reaps the benefits of sharper commercial disciplines, more transparency and greater external oversight.
Under the mixed ownership model Air New Zealand has been a creative and innovative company and a model corporate citizen. It has also offered some very competitive prices for air travel.
I am convinced that Air New Zealand would not be run as well, nor provide as good a service to customers, if it was owned 100 percent by the government.
And the third potential benefit is the opportunity for the companies involved to obtain more capital to grow further, without depending entirely on a cash-strapped government to support them.
Having some SOEs able to access capital, without the taxpayers having to borrow more will be good for them, and allow them to grow.
And NZ investors would love having some solid companies to be able to invest in – which will help boost savings.
For all these reasons, the Government has asked Treasury for advice on the merits and viability of extending the mixed ownership model to four other state-owned companies – Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy.
In each case, the government would retain majority ownership and control, and the freed-up capital would be used to purchase other public assets, thereby reducing the government’s need to borrow.
The Government has also asked Treasury for advice on the merits and viability of reducing the government’s shareholding in Air New Zealand, again while retaining a majority stake.
Only the companies I have just mentioned will be considered for a mixed ownership model.
For all these reasons, the Government has asked Treasury for advice on the merits and viability of extending the mixed ownership model to four other state-owned companies – Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy.
In each case, the government would retain majority ownership and control, and the freed-up capital would be used to purchase other public assets, thereby reducing the government’s need to borrow.
The Government has also asked Treasury for advice on the merits and viability of reducing the government’s shareholding in Air New Zealand, again while retaining a majority stake.
Only the companies I have just mentioned will be considered for a mixed ownership model.
Yay. We are currently the only country in the OECD that has a policy based on pure ideology of banning any private sector investment in current state assets. This probable policy is a step in the right direction.
It is subject to finalisation and approval from voters at the 2011 election. It will maintain Government control of the five companies, but allow for Kiwi mums and dads to invest in those companies, providing the companies with capital, and the investors with good returns.
Kiwis will have some clear choices for the 2011 election – policies which boost savings, reduce future spending and reduce debt vs policies to tax rich pricks more and borrow more.
Related posts:
- The importance of reducing debt
- The risk of debt
- A path out of debt
- Debt under a Labour-led Government
January 26th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Good stuff. Pull it off and maybe some expats like myself may even come back and pay some tax. Currently I plan to be a drag on NZ at the start and end of my life and pay my tax elsewhere in the middle.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Wouldn’t it be better to wait 1-2 years for the world economy to pick up before selling assets (so we can a better price for them) rather than trying to sell now?
[DPF: Any floats would be no earlier I suspect than late 2012]
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I don’t think so DRHILL, firstly it’s not selling the assets, it’s allowing investors to buy (minority) shareholdings of the assets. The shares may be relatively cheap now, but that will mean those that invest in them will (theoretically) see a good return on their investment. I would hope there will be some restrictions around shareholdings that will mean the shares available are offered first to individual kiwis rather than corporates, and a limit on shareholdings so that they are fairly distributed.
Vote:Secondly, those companies (the state owned energy companies) are very profitable already, so I wouldn’t expect any astronomical gains to be forthcoming, rather a moderate (although better than bank deposit rates) increase in value.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The partial sales of these assets will bring a once-only cash injection. Great. But it is not a sustainable solution. It does not affect the spending model. The growth is spending in being slowed, but the quality of the spending is not being challenged.
It’s like me saying my household budget is on the ropes, but I’m not going to terminate the Sky subscription, just buy fewer PPV’s. Or I won’t stop buying $80,000 cars, just buy them every 4 years instead of 3.
As a National supporter, I don’t think this is enough
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Part-selling SOEs to ‘invest’ the money in the welfare and never-need-to-pay-it-back-student-loan-scheme sinkhole. Crap idea, from a vision-less government.
Divest the government of SOEs by issuing shares to the real owners, i.e. the taxpayers of NZ. That will give liquidity and size to the market and stop the cash-injection being squandered by this government or the next. And never fear, it will be squandered.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I like this a lot.
Id look at investing in the companies he has listed.
The part that appeals the most is that there will be better companies for kiwis to invest in.
Labour are gonna be screaming “asset sales” for the rest of the year. its gonna get boring real quick.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
All sounds very sensible. Will this help us to catch up with Australia?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
DRHILL,
Vote:Yes, you are right. It would be better (for the Govt’s accounts) to be selling in 1-2 years time. And that is exactly what will happen. No sale will occur before the election. Only after that will it be put in motion. Ergo the actual sale will be in 2012 or even 2013.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Why would anybody want to put their hard earned cash into any enterprise controlled by the government?
Remember the odds are that we will likely get a Labour/Greenie/Winston/Maori coalition next up.
I’ll stick with where my dough is invested now thank you.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
John you dimwit – imagine how much less we’d owe we didnt borrow for some top tax earners tax cut!!!
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Things that really annoyed me about Goff’s speech, inter alia:
Vote:- proposition that people earning $120k were raking it in on easy street. It’s good money but hardly raking it in – and does not take into account what income was previous years or risks/efforts to get there.
- this suggestion that tax cuts are giving money away to the rich – it’s taking slightly less off them
- is there any first $5k of income that could be said to provide net tax?
January 26th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell-off state assets and cut back Government spending.”
this sounds like an awesome recipe for success – like 1991 with a taller finance minister….
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
The Labour Party is giving a few cents here and there with poorly targeted tax relief costing hundreds of millions of dollars through their making the first $5,000 tax free and the lifting of GST on food. That is why they rejected such policies while in Government.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I like it.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Can’t we just make John Key a Saint now?
Labour really just do not get it with their incessant whining and moaning about the income gap comparing the McDonalds worker with the Heart Surgeon.
John Key instead wants the burger flipper at McDs to beome the owner of the McDs, and the Heart Surgeon to actually stay in NZ.
I look forward to yet another lift in the polls for National.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Why are asset sales the answer? Surely even if you negotiated the greatest asset sale of all time you still wouldn’t even touch the sides when you are talking about $300 million /week?
(Incidentally, $300 million /week is about one “train set” /fortnight isn’t it? Since we are talking about how it is all Labour’s doing.)
Surely it’s the ongoing weekly spending that is the key? Why hasn’t our change of Government, Change of direction cut spending and reduced borrowing to Zero within a few months? It all sounded so simple during the 2008 campaign, was that all advertising bullsh*t??
And just as an aside, why is this country not manufacturing cars, trucks and (more) aircraft? We have an indigenous steel industry, and a major foreign owned aluminium supplier based here. And far from full employment…
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
kj: A dimwit is someone who pays money to the government to purchase shares in an enterprise he already owns without ever being able to overrule the majority shareholder when they suddenly get the urge to piss all the profits down the socialist gurgler.
I don’t owe or borrow any money so I don’t actually give a rats if interest rates rise, in fact its good for me when they do.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“Phil Goff promised more borrowing and more debt”
Maybe my memory is hazy, but I remember him stating, very clearly, the precise opposite – he promised *not* to incur more debt.
Given Key borrowed $1 billion to fund tax cuts last year he should be a little more careful when throwing around terms like ‘fiscally irresponsible’. Massive deficit after eviscerating income tax revenue – who woulda’ thunk it?!
“they did nothing except huge spending increase”
Oh and pay down public debt from ~35% to 20% of GDP. Come on DPF, you’re better than this.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I haven’t seen the hair that went with it but this sounds like sensible albeit quite cautious steps in the right direction, well considered and considerate.
Yesterday’s jumping the gun is a stark contrast, even more like a hurried attempt to poke up the polls.
National seem to understand:
- how the economy actually works and needs to be working
- that you’re far better nudging things in the right direction term by term than going for broke and getting busted by the voters
John the Pragmatist strikes again.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
You want to drive a Trekka again RRM?
http://www.trekka.co.nz/history.htm
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Johnboy – oops sorry – was referring to the le grand John (Mr Key) – didnt clock yr post above…
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The predictable and Labour dog whistle spin for 2011 grows increasingly shrill, some highlights thus far.
Rich People = Bad and or Greedy, the rich arbitrarily being anyone earning 100K+ earners, hmm… I don’t feel rich sorry, I just work 60 hour weeks in a hard job trying to get ahead and I wish I didn’t, but I do.
Labour will continue to spin the simplistic ‘Privatisation=Bad’ message; their hard core demand that they do, seems all their creative juices are taxed on creating slogans that are anti rich-prick.
Labour’s shrinking support base will continue to misunderstand Public/Private Partnership, people getting ahead because for every person who lifts themselves into the middle class they lose a vote.
I’m sorry but can someone do a look at how the Labour party are still solvent; their fundraising must be getting desparate… I’m sure their funds will be legit of course, they always are. Not.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Ah so kj.
But I still think that only dimwits would buy into the scheme.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
RRM
We used to have a larger range of manufacturing and heavy industry but it wasn’t competitive. First Japan/Taiwan, then SE Asia, then China and India put paid to all of that.
The good news is we still have Africa’s industrialisation to look forward to
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Because we were never an industrial country in that respect. People hark back to the good old days when NZ assembled CKD cars and made fuel tanks and bullbars for imported trucks, but that was only economic because of import tariffs. And the bill for the uneconomic work was paid by the NZ public.
The law of Comparative Advantage is not to be trifled.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Labour Governments ultimately run out of money because they cannot stop spending and will put up taxes and borrow borrow borrow because they WILL NOT face hard decisions. While money is tight we will not have a Labour Government because tax payers do not trust them.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
What is the point in reducing total new spending from $1.1b/year to $800-$900m/year if you are borrowing $300m a week? Unless I have missed something, the PM has announced to great fanfare that he is going to reduce the Government’s borrowing requirements by less than 2%. That’s margin of error stuff.
Quite why this should cause the PPTA to reconsider their 4% pay claim escapes me. The PM has just told them he is happy to keep borrowing $300m a week and sees no need to make any meaningful reduction in Government spending. So they will reckon it’s business as usual. If there is enough money for Warners and South Centerbury Finance, there’s enough to pay teachers 4%.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
But tvb, Labour governments can wreak a colossal amount of near-permanent damage to the economy before they ultimately run out of money.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Nick, the aim is for income to grow at a faster rate than spending so the budget balances sooner.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
The government BORROWS to PAY for tax cuts? ummm ok
Anyway, upset lefties always makes for a happy Dime
GPT1 makes this point:
“and does not take into account what income was previous years or risks/efforts to get there.”
Thats something not often discussed. My brother spent half a decade on the bones of his ass as he chased his dream. he got there. makes silly money now.
That should be something we all aspire too.
but ah know. now he’s a rich prick, hes greedy blah blah blah
RRM – free trade killed our car industry didnt it? im not sure we could export cars and be competitive. we dont have the capital or expertise to get going. aussie/yanks etc have big import tariffs. doubt we could produce cars cheaper than china. economies of scale and all that. Its a nice idea though. id love to see some decent manufacturing get going.
Maybe we could beme a weapons building nation
build tanks or something! that would be great.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
k.jones and Origen:
National did not borrow to pay for tax cuts. They were paid for by a rise in GST.
It could be argued that by offering the tax cuts we have had to borrow more to pay for committed spending promises than we would have if only GST had been raised. However these big-spending promises were Labour promises, that (IMHO) National should have changed but did not for fear of frightening those with the foresight of a worm.
And just remember that while my salary is about 4 times that of someone on $25,000 my tax contribution is still over 6 times that person’s tax contribution. And more likely infinitely more if that person has kids as WFF has them paying effectively no tax at all. I reckon I pay plenty especially once tax on rental property profits (yes, profits) and savings/kiwisaver is added in.
It’s the spending that has addressed, not the taxation.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
There is no way I’d touch shares in an SOE while the government retains majority control. That’s just an invitation for someone like Cullen to use my shares for political ends.
But I think Key has this economic policy wrong since his objective is to run the economy responsibly. The history of most countries with alternating right and left wing governments is that the right wing governments reform the economy and get it growing, and then the left wing governments have a giant spendathon that bribes themselves a few terms in power and lasts until the whole system is near collapse. Instead, Key should be borrowing as much as he can and giving it away as tax cuts. When Labour returns to power then they’ll raise taxes as they always do, but they won’t have any scope for wasteful spending increases since they’ll be concerned with nothing much more than maintaining the debt.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Quote:
allowing the private sector to invest in four current SOEs
Roger Kerr had a blog post on privatization.
PRIVATISATION DEBATE SHOULD BE RIGOROUS
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“Instead, Key should be borrowing as much as he can and giving it away as tax cuts. ”
Now I like that idea davidp. Great bit of lateral thinking.
I would support National if that was their policy just for the satisfaction of watching the next Labour Gvt. explain to their adherents why they couldn’t have any more lollies and had to give back the ones they all ready had.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Given our current account balance reached it’s lowest depths during the last Labour government, am I correct in thinking that we were already borrowing about $250million per week even before National took the reins? http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig6.html
Does anyone know of data/graph showing the borrowing levels going back during Labour’s tenure?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
We are currently the only country in the OECD that has a policy based on pure ideology of banning any private sector investment in current state assets.
And your policy is private sector onwership of state assetts purely on the basis of ideology?
…allow for Kiwi mums and dads to invest in those companies, providing the companies with capital, and the investors with good returns.
Are you personally guaranteeing those returns? Or are you suggesting the government should?
I assume you are aware that there is an inherent risk and that returns cannot be guaranteed.
[DPF: Of course they are not guaranteed. But it won't be compulsory to invest in them]
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
dime
We have passed up several opportunities recently for manufacturing here. Case in point was rail rolling stock. The difference in the bids was not huge but the benefits to manufacturing those items in NZ include:
* There is an existing industry so it retains skilled work
* Adds around a thousand jobs (less unemployment benefit to pay)
* Increases the PAYE take
* Increases the GST take
* Provides for the opportunity to bid for other international work
* Having the money for the rolling stock do a big money-go-round here in NZ is much more preferable to it simply being paid offshore.
It just makes more sense
Vote:* The aircraft maintenance work we have in ChCh shows that we can win international work here
* The recent debacles with navy shipbuilding outsourced to Tenix suggests that quality control has been lost
* The recent debacles with commuter rail in both Wellington and Auckland suggest that quality control is very important to the end result
January 26th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Read below – it’s a sorry turn of events when a supposedly centrist party like Labour can’t abide a partial sell down of power companies in a free market democracy, but the communist government of Laos can see the sense in it.
State power company begins share sale
December 18, 2010
A state-owned power company plans to mobilise as much as 930.5 billion kip (US$115.4 million) to build more power plants after putting 25 percent of its shares on sale this week.
The EDL Electricity Generation Company is allowing local and foreign investors to subscribe for shares until December 24, after obtaining permission from the Lao Securities Exchange Commission.
The company will sell about 217 million shares, with about 86.9 million allocated to foreign investors and 119.4 million to local investors, at an initial price of 4,300 kip per share. Some 10.9 million shares will be available for purchase by company employees at 4,000 kip per share.
Investors can now subscribe for shares with BCEL Krungthai Securities Company in Vientiane, a financial adviser, broker and underwriter for the power company.
The EDL Electricity Generation Company is a subsidiary of the state-owned Electricite du Laos. The government has given permission for the EDL Electricity Generation Company to sell only 25 percent of its shares, so the company retains control.
The company expects to earn 292.9 billion kip of net profit this year, and hopes this will rise to 550 billion next year, according to the prospectus. Total assets are estimated at 4.5 trillion kip this year, which may rise to 4.6 trillion kip in 2011.
The EDL Electricity Generation Public Company owns seven hydropower plants with an estimated installed capacity of about 384 megawatts (MW). The company has invested in the development of new hydropower plants and expects to own 17 facilities by 2015 with a total installed production capacity of about 708MW.
Shareholders will be entitled to receive dividends no less than 50 percent of the available net profits of the company after deducting for taxes and other expenses.
The company will use the money it raises from the sale of shares to finance new power projects and maintain existing plants.
Demand for electricity has seen a remarkable 10 to 15 percent increase over the past few years due to Laos’ strong economic growth.
Last fiscal year economic growth reached 7.9 percent and is tipped to reach eight percent this year. The inflation rate rose above 4 percent last fiscal year and the government is taking steps to curb the spike after inflation rates near eight percent were recorded in the past two months.
The Bank of the Lao PDR has made a strong commitment to keep the kip stable within a five percent fluctuation range.
The EDL Electricity Generation Company is the second state-owned enterprise to offer shares for public sale. The sale is part of government policy to attract foreign investment in a bid to boost economic growth and create more job opportunities.
The Lao Securities Exchange opened in October and will begin trading early next year. At present, the stock market is improving its IT system and other necessary facilities to ensure smooth operation of the first Lao securities exchange.
Source: Vientiane Times
Vote:By Ekaphone Phouthonesy
January 26th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Currently we have a new spending allowance of $1.1 billion each year…
I’m sorry but could Key be any more pathetic? How about no new spending while you’re running such an enormous deficit? How about not running stupid ads telling you not to use your mobile while driving, or to stick with your mates when in town? How about not closing the freeway every night from 8pm to needlessly put shiny new million dollar barriers up. How about not spending millions on clever variable speed highway signs that achieve absolutely nothing? How about rolling back some of the Welfare For Families that you, Mr Key, voted against? How about not committing hundreds of millions to rail, which everyone knows is simply money down the drain?
It is hard to imagine Key showing any less leadership. Only by comparison with the even loonier plans of the Opposition does he get to look remotely sane or reasonable.
And – honestly – the head of any institution which has let its spending get so out of control lecturing anybody about personal responsibility and savings? Give me a break.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Haven’t we heard these ideas, promises (and lies) before? Sure thing, it must be election year and our crooked politicians are out there trying to outsmart each other.
As the first step in reducing spending growth, we will run a tighter Budget this year than was indicated in the Budget Policy Statement in December.
Does the Prime Minister mean the demise of what he once called “communisn by stealth”, the dreaded Working For Families, aka middle-cass benefit?
Will he have the political courage to act decisively?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Key signals less debt
Before the last election he ‘signaled’ that he’d grow the economy. How’s that working out?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
RRM
New Zealand never manufactured cars, we only ever assembled them.
The parts arrived in huge packing crates and were assembled at places like The Hutt Valley, Nelson, Thames and Porirua, these factories employed a huge number of people.
Various governments had over time ensured that there was a high percentage of local content in these vehicles, carpets, glass, tyres and the like were supplied by NZ companies, again this meant that huge numbers of people (mostly unskilled) were employed.
Having lots of people employed was of course a good thing…..however, at no stage was the local assembly of cars economically viable, local assembly could only survive due to huge tariffs on fully built up imported cars.
The opening up of the market to tariff free used cars and greatly reduced tariffs on imported new cars meant that the future of the car assembly industry in NZ was doomed, while many might have liked the idea of having thousands employed in the assembly industry they were not prepared to pay the extra for a New Zealand assembled new vehicle.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
quick question:
a lot of people will freak over the thought of asset sales.
what if the govt only sold shares in these companies to kiwisaver funds? would that be legal? would the funds buy em? heh
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Danyl
“Before the last election he ‘signaled’ that he’d grow the economy. How’s that working out?”
Not that flash to be honest.
BTW…did we ever reach the top half of the OECD as Clark promised that we would?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
It’s growing Danyl – not that fast, yet – but it’s not in recession either. By your blunt, absolutist standard (at least that’s the tone of your question): box ticked. Back to Jersey Shore for you.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
RRM.
We used to build cars, but others build them cheaper. We cannot do well by trying to compete in markets we have neither the infrastructure nor technology to do so.
Where we do well, is in the production of high quality luxury goods, premium wines and quality foodstuffs. We do very well in film and television production. We do very well in Tourism (Which is great because NZ can’t be re-produced elsewhere for less!).
We used to make Televisions in NZ. We cannot hope to compete with the Samsungs, Sonys and Panasonics of this world. However all of these companies also make stereo gear and speakers. What NZ industries do well is niche market audio gear that is praised by audiophiles worldwide.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“.policies which boost savings, reduce future spending and reduce debt vs policies to tax rich pricks more..”
i’ll go with b..thank you…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
what are you righties whinging about..?
..is it because the tax cut is for everyone…?
…and not just your lot…?
(;fiscally-neutral’…of course…if you ignore the millions borrowed to finance it…eh..?)
..so..the election choice is clear….privatising/selling assets….(and don’t give me that ‘mum ‘n dad-investor’ bullshit..eh..?
..the usual-suspects are already lining up..salivating in anticipation of more family-jewels….)
..and nothing for those who have had nothing for a very long time…
or…a new labour … re-branded as old-labour….claiming it will now care for those it studiously-ignored for nine long years…
..and not planning to flog off assets…
..the choice couldn’t be clearer…
..the people will speak…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Aspirational for NZ? My fucking arse. Another do-nothing, lying politician…
Grow some balls John.
But at least his hair is natural…that’s what is REALLY important. Right?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Of course you would phlu, austerity scares the crap out of you doesn’t it? Other people’s money is just another drug you’re addicted to.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
The difference between Goof and Jk is that Goof appeals to the losers and whingers in our society.
Those who want to Gumint to do everything and tax the rich pricks who by their definition is anyone earning $10 a year more than them.
JK on the other hadn appeals to the winners and those with aspirations and a willingness to roll up their sleeves and get to work.
Those who dont begrudge paying taxes to help the genuinely needy and as as a hand up tothose who want to get ahead by their own steam.
Goof and his supporters want the rich pricks to pick up the tab for the lazy and the useless for ever and ever.
You see its actually easier to appeal to the dumb bastards that are the Left and the Socialists. Bcause all you have to do is bash the rich pricks and create the green eyes monster that is now so prevalent in our society after almost of the Socialists actively promoting this
Remember Sullens RICH PRICKs. That wa the truest statement a Socialist every made and showed their pathetic loser mentality for all to see.
JKS task if so much harder. Its about appealing to the positive and the responsible 2 attributes that dont appear in the Socialist lexicon. Its about getting on and doing the business and stopping blaming every other bastard which is the Goof way.
NZ society has 2 choices in 2011. Either go back to the furture of Nanny State taxing and bribing the dumb and the lazy.
Or get off your arses and get to work to contribute to the society instead of taking taking taking.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Oh just for those pining for the good ole days of CKD vehicles.
In the mid 1980s a Toyota Corolla cost low to mid $30K in that days $s A Corona (Camry) low to mid $40K.
IN 2011 guess what Both cost the same in 2011 dollars with all the added stuff safety air con elec windows etc etc.
If we had a CKD operation a Corolla would cost $90K in todays $s and a Camry $110K
Anyone still want to back to a CKD market place
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
NZ society has 2 choices in 2011. Either go back to the furture of Nanny State taxing and bribing the dumb and the lazy.
Or get off your arses and get to work to contribute to the society instead of taking taking taking.
There is no party in Parliament promoting that second option. Today’s announcement, from an allegedly conservative party and one that is running an enormous deficit is… more spending, more taking from the productive, more shifting of funds to the unproductive.
There is but one long term outcome from that approach, which is the elimination of the productive from the country and subsequently the bankruptcy of the government.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So many are so denigrating of National attempting to remain in power to really make a difference by being, too timid, lack courage, are labourlite etc etc. I say Bull shit. Do you not recall Ruth Richardson taking steps that must have appealed to the rabid right but were so electorally fraught that even her leader, Spud Bolger bolted with the stampeding horses.
Vote:I personally, would love to see every useless Ministry, NGO, surplus Public Servant, local government seat warmer et el and all the other potential Labour re-election strategys shredded and the thousands of leeches looking for a real job but I hope I am sufficiently politically aware to applaud the steady approach the Key ministry is taking to turn the Titanic away from the bloody iceberg without running the ship onto the socialist beach to be pillaged by the inhabitants of the standard, red alert no right turn and all the other shrills who see the “richardson effect” as probably the only way to get John Key’s ministry to become beatable.
January 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“Anyone still want to back to a CKD market place”
Well it would get all the poor people off the roads with a resultant huge lowering of the road toll and create a vastly better and profitable public transport system.
Hell maybe it could become Labour/Green/Celia Wade policy come to think of it.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Rouppe:
“National did not borrow to pay for tax cuts. They were paid for by a rise in GST.”
Just not true. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2010/execsumm/b10-execsumm.pdf – Page 8.
The tax take is $1bn lower than it would otherwise have been, before the spurious “adjustments” are included. Even if you include them we’re $500m lower.
Given we’re in deficit, that sum will need to be borrowed.
[DPF: Over a three year cycle, the tax package is fiscally neutral - in fact slightly positive for the Govt's books]
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
DPF: Over a three year cycle, the tax package is fiscally neutral – in fact slightly positive for the Govt’s books
Do you have, like, a rubber ball you can bite down on each time you claim that the tax switch was fiscally neutral?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Johnboy
The only problem is those of us who could afford a car at those prices would have to hire full time security to prevent the (Cough) under priviledged from holding us up and stealing our cars or commitiing home invasion to get the keys.
Goof would excuse that as we being RICH PRICKs who deserve it such is the mentality of the fool and his followers.
So the cost to us would be greater.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Much of the discussion re NZ industry, in particular the CKD motor assembly & manufacture of eg railway wagons in (then) NZR’s workshops, glosses over the union excesses of the time. Although manufacturing is brilliant for mopping up low skilled unemployed it is a breeding ground for union activists.
“All out bros?”
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
[DPF: Over a three year cycle, the tax package is fiscally neutral - in fact slightly positive for the Govt's books]
Bullshit it is, not according to Treasury figures. The effect of the tax changes is forecast to be -460M, -90M & -40M over the years 2010/2011 to 2012/2013. In 2013/14 it is forecast to be +175M but that still makes a total of -415M over that period, not even close to ‘fiscally neutral’.
Myth busted.
[DPF: The package when announced was forecast to be fiscally neutral. There may be minor variations in it going forward, but they are minor. Over the four years you cite, it is out by just $2m a week. Also can you provide a URL when citing figures]
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“DPF: Over a three year cycle, the tax package is fiscally neutral – in fact slightly positive for the Govt’s books”
This is according to Treasury. The Treasury’s forecasting unit has been remarkably consistent over the last 10 years. When they predict fall in government surplus it is a sure beat the surplus would increase. Now they predict falling deficits when almost certainly means higher deficits. The tax predict is already hundreds or millions of dollars below their predictions.
It is not often Treasury are right and they look wrong again
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
YesWeDid beat me to it.
I posted Treasury’s own figures, showing that the tax changes are anything but ‘fiscally neutral’. DPF, you can’t just turn around after that and claim the complete opposite.
So my point stands: the Government will have to borrow somewhere between $500m and $1b, possibly more, to pay for last years tax changes. To suggest Phil is being ‘fiscally irresponsible’ is thus more than a little hypocritical.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
If you want to avoid perceptions of deviousness with numbers please make it clear when you are referring to annual totals or three year totals or whatever.
It appeared yesterday that Goff was using the 3x trick to inflate points.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Thanks for bringing this to my attention DPF, I’ve commented further about the unique nature of the electricity industry at http://thepowerpanda.blogspot.com/2011/01/government-may-privatize-electricity.html . I think the electricity market in this country has differences that make the comparison to Air NZ not accurate.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
This is the same Treasury that recommended 10, 20 and 30% tax brackets, which Michael Cullen referred to as an “idealogical burp”?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
This will not decrease NZ deficit one cent. all it will do is more the debt from government to the private sector.
The money will not from nowhere it will either need to come from existing savings of the buyers. Which reduces their savings or increase their borrowing.
Where as government (until 2008) had a history of paying off debt. The private sector (who debt is 70% of GDP compared with NZ government 18% and the UK government 100%) are dismal.
The fact is the assets will be bought either directly or indirectly by overseas savers. The fact is that the likely owner will stop being the NZ government but will end up be companies owned by the Peoples Republic of China.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
the election campaign has kicked off early….eh..?
and i reckon the next polls will be causing many in national to reach for the worry-beads…
(and ‘fiscally-neutral’….tell the big lie..
…and just repeat..and repeat..
…eh mr farrar..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
So phil you reckon 10 bucks a week bribe from Goof is gonna swing all those swinging voters to the Socialists.
The same swinging voters who drop kicked the Socialists in 08. the same swinging voters who found out that Sullen had been conning them for 9 years.
Dream on
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Hold on, what a bunch of screaming liberals you so called right wingers are.
You want Key to give away my shares in the SOEs, fuck that, they can send me my share certificates then I can sell them to the highest bidder, not who are mates with bloody politicians , labour or Nats.
Come on Key grow a bloody pair, the sell off will be a once off, raise the tuition for those bunch of whiners at university to the level Britain is doing, then dump the interest free loans and make the interest at least bank rate.
And any litle sod who comes home and has not been paying back his student loans, no problem straight in the cells until he or his parents sell off enough property to pay the principal and the interest and the 100% interest penalty.
Left wingers can be nasty bastards, perish the thought.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Havent said this too much over the last few years but….
GOOD SHIT JOHN KEY!
I am going to grab a beer and read the squealing by lefties across the blogosphere
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
YesWeDid,
Thanks for the figures.
But surely whether something is fiscally neutral or not is just a case of getting the income and expenditure lines balanced. Lower taxes incentivises GDP growth, so big ups to the government for dropping income tax rates, and pooh bah to them for raising GST.
But the problem we have is successive governments which can’t seem to exert any sort of strict discipline on their spending. Yes, Scrooge McCullen has been replaced by Scrooge McEnglish. But what we really need is something less like a Disney cartoon character and more like the Grim Reaper.
Wholesale spending cuts would tip the economy into recession. Let’s avoid that. But there’s a lot of low quality government spending that is long overdue to be pruned. We’re long overdue for another quango hunt. And there’s a few ministries (Women’s Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs, Racing etc) that should be taken out and shot.
Surely it wouldn’t have been that hard to match the (net) -$460m from the tax cuts with $460m of spending cuts.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Inky_the_Red @ 5.01pm is better at reading chicken entrails than anyone on this thread. The shares in the SOEs may end up in the hands of Mum & Dad investors but as soon as the geriatric old farts are offered 10cents more than they paid for them they will sell. Sooner or later the government of the day will get short of cash & sell the rest.
I wonder what the Peoples Republic of China will charge us for our power.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
nasska I have said consistently splitting ECNZ and taking retail away from communities was wrong and should be reversed.
The high price we now pay for power is a tax in disguise. When these oligopolies are privatised prices will keep going up. However the money will (in part) go overseas
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Three years of Key twiddling his thumbs and now this timid don’t-rock-the-boat feebleness.
It’s too pathetic for words.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
last man..10 bucks is only ten bucks..
..but what it signifies is a change of direction from labour…
..and a clear difference with keys’ plan to flog off more family-jewels/state-assets…
..key/this govt is dog-tucker…
..one-term-john it is…
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
tv3 has a poll asking ‘do you want the govt to sell state assets…
..a (fairly resounding) 80% said no…
(what’s that squealing sound..?…is that key doing a u-turn..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
# wat dabney (281) Says:
January 26th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Three years of Key twiddling his thumbs and now this timid don’t-rock-the-boat feebleness.
It’s too pathetic for words.
Absolutely correct. Two wasted years of throwing good money down the plug hole. Worse he is selling assets to pay for the (new Assets). Well two things about that.
1. what new assets
2. No he’s not he is selling capital assets that belong to the Taxpayer to fund waste. Until student loans, wwf, and all sorts of other mindless fund wasters are reigned in then he is still funding social welfare. Clearly the Govt. bank doesn’t distinguish between the two so unless funds from asset sales are kept separate and spent only on either new assets or repaying debt them the cash is disappearing straight down the socialist gurgler.
I fully expect that the savings report will get acted upon in contrast to the Productivity report from Dr Don which was trashed before it was reported on. Guess why? Well Key is going to quit and become a fund manager. Easier to make more money when you have a guaranteed supply.
Total disgrace. Total fucking light weight.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Goff said about half an hour ago on Radio Left Wing that Liarbore when it handed over passed over books reflecting zero net debt.
Anyone know what the actual figure was, and will the MSM pick up this lie and excoriate him for it in tomorrow’s papers?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@ Reid; I think Goff might be confused. I think what Cullen handed over was zero net cash in the till.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Goodness, this post is just a party political broadcast.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
[DPF: The package when announced was forecast to be fiscally neutral. There may be minor variations in it going forward, but they are minor. Over the four years you cite, it is out by just $2m a week. Also can you provide a URL when citing figures]
The URL was in the post a few above mine http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2010/execsumm/b10-execsumm.pdf
Bottom of page 8, it’s all pretty clear.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
That’s what I thought as well I2.
Funny how one’s memory sometimes lets one down isn’t it. He wouldn’t tell a porky would he? Perhaps there’s a magic meaning to “Net Debt” non-politicians just don’t understand.
That’s exactly what he said, about 5:40, tonight: Net Debt.
Which is: Short term + long term debt – cash
I call bullshit.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Campbell is giving JK a hard time on Tv3.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
LC
That is no surprise, Campbell is an chardonnay socialist from way back.
Anyway, it’s TV3 so nobody will be watching.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
i’d like to announce a new nationwide drinking game…
everytime john key says ‘mums ‘n dads’..or ‘mum ‘n dad investors’….
everyone has to skull a drink…
..the game started at 7.pm…
..key was on campbell..
..so that’s five drinks you all have to skull…to catch up…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
More false promises from a bogus and spineless prophet (Key). More of the same if Labour-lite wins, even worse if the socialists triumph.
New Zealand is caught between our political versions of Scylla and Charybdis. There is little hope for the future.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I’ll join you Phool but I’d rather have a toke than a drink. Have you got some good shit at your place?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
We could always play the Phil Goff drinking game. Every time he mentions “fair” in relation to tax (e.g. those on higher incomes need to pay their fair share – as if they aren’t already), drink. You’d be pretty damn pissed by now.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Johnboy, never forget the bludger only has the finest “baking goods” at his disposal. Artisanship pays, after all.
Vote:Ask him about it.
January 26th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
So savings is the new in thing. Well Aussies are reputed to be better savers than us so what’s the rub here.
DUE to a lack of savings, up to 3.7 million Australians won’t be able to cope if the cost of living rises, a survey shows.
And they are already struggling to make ends meet and have little to no savings, according to the Suncorp Life Confidence Index.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/bleak-picture-for-millions-index/story-fn3hskur-1225994666436
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
John Key needs to read “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” by Robert Kiyosaki to see what assets really are. Schools and hospitals are NOT assets like he stated tonight on Campell Live.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
ch123 @ 7.47pm
You’ll be in detox by November.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
so that’s five drinks you all have to skull…to catch up…
phil(whoar.co.nz
..your on a benefit ya loser…you shouldnt be buying piss…
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
i don’t ‘buy piss’…i don’t drink..
alcohol is so last-millenium…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
” don’t ‘buy piss’…i don’t drink..”
And yet you continue to deprive other parents of their own “right” to the DPB by continuing to claim it way beyond, years beyond, the date when you could have easily gone off it, with no consequence to you or your son.
How selfish is that?
It’s a hand-up (temporary) phil. Not a hand-out (permanent).
Selfish people like you are one reason why we have to borrow so much. Forget about the country. Since you appear only capable of feeling affinity toward those who agree with your politics, think of your fellow Greenies who in years to come won’t be able to get onto the DPB in future because you and other bludgers like you have squatted on it long past your use-by.
Selfish fucks, you and all the other bludgers.
Then you dare to decry even the mildest measures taken, finally, by this govt, to limit the excesses practiced by you and your ilk.
Who the fuck do you and all the other bludgers which causes this debt, think you are? YOU don’t pay it off, WE do. Those who work.
Why the fuck don’t you do the country a favour and turn whoar into an anti-bludger get-the-fuck-moving blog. That would be a benefit, rather than a drain phil.
But you won’t will you.
Twisted lefty thinking. I’m entitled to a living off of everyone else. They deserve it. That about sum it up, phil?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
When Key said:
“In each case, the government would retain majority ownership and control, and the freed-up capital would be used to purchase other public assets, thereby reducing the government’s need to borrow,” Mr Key said.
Does anyone know which “other public assets” he had a mind to purchase?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Keith Joseph, Thatcher’s guru, observed that supposedly right-wing governments never actually undid the changes introduced by the left-wing ones; they merely maintained the new status quo. The result is a ratcheting effect to the left over time. This is where Thatcher was different to all the other Conservative governments since the war – she actively undid as much of the damage as she could.
Key, by contrast, is your Ted Heath. He points out that state spending increases by 50% in just six years, but doesn’t do the obvious thing of slashing it back. In fact he says state spending will continue to increase.
He he no better than Clarke.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Well no. Perhaps another train set or two?
Two wasted years of throwing good money down the plug hole. Worse he is selling assets to pay for the (new Assets). Well two things about that.
1. what new assets
2. He is selling capital assets that belong to the Taxpayer to continue to fund waste. Until student loans, wwf, and all sorts of other mindless fund wasters are reigned in then he is still funding social welfare. Clearly the Govt. bank doesn’t distinguish between the two so unless funds from asset sales are kept separate and spent only on either new assets or repaying debt them the cash is disappearing straight down the socialist gurgler.
One suspects he wants a pile of cash for Transmission gully and paying more to Tribes.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
go and ask mummy for some rescue-remedy there..reed…
(and shit..i never realised i had so much power..
..my dpb will bring down the economy…eh..?
..wait ’till i tell the boy…he will be impressed at our awesome power…)
…getting a tad hysterical/overwrought there aren’t yo..reed..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
more tax cuts for the rich…
..’cos the rich are an ‘asset’ to us..
..didn’t ya know..?
wot with trickle-down…
..and all that…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
So far I’m agreeing with you wat. Whale’s interview with McCarten posted yesterday mentioned that Key’s focused on being a popular PM and as we all know, doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are two separate things.
Those very few who ever read anything I say on this blog will know that I’ve been saying for years it’s just that Key hasn’t recognised the difference between “correct” and “popular” because of his inexperience. I’m beginning to change my mind and am starting to believe that Smile and Wave is all we’re ever going to get out of this leader of the 5th National govt.
I really hope I’m wrong but FFS, the tea leaves aren’t looking that great, are they.
WTF is wrong with both the politicians and us, that we don’t demand change in the right direction, and they don’t initiate it themselves. Both them and us know what the right thing is to do – it isn’t rocket science, and yet, inaction reigns, while Smiling and Waving continues apace.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
See Hone making a valueable input to the economy and political thinking? He wants the Maori Party to quite the coalition if National Party starts welfare reform, cuts back on spending growth in the budget and doesn’t increase the minimum wage to at least $14 or $15.
Would hate to see Hone’s bank account. There would be alot of red ink in that.
Maybe he’s lining up to take Lockes spot in the Communist Party.
He’s a real role model for Maori’s. Don’t get an education, give up smoking dope or even get a job. Stick with me and I’ll just get you a bigger hand out. No wonder they love him in Northland.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
(and shit..i never realised i had so much power….my dpb will bring down the economy…eh..?
Collective power phil, you and all the other bludgers. I thought you lefties were collectivists. You mean to say you don’t yet understand the power of collective action? Fuck you must be a disappointment to them.
Seriously, don’t be disingenuous you bludging fuck. This economy in 2011 can’t afford you nor other bludgers who behave like you. Not everyone on a benefit is a bludger, the majority on a benefit aren’t bludgers. BUT YOU ARE. As are others like you.
wot with trickle-down…
And fuck off with your warped understanding of politics you wanker. How fucking dare you try to tell any of us how it’s all a bunch of bullshit, when we’re the ones funding the power, the computer, the food you’ve bought, to bring you to us just so you could tell us how you think it’s all bullshit. How’s about I come stay at your place phil, you can put me up for ten years, at your expense. Warning: I have expensive habits and I’m not interested in doing anything except complain about how you can’t provide me with everything I want. This is what we’ve been doing for you, for at least that long, so I’m not taking no for an answer. So what’s your address phil? I’ll resign tomorrow, and be there next week.
What’s the matter? Doesn’t appeal? Whyever not? This is what you’ve been doing to us, for a long fucking time.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Does anyone know which “other public assets” he had a mind to purchase?
Lisa Lewis’s boobs? Perhaps he’ll nationalise a brothel or two. Maybe some casinos.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
lol, reid. You’re on the money there, phlu’s benefit is just one drip in a long and tedious water torture of the taxpayer, wot with trickle-down…
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
So far on the question of: which “other public assets” he had a mind to purchase, we have (thanks Viking2 and RightNow):
Transmission gully
Paying more to Tribes
Lisa Lewis’s boobs
A brothel or two
Maybe some casinos.
This is why blogs are so good, you get heaps of valuable data. If only the MSM knew…
Seriously though the Nats seem to like Sky City so you may be on the money there RightNow. Does Lisa work there as well?
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I need to save $300m a week.
Policy X will save $10m a week. But no that is a bad policy because that is not nearly enough.
Policy Y will save $7m a week. But no that is a bad policy because that is not nearly enough.
Policy Z will save $15m a week. But no that is a bad policy because that is not nearly enough.
And so it goes on…
Perhaps those who criticise savings plans for insufficiency, should remember that the surest way to get rich is not by winning Lotto. It is by saving a little here, a little there… Same with business success: it is seldom from the one great idea. It is doing lots of small things just a little better. Get the small stuff right and it all adds up.
Spot on, Pete.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
The surest way to get rich seems to be to sell something worth $750M for $2.2B to a bunch of dumb teachers.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10702126
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
are you glimpsing defeat in nov there..reed..?
…feeling the need to lash out..?
..key wasn’t all you cracked him up to be..?
..or was it something i said…?
..and hey..how about those scumsucker rich fucks who pay no tax at all..?
…’cos they have clever lawyers/accountants/trust funds..
..go sort them out..and then come back to me..
.,.you hypocritical auto-eroticist..
..how about the likes of bloody hands bob..?
..gloating/boasting in this forum that he dosen’t even need working for families..
..but arranged his income/trust to qualify…
..you go sort him/them out…
..then come back and talk to me..
…you hypocritical auto-eroticist…
..then you can go and talk to the polluting farmers who are fucking our country over…
..go get them to stop/pay their way..
..then come back to me..
..you hypocritical auto-eroticist..
..need more…?
..and hey..!..while yr at it..
..stick yr faux-outrage where the sun don’t shine…
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: 10 demerits for auto-eroticist]
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
The problem is s.russell, Key doesn’t think in terms of what’s good he thinks in terms of what’s popular. Furthermore, he’s always been a very high income earner. He’s never had to live on 35k a year.
This is his bete noir. He claims he’s from a state house, but since his early twenties he’s been earning six figures and before his thirties well into seven, what’s the bet.
So he doesn’t have the mentality you speak of, which is in all good prudent and successful money managers be they in a household, a small or large business or a govt.
Furthermore, he’s a success bunny. To him it would appear, he’s defined success in terms of being popular. He didn’t have to, but it would appear he has done that. This means, that he disregards the small change in favour of the big ticket items, it makes a splash, it makes him more popular. They announced last year that’s what they were focusing on. They weren’t interested, last year apparently, in doing things like rationalising small ministeries and the rats and mice: e.g. Women’s Affairs, because they weren’t significant. Au contrare as we all know, taken together these all add up, but they’ll be most unpopular, given the political hit vs the fiscal savings.
Fucking hell.
It would appear folks that first of all we factually, actually had a complete selfish bitch of a PM who steered the country from a potentially great wealthy and well-positioned little nation into a broken moral cesspit despite the best economic opportunities any of us have ever and will ever know, then now we appear to have an egotistical morally bankrupt superficial mask of a man a bit like Berlusconi who seems more bent on his “popular” legacy than he does on doing the right thing for his 4.5m fellow citizens.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Key, IMO, unless you do a 180 in the next 5 seconds mate, you’ve lost me, forever.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
..stick yr faux-outrage where the sun don’t shine…
It ain’t faux phil and you’re right, there are others too, who bludge. Just because they do, doesn’t mean you can.
My point is, with respect specifically to you, and please don’t try and dissemble by deflecting onto other targets by implying that by not including them I’m thereby ignoring them, is that you, are intelligent, and you’re capable, perfectly, of getting a job at at least the level required to get you off the DPB.
You don’t seem to get, that the govt is not an unlimited fund provided by magic. That it happens because people most of us who blog here and all those in the country, go to work, to fund it. We FUND you phil. WE do. NOT a faceless entity. WE, US, ME, BB, I2, Johnboy, et al. All of us. We fund you.
The question I have put to you which please don’t attempt again to deflect, is: WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE, WHEN YOU AS FAR WE KNOW DON’T HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT PREVENT YOU FROM EARNING A LIVING. The second question is: YOU’RE DEPRIVING OTHERS OF THE BENEFIT BY YOUR OWN SELFISH ACTIONS. This to me is the greater puzzle. I can understand why you would regard all workers with the contempt you obviously do, but I don’t understand why you regard poor deserving potential beneficiaries with the same contempt you met out to us, for they are your kin, and your alleged “blood brothers.”
That’s my point phil.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Minor technical point, Reid but your second question isn’t a question. Howzabout you rephrase it to:
Why do you think it’s OK for you to bludge your way through life, stealing money from the productive and by claiming a benefit you don’t need, stealing from those genuinely in need? Why do you think it’s OK for you to continue to bludge when people genuinely in need go hungry? When their children go without food and shelter? Is it more honourable to you to steal this way rather than your earlier attempts which were at the pointy end of a weapon?
That’s phrasing it as a question.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Thanks OK, most appreciated. Personally I would have preferred if you’d used a bit more upper-case but I appreciate the elucidation.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
The thing I really don’t understand about all of this, is that Key has had the perfect opportunity to paint the picture which could have led to massive expenditure cuts across the board, and other emergency measures, and people would have understood.
If ever there was an opportunity over the last two years to re-start the reforms that Douglas started, Ruth continued, and which faltered thereafter, this was it.
Anyone who understands economics knows that our current policy settings won’t work and that the previous govt’s settings were never going to. And this GFC which has now passed from public front-of-mind, largely, for many buy the line that “it’s over now,” won’t be going away anytime soon. If Key had come in on the exact same platform he came in on but instead of doing what he did, he immediately cancelled the tax cuts and then (to placate the base) announced radical state spending cuts and state asset sales, he could have got away with it and been as popular now as he currently is. This is what a master of politics could have done. Sure, he’s not a master and wasn’t so one can understand him. But I can’t understand his advisors: McCully, Brownlee, who surely, must have, seen this opportunity and if not, what does that say about them?
And if he’d done that, over the last 2 years, imagine where we’d be now. He could have used these times to make a step-change in the electoral mindset. He could have wound back all the lefty poison that infests the minds of the NZ body-politic. He would have been a fiscal, social and conservative hero. And those who don’t vote National, would have understood as well. He could have had it all.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
“..[DPF: 10 demerits for auto-eroticist]..”
cd i plse put in a formal request for demerits for manolo…
..he continues to accuse me of being a ‘p’ cook…
..which is a gross slander..
..i want you to make him stop that…
..(i think this is the third time i have asked you to do something about this…
..are you clear on that..and what my formal request is..?)
..and while we are at it…
..the douchebag cnuts you let say anything at all to me..?
..with never a fucken murmer from you..
..and you fucken demerit me for saying auto-eroticist’..?
..i’m not asking you..
i’m fucken telling you..
..to demerit manolo..or do whatever you have to to stop his constant/repeated gross slander..
..and tell him if he fucken says that again..you will ban him..
cos..y’know..calling someone a ‘p’ cook is ever so slightly slanderous…eh..?
i am eligible for legal aid..eh..?..are you..?
i cd handle the publicity…eh..?..cd you…?
i am formally asking you to use yr powers to stop someone grossly slandering me…
..in yr forum…
..be very clear on that..
(and wd ask you not to just ignore this request..as you have on the other occaisons i have made this same request..)
shall we have a test-case..?
..set the boundaries..?..see what they are..?
i’m up for it..eh..?
..are you..?
d’ya reckon calling a recovering heroin addict (20 yrs clean)…who has been vocal in his hatred of ‘p’..
..and what it does to people/users…a ‘p’-cook…
..could be deemed slanderous..?
i await yr response…
..(and..um..!..i’m not fucken kidding…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
oh boo hoo, poor phlu. You’re happy to slag off all and sundry, stop blubbing when they dish it out on you
I lol’d at the demerit, that was funny
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
seriously phil, your ellipsis emissions are a major contributor to blogal warming
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Does anyone know which “other public assets” he had a mind to purchase?
Good question. If he sells part of the SOE’s how much would that lower the debt? John Campbell should have asked that question. John Key said that Cullen grew the government’s size by 50 percent, so what does John Key do, increase the spending by 4 billion. Key wants to sell assets to put more money into a bureaucrat’s dream, more bureaucrats? Don’t think it will work. Key is turning out to be a thug.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
..could be deemed slanderous..?
Actually phil the word you’re looking for is libelous.
Libelous phil.
BTW, am I one of the:
“..the douchebag cnuts you let say anything at all to me..?”
I claim fair comment phil. (This is BTW the accepted defense against defamation).
All I do phil is hoist you by your very own petard. If you weren’t so very proud of your selfish bludging which denies others the opportunity to take advantage of the state’s very generous welfare safety net, I wouldn’t say anything. But you’re proud of it. From your own words, over years.
For years I remained silent phil, because at the time this country was in a different position. Now, we can’t afford to accept such behaviour, from you or anyone else. What I’m trying to do phil is shame you into changing your own behaviour by using your (what I think is genuine) altruism to motivate you to stop bludging now that your son doesn’t need you to stay at home all the time. I think as a net taxpayer who has personally funded you via the consolidated fund and others like you, I and other net taxpayers have been incredibly unbelievably generous to you and your selfish ilk. I can understand why your ego prevents you from seeing or even acknowledging that generosity because some people are just like that, but it’s nevertheless been there, for all these years.
Now however, in these straightened times, it’s past time to call it quits on your selfishness.
Step aside phil, and let someone else have the DPB, while you take a turn in paying for it, for the next forty years.
What’s that? Not prepared to do that? Why, how surprising.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Reid, the problem Key has is exactly the one you articulated earlier. He is not a leader, he is a success bunny. Had the cowardly quisling English not knifed Don Brash, The Don would have taken the 2008 election with much the same margins as did Key, but The Don would not have squandered the once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the course. The pain is coming; the current policy settings can only lead to one thing and it ain’t success.
The Key cheer squad may not understand this, but fiddling around the edges is not going to make New Zealand the success story she should be. Only deep, meaningful, radical reform of all of the institutions of the state will change the country’s direction which, as we all know, is right off the bottom of any meaningful OECD charts.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
and you reed..you ..like many here…have gone on the record that you are a fucken racist..
..and as such i consider nothing coming from yr mouth to be of any worth…
..or worthy of any consideration..
..you are just another fucken racist..a caricature…
..(gee..!..i wonder if ‘caricature’ is like auto-eroticist’..?)
..and that is the benchmark of ignorance…
..and that is what you are…
..my life circumstances have nothing at all to do with you..or anyone else..or this thread..
(hey..farrar..!..whatever happened to ‘off-topic’..?
..is that another ideology-driven demerit..is it…?..righties are absolved..?..)
…so..really..meh..!..to you…eh..?
how about you try and pull yr mind out of the racist gutter..?
..fucken lowlife..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Heh, Phil U a “P” cook! Well, if cooking up “P”unctuation with the never ending random periods that just randomly propogates throughout his posts is anything to go by, I’d have to say yes.
Seriously Phil, your posts are awful on the eye, and show no consideration to the reader, instead they serve only to allow you to spout your point of view. All this indicates is that you are not interested in any form of reasonable discourse, instead it it the blogging equivalent of shouting down the debate.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
what does John Key do, increase the spending by 4 billion
As I’m sure you know Jack5 (love your work, BTW), Key appears to have been in fantasy land when he took over, thinking that at all costs he mustn’t scare the horses. Which he has proceeded not to do, at all costs (literally), to date.
I originally thought it was because he had received poor advice from his senior colleagues. I’m starting to think he really thinks this is what one needs to do in order to be a good PM.
Like I said above, unless he radically changes his tune very shortly indeed, I’m giving up in him ever seeing the light.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
how about you try and pull yr mind out of the racist gutter..?
It’s never been in it, phil. But sadly sometimes you’ve got to pretend you’re in the gutter to get down to the level of the person you’re talking to.
See, Hone is a racist. That’s why I said:
Cause I knew if he ever read that it would really piss him off. Give him some of his own medicine. I know the chances of him ever reading that are 0.00001% but thanks for giving me the chance to make it 0.000002% courtesy of google putting up the hit if Hone every thinks to google “Hone+racist” which he never will.
My point is I do the same thing to you too. Because just like Hone the racist needs correcting, so phil the bludger needs correcting. Surely you as a lefty must recognise that racism must be stamped out wherever it exists and surely you must recognise Hone is a racist so every attempt to do so is virtuous by definition? You know that, don’t you phil? These are standard lefty tactics.
This is exactly why I’m working on your guilt, to try and make you stop bludging. Because like any lefty knows, bludging off the sweat of the workers is bad news isn’t it phil and you do it currently don’t you phil so please please stop phil so I can stop being so hateful toward you for it pains me, but I’m only doing it to make you a better person.
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
why don’t you give us the nuts and bolts reasons why you are a fucken racist..reed..
…come on..
..let the vile bile flow..
..tell us just why you hate maori/w.h.y…
..give us the ‘logic’ behind yr vile/irrational prejudices…eh..?
..show everyone just what a fucken racist-scumbag you are..
..let’s rip that scab off…
..and show everyone the putrescence beneath…
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
‘..I’m only doing it to make you a better person…”
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
‘..it pains me, but I’m only doing it to make you a better person…”
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
and reid….
i repeat:..my life circumstances have nothing at all to do with you..or anyone else..or this thread.
..or any thread…
..so i wd formally ask you to please keep to the thread-topic..
..and not to discuss any aspect of my personal circumstances…in this or any other forum…
..and not to attack/denigrate/abuse me ..purely on the grounds of my personal circumstances…
..(namely..raising my son as a sole-parent..in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit…)
..are you clear on all that..?
..this is a formal request for you to cease..and desist..these sustained personal attacks..
..are you clear on all that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 26th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
why don’t you give us the nuts and bolts reasons why you are a fucken racist
Because I’d rather talk about what a bludger you are phil, seeing as how that’s germane to this topic of more vs less govt spending.
OK?
Happy to discuss exactly why Hone’s a racist and you’re a bludger further tomorrow, on GD, but I’m off to bed, since I have to work tomorrow, in order to pay for you to bludge even more, and also to pay for Hone so he can say more racist things about most of the people who live in this country and have made it what it is today.
GL in your defamation suit against DPF phil. Don’t forget, (a) it’s not slander, it’s libel and (b) when your legal aid lawyer stands up in court, try to make sure he’s squeezed all his pimples before addressing the court – the judges don’t seem to like that for some reason.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 12:18 am
priceless.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 12:29 am
reid..i’m serious…
my personal life is now out of bounds….from here on in…and for the duration..
..your gutless personal attacks on me for being a sole parent…
…and calling me a thief…for raising my son while receiving govt-support…as responses to political arguments you can’t answer in any other way…this is finished..over..
..my personal circumstances are not for you or anyone else to discuss…
..and will not be used as grounds to attack/denigrate me…
..are you fucken clear on that..?
..i won’t fucken tell you again..
..i’m calling ‘enough’/it’s over…
..i’ll talk/argue politics ’till the cows come…
..that you are only able to respond that way…launching personal attacks…based solely on my life circumstances…
…makes you both a bully..and a coward…and intellectually bereft…
..and you must be stood up to/stopped..
..so…that’s what i am doing…
..and really…once again…i am fucken serious…
..my personal life/circumstances are out of bounds…
..don’t cross that line again…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 1:04 am
oh no…not another online mental breakdown from the whore…
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 1:12 am
Phail, Phool, Phail, I’m going to break my policy of ignoring you, because this is just too fucking funny.
You see, the basic rule is “he who pays for it can talk about it”. This means Reid and the other productive people can talk about you, your lifestyle, your children, because they fund those things. The genuinely deserving, shivering under inadequate bedding in a homeless shelter, going to bed hungry, can talk about you, your lifestyle and your children, because they fund those things through your theft. About the only person who has no right to talk about you, your lifestyle and your children is, well, you, YOU FUCKING SPONGE.
Your little Johnny must be so proud of you. I imagine the playground conversations going like this:
Johnny’s friend: “What does your dad do for work, Johnny?”
Vote:Johnny: “Well, I’m not sure. He seems to be kind of like a leech. He seems to sit around all day taking drugs and dribbling incoherently all over the internet, and it seems he’s able to force people to give him money.”
Johnny’s friend: “Wow, you must be so proud.”
Johnny: “Oh I am. I wanna be just like him when I grow up”
January 27th, 2011 at 6:53 am
People
Vote:The best way to deal with phil is to ignore him. His provocative rants are deliberate – to wind us up and too many of you fall for the bait. Because we are all collectively paying for him to sit on his computer all day and goad us, as much as his bludging sticks in our craw, abusing him for his bludging just bloats each thread he contributes on and wastes precious real debate space. He is unpersuadable on any economic or political matter – he is a doctrinaire lefty and will always see the world through the lens of class warfare and welfare entitlement and there is nothing any of us can do to dissuade him. By engaging with him we give him oxygen and purpose. If we ignore him, he may scuttle back to posting lots of ….. and ( ) on his rarely read blog.
January 27th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Offshore kiwi,
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I have always suspected the English either led or was certainly a part of the conspiracy to bring down Brash. I thought it was telling that Key has never allowed a proper investigation into the matter. He must have known what nasties would be highlighted when rocks were turned.
The NZ journalists, to their eternal shame, did no – absolutely no – investigation into the validity of the hollow men book, and instead happily crucified Brash. I was somewhat amused however when Hagar wrote other claptrap on other subjects which he later had to retract. Heh.
Regarding Key however, the only thing I don’t understand is that people didn’t seem to realise that Key was going to do anything different other than tooter around the edges. Although I have to say while I’m not at all satisfied with him, he is infinitely better than the other incompetent evil bunch.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 7:33 am
The socialist’s rag has started its fear camapign:
Government plans to partially sell some state assets, including power companies, could free up to $10 billion, but critics say the move will lead to higher electricity prices and put too much control of strategic assets in foreign hands.
Prime Minister John Key yesterday unveiled National’s plans to sell minority shareholdings in three power companies – Mighty River Power, Meridian and Genesis – and coal company Solid Energy. It also wants to reduce the Government’s stake in Air New Zealand from 76 per cent to 51.
State asset sales were stopped in 2000 when Labour was in power.
Mr Key said the steps could raise $7 billion to $10 billion, which could be reinvested in other assets and help to reduce NZ’s reliance on debt.
However, unions and Opposition parties quickly voiced their concerns. Labour leader Phil Goff said the proposal was a “recipe for soaring power prices” and foreign ownership of the assets.
http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702285&ref=rss
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Key has essentially admitted that his economic policy is a faliure. This is the same guy that said the national cycleway would create 4000 jobs but has actually created a few hundred. So if you believe what comes out of his mouth, then you get what you deserve.
The government is borrowing $300 million per week and now feels the need to sell State assets. Hmmmm, there is a better and simpler solution, John. Don’t borrow $300 million per week – try living within your means! Of course, Key was always going to sell assets if given a chance – far easier to sell assets than it is to take the tough decisions (eg, superannuation).
We had the mantra of State asset sales in the 1980s and it was meant to be our salvation. It wasn’t. You’d think John might have learnt something from the 80s but I am guessing he was overseas making pots of money. We’re doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past it seems.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Before the last election Key said he would cut the wage gap with Australia. How’s that working out? That apparently was Plan A (though there was never much detail about how he’d achieve it). Now Plan B is to sell of State assets. Does he have a Plan C? It doesn’t appear so.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:16 am
The rabid response of Phil only proves to me that Key has got this one exactly right.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Ross, I partially disagree with you. The two avenues: 1) reduce borrowing – living within our means; and 2) selling assets, are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, the state should start shrinking in size, closing quangos and organisations that add little to the national economy.
The selling of assets is also important. If Air NZ fails, why should taxpayers be affected? The responsibility should be on the shareholders of a private company, not the rest of us. Another disgraceful decision from the Clark & Cullen days.
You are right in saying Key’s economic policies have been a failure, but because of his (and English’s) inaction. Timidity, political cowardice, and the “she’ll be right” attitude have not worked over the last two years.
It’s time to lead and put aside the casual smile and wave approach.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Ross.
All Key can do to close the wage gap with Oz is to try and grow productivity. This is what these policies are designed for. The borrowing is to fund the infrastructure we need. The partial sale is to make sure NZ gets what we need without borrowing too much. The Tax Cuts are to help us save and to keep the economy ticking over as best as possible in the circumstances.
The end result is that this country is not going to economically implode in the same way that Ireland has. We should not forget that the Irish economy achieved growth in the same way that the Labour government did.
As to closing the gap. We are behind Australia. Australia is coming out of recession as it’s industries, particularly mining, are those which grow as the recession eases. Our industries, such as tourism, are late coming out of a recession, achieveing growth when the recession is over. I would expect both economies to achieve better and better growth over the next few years, but the only way we could achieve parity would be for our economy to achieve impossible levels of growth, or the Australian economy to implode, which it is not likely to do.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Reid: Key doesn’t think in terms of what’s good he thinks in terms of what’s popular.
Having heard him yesterday and this morning I don’t agree with that. He sounds like he’s prepared to put propositions to the electorate in November and is aware he may succeed or fail. It seems like he’s well aware that this is his time to make a mark, to achieve something significant – but he’s also aware that to make it work he has to get enough of the electorate behind him – not just a few impatient over reactors from blogs.
Imposing things on people will most likely not succeed, even if it makes it through parliament. Key is the ideal person to sell his ideas and vision and then to make them work, if he can’t succeed at it then it’s not likely to be achieved by anyone else.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 8:52 am
I’d so invest in these companies. Talk about 100% guaranteed not to fail because the taxpayer owns most of them. All the reward and none of the risk … just like a UK bank!!
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Can any of the well “informed” people on here tell me how much per week are we borrowing to pay for working for families. How much per week for student loans? How much for the 50% expansion of government under Klark/Sullun?
How much new expenditure has the Christchurch earthquake caused?
Why hasn’t kiwi rail been put up as an asset for kiwis to buy into?
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Manolo, you’re right again. The decision to allow private investment in government assets is only one third of the equation. The second third is the massive over-bloated bureaucracy. It is time to stop funding any organisation whose job it is to lobby government. That means closing Women’s Affairs, Maori Affairs, PI Affairs, Families Commission (in fact, anything with the word “commission” in its name would be a good target). The final third is to slash the welfare bill. It is a gross travesty that someone on welfare can potentially receive more than someone in work, so it is time to peg welfare just below the minimum wage and remove it as a lifestyle choice for the many sponges, leeches, bludgers and stoners.
badmac the reason kiwirail hasn’t been put up as an “asset” for kiwis to buy into, is because kiwirail is not an “asset”. It has never, and will never, turn a profit. It was the final “fuck you very much” from the corrupt, evil dictator and her bile-filled henchman on their way out the door. Buy into kiwirail? Mate, I’ve got a bridge I can sell you!
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:40 am
This is the beginning of the end for National, swing voters are now looking for an alternative as the current National party takes on a very nineties feel, the “warm tummy” Mr Key will not be enough any more.
And as far as selling Solid energy goes, you would have to think they are a bit thick, privately owned mines are not safe it would seem.
And I am sure everyone is going to LOVE higher power bills, that is just soooo smart.
Ideological crap comes to the fore.
Vote:It’s too bad Mr Key, you had potential.
January 27th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Yes, you are you talking about the poisonous doctor Cullen, who was elevated to the board of Kiwi Rail and now NZ Post by Key and his minions. A fitting and generous reward for a long career of squandering NZ riches and buying dilapidated assets.
The current politicians are self-serving individuals ready to give jobs and sinecures to each other. In that regard, there is little difference between Clark and Key.
The mafia always protects its members.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:48 am
See that’s what I never understood. Igor squandered a decade of very, very good economic times. Hell even DPF (with whom I find myself agreeing less and less these days) said above that they had so much money they had to bloat the bureaucracy to spend it all (tax cuts being anathema and all that). So, he dropped the ball miserably on an opportunity to slowly introduce real reform into the system. He buys a clapped-out train set for double its value, and he leaves the incoming government with a flaming bag full of turd, in the form of a massive hole in ACC. He laughs at them on his way out the door, and they punish him by giving him a high-paying taxpayer-funded gig.
Why the fuck would they do that?????
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Shunda, the only place the swing voters can swing to is from the centre-left National team back to the far-left Labour one. If they had any sense they’d keep swinging right and go across to ACT, because even a blind man can see that without a strong ACT (or new right-of-centre party) propping them up, the Apartheid Party will be National’s only friend after the election.
And does anyone here (except perhaps that fool hori) really want Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia as king-makers? FFS Key has given them the family jewels when he didn’t need to; imagine what they’ll get when he really needs them!
ACT has been something of a joke recently, but they are absolutely needed to keep National from sliding further to the left. I hope their campaign is a strong one.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Because our current crop of politicians are predatory birds of the same family, some falcons, some vultures, some red eagles, but all of them eat carrion (in the form of perks and well-paid taxpayer-funded jobs.)
The same happenned when the voracious Jonathon Hunt was appointed to London, Jim Bolger to Washington, Helen Clark to New York, a Labour non-entity (G. Kelly) to Ottawa, and so on.
Tit-for-tat. Mafiosi at work.
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 9:58 am
^^^ Act should count themselves very lucky that the failure to rein in spending has so far been blamed entirely on Key & English rather than themselves. Their whole election platform was that NZ needed a change of Govt, but we also needed Act if we wanted a change of direction.
No-one seems to be asking Rodney when this change of direction is coming…?
Vote:January 27th, 2011 at 10:52 am
No change of direction at all: Under Labour-lite New Zealand continues its drift to the left.
Vote: