More taxpayer funded electioneering
June 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe rules say you can fund it, if it does not ask for votes, members or money. This however must come pretty close to the line.
I love it how it talks about “our farms”. As far as I know, no Govt owned farms have been sold off. In fact Landcorp has been expanding internationally with its partnership with Shanghai Pengxin.
Also love the inclusion of Kiwibank on there, which escapes being called a lie I guess by inclusion of a question mark.
I wonder how you’d feel though if posters went up around your neighbourhood about you that (for example) had “Paedophile?” on them. I doubt you’d think the question mark makes it okay.
Related posts:
- Taxpayer Funded Electioneering
- Herald on Greens taxpayer funded petition
- The taxpayer funded axe the tax bus
- Taxpayer funded Labour campaigning for Len
June 26th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Yeah being labelled a paedophile is remarkably similar to discussing the sale of Kiwibank…is it getting a little hot in the kitchen?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Time to switch to TSB
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I’m very surprised David Shearer has put his name to this. I don’t think he’s the ringmaster, but he has nailed his name to the circus. He needs to be very careful about which hat might stick.
Very unprofessional.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Time to stop public funding for all party PR. Stick to Party funding and PR by Government Agencies that is only allowed to publicise or guide through the application of/for a specific service or product.
+
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Probably a penetrating glimpse into the obvious but the whole Labour ‘asset sales’ campaign is based on mis-information and half truths. It relies on people being thick. It relies on people not remembering the past. In fact, I don’t believe they really think these things themselves. It’s just an issue that they’ve found that finally gets a bit of traction for them so long as they spin it correctly. The heck with the truth or what’s actually good for New Zealand – they’re so desperate to get back in power. Labour hasn’t changed a bit.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Any significance in the absence of Stewart Island from the map? Has someone sold it or is it just another reminder Labour isn’t interested in the regions?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Labour caucus or Labour circus?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
I love how it’s always “Dodgy John Key’s going to sell THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS…”
And never a word of explanation as to why that’s a bad thing! It’s almost as though they don’t understand it themselves…
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Given the government’s desire to make this a success for mum and dad investors, this is pretty sound advice from Labour. Other than Air New Zealand. Only a frikken moron would buy shares in that.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Yeah being labelled a paedophile is remarkably similar to discussing the sale of Kiwibank…is it getting a little hot in the kitchen?
I’m not surprised you’ve missed the point.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
The government should totally sell the schools (land and buildings). There’s a huge demand for commercial property at ridiculous yields. I’d be willing to bet there’s $5-10b locked up in that alone.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Where would the schools go?
I hear land’s quite cheap around Eketahuna, but it’d be a bit of a bike ride for my Daughter in the morning at 141 km each way!
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I read it as:
Vote:“Out it goes, AirNZ, power companies, etc. Authorised by David Shearer.”
June 26th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
David Farrar says that speculating that the government might sell Kiwibank is like accusing an innocent person of being a pedophile.
[DPF: I used an example of how just putting a question mark after something doesn't make a lie okay.
I never said or implied they were the same thing]
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
@ RRM they wouldnt go anywhere, they’d just pay rent. It’s quite a good market mechanism as over the journey schools in poorer areas get lower costs.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
What money would schools pay their rent with, kiwigreg?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Which schools are being sold? Another lie.
Stewart Island is missing…perhaps sold already to the evil Chinee?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
All I know is that I will be lining up to buy shares in Mighty River Power. It’s good for me and good for NZL that we get to invest more in our future without incuring additional debt.
The luddite Labour/Greens/NZ First wouldn’t recognise opportunity knocks if it stood up and bit them in the arse.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“Our schools” is a barbed reference to Trevor Mallard who closed and sold a large number of schools. Including the primary school I attended, which is now housing.
“Our farms” is an odd one, since farms are bought and sold all the time. Does Labour propose to make that illegal, so that if you buy a farm then you and your descendants are stuck with it for eternity? Of course not. They’re talking about selling farms to foreigners. But not movie producers… they mean Asian people. It’s all part of the Nationalist Socialism agenda that Labour are pushing, along with their allies in NZ First and the Greens.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
@ RRM the same money they pay for everything else. In a proper system this would come from parents, in our system it will come from the state.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
And isn’t part of Air New Zealand already in private ownership; more bullsit from the Labour leader. Quite frankly, I thought he was above this kind of hyperbole; it’s more the kind of palalver that one would expect from the likes of a Mallard or a Peters.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
@ Ross – I will be as well. From the homework I’ve been doing, Mighty River Power will be the best investment of the companies currently being considered under the MOM legislation.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Kiwigreg – lol, many state schools already cannot keep up with their property maintenance costs under their current budgets, and are deferring all sorts of work.
How many millions of extra dollars do you propose allocating to the education sector, so that they can pay market rent to private landlords in the name of “lower costs to schools in poorer areas”?
What you’re proposing is corporate welfare and nothing more…. creating a nice little earner for someone, at the taxpayer’s expense.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
To the best of my knowledge Bill English wasn’t recorded on camera engaging in positive speculation around pedophila, he did around the sale of kiwi bank.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I’ll also be going into the MRP sale, nothing massive but I’ve set aside $10k to purchase some shares. Be stupid not to
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
he did around the sale of kiwi bank.
How long ago? That has been well and truly been overridden. National have made it clear they won’t touch Kiwibank this term, and it is written into their Confidence and Supply agreement with United Future.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
The use of the analogy implies some level of comparability. Not unexpected that people would make that inference even if it wasn’t meant to be implied.
Perhaps paedophile analogies could be considered a corollary to Godwins Law.
Maybe a fairer comparison would be an ad attacking Labour… something like:
Presents for all!
Vote:* Working For Families
* Interest Free Student Loans
* Giving you other people’s money our specialty
…Free car for every new DPB applicant?
June 26th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Just to keep in with the style of the post and commentary above ……
Why don’t one of you thick-headed wankers outline the benefits to the taxpayer in selling the assets?
And then after you have done that, outline why have foreign landlords is a good thing too.
Because none of your lying bastards in government have done so.
And Farrar you are just a creep referencing paedophilia.
Piss off arseholes
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Actually… a paedophile analogy can’t be a corollary to Godwin’s Law. The debates over gay marriage will screech to a halt.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Hey vto, shouldn’t you be at parliament protesting?
Vote:And….
Nobody is selling assets.
It’s called partial privatisation.
What Liarbour did in 1980s were asset sales.
When they sold….
New Zealand Steel
Petrocorp
Shipping Corp
Rural Banking Finance
Post Office
In just three years, Labour sold over 15 state assets for almost $10 billion to the highest bidders.
Who voted for these asset sales without telling the public about their plans at the previous election and mostly under urgency, without any debate?
If it wasn’t Phil Goff, Annette King, Trevor Mallard, and the rest of the hypocrites in the Liarbour Party.
To buy votes with ‘freebies’.
The same people who are now criticising the National Government’s mandated, long signalled, partial share offer to New Zealanders.
June 26th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Yep other andy and they were arseholes just like you lot. What’s your point?
More importantly – what are those benefits to the two matters above?
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Is anyone that isn’t presently opposed to the asset sell down actually going to be influenced by this purile student union type rubbish. Gosh, why doesn’t he dust off his guitar and write a clever little protest song.
What a fuckwit.
As for the “secret deals our specialty”, really, what a bunch of losers. Just pathetic.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“outline the benefits to the taxpayer” The benefits are easy to outline – even for this thick-headed wanker. It’s so easy, I’m not sure what that qualifies vto as…
But simply put it’s actually less stealth tax. Under government ownership, the companies can raise your power bill simply because they can. And under Labour, they did. To the tune of 70%+. Remember the articles about dividends, complete with pictures of checks for hundreds of millions being presented to a smiling Michael Cullen? Despite being thick, I do. One was 200+million. Under 100% state ownership, that is just another way to tax people, with no accountability. Open them to a bit of competition, and they can’t. They’ll have to improve their service and efficiencies too (you’d think Greens would like that part). Also, the investments provide good options for your Kiwisaver, which will save taxpayers in the longterm by not having to support oldies (at least the non-thick ones that planned for retirement). Get it? YOU can actually own a piece of it. Not just the state.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
@vto
“…like you lot.”
My lot…?
“What’s your point?”
My point is that Liarbour and Winston Peters are a bunch of ultimate hypocrites and have absolutely NO credibility when it comes to asset sales. They are a bunch of shameless double-dealers for opposing this.
Why I support asset sales (Not 49% but a 100%) is that it will be used to limit debt.
It is either that or cut spending (Of which I am a supporter as well).
I actually rather the government cut spending.
Helen and Cullen wasted all our money during the ‘good years’ on election bribes and socialist pet projects.
The cupboard is bare!
We can also keep on borrowing NZ$100 million per week instead.
In 2012 we have to pay NZ$ 3.69 billion to service our debt.
Who is going to pay that?
The US and Europe are trying to spend and tax their way out of debt.
Vote:How is that working out?
June 26th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
John Key was on tv tonight saying the govt needed to sell $7 billion of assets in order to buy $7 billion of assets. The man is a financial genius…
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
> Why I support asset sales (Not 49% but a 100%) is that it will be used to limit debt.
More fool you.The asset sales are not going to limit debt at all.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Ross: National have been consistent in saying that they want to rebalance the assets the govt owns. They want the govt to get out of assets that it has no particular purpose in owning, that could be owned just as efficiently in the private sector. Instead, they want to invest in assets that don’t exist unless the govt builds them (roads and the like). So yes, you need to sell $7B to buy $7B if you aim is rebalancing.
Of course, you could instead just borrow money to build the new $7B of assets, or you could not build them at all. But you seem to be ignoring that tradeoff and just focusing on the fact that we own these assets today, and therefore it must be the perfect answer for ever after.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
@ross69
“John Key was on tv tonight saying the govt needed to sell $7 billion of assets in order to buy $7 billion of assets. The man is a financial genius…”
Yes he is. Having to explain why this is not that unusual shows your lack of “business acumen”. Paull does a good job.
“More fool you.The asset sales are not going to limit debt at all.”
Yes it is because the government wont need to borrow the money to fund new capital projects. ….
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
> Yes it is because the government wont need to borrow the money to fund new capital projects.
Yes it will have to borrow. Try thinking why…it seems Key hasn’t thought through this issue at all. Neither have you.
Vote:June 26th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
“…….it seems Key hasn’t thought through this issue at all. Neither have you.”
Enlighten us mere mortals.
Vote:So you consider yourself smarter than Key, ever thought of running for PM Ross?
June 27th, 2012 at 10:10 am
Hopefully the Partial Sale of Assets will get Kiwi investors investing in these companies instead of investing so heavily in property and making it extremely difficult for us first time home owners to afford houses.
(Simple supply and demand: if investors are investing in these companies, then they aren’t investing in property which will hopefully bring the price of houses down….)
Vote:June 27th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Kiwi Bank are only sort of solvent because NZ Post keeps subsidizing them – in effect the Taxpayer.
Vote:Without that subsidy – goodbye Kiwi bank.