Be even more scared

November 15th, 2012 at 10:30 am by David Farrar

Remember those remits I posted yesterday, which are up for debate at the Labour Party conference this weekend. Well I made a mistake. I thought these were remits just put up by any old insane individual or small branch. But in fact these are primarily remits that have already been passed by a Labour Party Regional Conference, and in some cases are endorsed by the Party’s NZ Council.

In other words, these remits have widespread support in Labour! They are not just the odd lunatic individual. Can you imagine how bad the remits must have been that didn’t even make it this far?

Reading another document, I’ve discovered that the NZ Council has agreed to a 40% female quota for both candidates and office holders.

They go even further. A remit proposed a rule that no more than 60% of an LEC’s officers can be from a particular gender. The NZ Council has said the rule should be that at least 50% of LEC officers must be women. So it will be legal to have an LEC with 100% female officers but illegal to have one that is 60% male and 40% female!!

And even better Labour Auckland Central propose that if it is apparent the elections will not get at least 50% female officers, they must stop the elections and leave roles vacant. So if an electorate had no women standing for office, then they could elect no one at all!! Well done Auckland Central Labour.

Their gender quota obsession even extends to branches, saying that is a branch has more than one delegate to an LEC, at least 50% must be women. That means again there is no problem with 100% women delegates, but illegal to have five male delegates and three female delegates.

Unions are currently restricted to seven delegates on an LEC. Considering the size of an LEC is 14 to 30, this is a high proortion. But not high enough. The Dairy Workers Union is proposing that a union can get up to 14 delegates on an LEC – ie control.

One rare piece of good news. Their remit to make the policy platform binding on all Labour Party members in public office, is being changed so it is only binding on members who stand for Labour. This means Len Brown will not now face expulsion if he does something contrary to Labour policy.

In other fun news, Hutt South proposes male and female co-leaders and the NZ Council does not oppose this.

No tag for this post.

52 Responses to “Be even more scared”

  1. Lucia Maria (2,428 comments) says:

    Just a reminder of no matter how bad National appears to be, Labour are always worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,944 comments) says:

    Well, this is what happens when there is no effective parliamentary opposition to the left. The center gets drawn further and further left until the far left looks central. This is what has happened in NZ and it has happened right under the National Party’s nose and in many cases with their blessing. Sure this is bad, but its only happening because the National Party is so frustratingly weak.

    What we need is a National Party that actively and loudly seeks objectives that are totally counter to those expressed by the Labour Party communists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Labour – social engineering is just the beginning !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    This sort of move from Labour will open the door wide for an extreme right wing party…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    Can anyone perhaps tell me if there are any remits that look to generate wealth, to increase productivity, and make us a more wealthier country
    Or this that too much

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Lipo

    This is Labour – It’s only concern is being popular – not effective or good for NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (8,944 comments) says:

    In your opinion Burt, what would an “extreme right wing party” want?

    .. and if we have numerous far left parties already in existence, why shouldn’t there be far right parties?

    Isn’t this how democracy is meant to function.

    People should have choices right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. virtualmark (1,528 comments) says:

    Well, those remits are sure to make Labour a more attractive proposition for voters right?

    Labour is welcome to focus its attention on ideological purity all it wants. My take, it’s only likely to increase the rate at which Labour is swirling around the drain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    What the hell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    If Labour actually were a communist party, would they have any nuttier policies than these?!

    On current polling, we are two years away from Prime Minister Grant Robertson implementing all this crap. And if National don’t do something drastic with the electoral system (making the party vote preferential would be a good start), we are all f*cked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    If Labour actually were a communist party,

    They are a communist party. It is about time NZ woke up and realised that the Labour party of today is not what it was 30 years ago. Things have changed. They are no longer the party of the blue collar working majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Carlos (683 comments) says:

    Guys, in regards to taxes if we just had a 25% GST on everything with no exemptions and no other taxes such as income tax, excise tax, etc. Would this be a bad thing? It would mean a one page tax code, very simple. I know it would hurt accountants and IRD workers, but I think that’s a worthwhile sacrifice. Also, I know that those who spend more of their total income would complain that it’s disproportionately affecting them. I’d answer that one should then look at increasing one’s income through upskilling, working smarter and harder and reducing costs where one can. That would motivate me, but I’m not sure if everyone would be motivated that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Virtualmark –

    +1

    This former labour party supporter is just staggered. It’s like they’ve given up hoping to be taken seriously and are just on the piss now.

    A 4th form social studies class could write a more sensible policy platform for a major political party with government aspirations than this. Maybe even a 3rd form one…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (8,944 comments) says:

    Carlos- a poll tax is the only fair and equitable tax.

    The amount of the tax is arrived at thus- It takes $10 to run a country. The country has 10 taxpayers. The tax per payer is therefore $1.

    (example simplified for the benefit of left wing Kiwiblog commenters)

    The tax is tied to the right to vote.

    You don’t pay the tax, you don’t get to vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Suddenly, Redbaiter’s tirades sound like a clear trumpet call to action.

    How quickly we all forget Count Klarkula and her harbingers of death!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    There could be an explanation. Some in Labour (and Greens) seem to be obsessed with the large number ofnon-voters, they think they just have to get past the media and tell them the true way and they will be saved.

    They don’t think the centre floating vote is worth targeting. For proof of this see http://thestandard.org.nz/the-enemy-isnt-on-your-side/

    Except the Shearer camp are trying to straddle the centre more (with one foot). Hense a heap of conflict in the ranks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    “You don’t pay the tax, you don’t get to vote.”
    well that would fuck the Natinal Party…. no farmers to vote for them

    “If Labour actually were a communist party, would they have any nuttier policies than these?!

    On current polling, we are two years away from Prime Minister Grant Robertson implementing all this crap. And if National don’t do something drastic with the electoral system (making the party vote preferential would be a good start), we are all f*cked.”
    so change the electoral system to ensure a party you dont like does not get in?…….. um

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Michael (910 comments) says:

    Some more suggested remits:

    Rotating Party Leaders – after 12 months, the parliamentary leader retires on rotation, and in any rolling five year period the party leaders must have collectively identified as all of the following – LGBT, Maori, and Pasifika or another ethnic minority. In addition, in the previous 5 years there must have been at least two women as leaders.

    Low income charging rates for all SoE – for instance, Air NZ fares would be substantially discounted for beneficiaries and retired people, businessmen would pay a premium to travel. Discounted fares must be available on all flights and in all classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    Redbaiter is a radical fascist pretending to be a conservative. You don’t agree with him, you don’t get the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    In your opinion Burt, what would an “extreme right wing party” want?

    .. and if we have numerous far left parties already in existence, why shouldn’t there be far right parties?

    Isn’t this how democracy is meant to function.

    People should have choices right?

    For sure… My point Redbaiter is that we need one to balance the communist union loving left wing filth who’s only objective is to be popular enough to be elected so they can entrench state dependency on the masses in their own best interests.

    I’ll contribute to a hard right wing party to add some balance – you want to lead it or should you and I fight it out to see which of us leads the charge against the rot of socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I suspect NZ Labour party degeneration is just a great big social media failure.

    Looking at what they are proposing, it’s like they dream up new policy by taking a sort of average between what the commentors on The Standard say, and what the commentors on Red Alert say. And anyone from the outside world can just eff right off…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    » Require all private boards to comply with a 50% gender quota within five years
    » A gender quota for the House of Representatives (why not a race and sexual orientation quota also!)
    » That any NGO receiving even minimal government funding be required to have a 50% gender quota on its governing board!
    » A universal child benefit so millionaires get paid money for having kids
    » 52 weeks paid parental leave (why stop there – go for 18 years I say!)
    » Lower the voting age to 16
    » Compulsory Te Reo Maori until age 15
    » End all funding of private schools (which ironically will force them all to be integrated and go from 25% funding to 100%)
    » Bring ban the food police to school tuckshops
    » Ban seabed mining for minerals oil and gas
    » Ban fracking
    » A tax on aquaculture
    » Ban all coal mining
    » A mineral exports tax
    » Ban plastic bags
    » Fund a brand new commercial free TV broadcaster
    » Fund a Pacific TV broadcaster
    » A Super Gold card for transport for under 21s

    Gender quotas?

    Well why not ? – they have excelled at implementing the disabled quota! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Perhaps someone in the Labour Party got their remits mixed up with the charter for their swingers club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Maybe it’s just me but I’ve long suspected that the core base of the Labour party is made up of quite weird people… while the core base of the National party is made up of people who are your average joe with a bit of conservative politics thrown in.

    This could easily be disproven of course were someone to come up with a comparable list of National party remits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (8,944 comments) says:

    Don’t worry Pete, the only way you’d miss out on a vote is if it was limited to those with a double digit IQ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Positan (390 comments) says:

    I don’t know why anyone should be surprised – the Left is absolutely certain about several things.

    1. that THEY know better than anyone else
    2. that THEIR way is the only way
    3. that the masses are just itching to support THEM
    4. that whatever THEY propose will be good
    5. that anyone who opposes THEM is a traitor or a subversive
    6. that only THEY can provide good government

    Their ongoing difficulty is that every one of them believes that his/her own views constitute the views of every other leftist, which is why there are so many factions and why Labour is always hell-bent on tearing itself to bits. Why they imagine they’re capable of government may be a mystery to most – but it’s irrelevant to this issue. They just want it because it’s there – and because THEY know better than the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    “Maybe it’s just me but I’ve long suspected that the core base of the Labour party is made up of quite weird people… ”

    Could be. And the more normal supporters have deserted the party, or at least reduced their involvement, leaving the more extreme core with space to promote their wildest dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Redbaiter is a radical fascist pretending to be a conservative. You don’t agree with him, you don’t get the vote.

    I think an individual can hold strong opinions as a matter of principle and not be a ‘fascist’.

    I don’t fear people that are open and honest about their ideology and opinions, I fear people that hold extreme ideological perspectives and aren’t honest about it and then go to great lengths building Trojan horses to foist this ideology on the rest of us.

    We all know what Red thinks, and therefore he is ‘safe’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    I wonder what this means for gay marriage…?

    If there has to be a 50/50 split of genders for Labour organisations, how does this translate to a gay marriage where there is 100% of one of the genders…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,578 comments) says:

    Positan, that’s a bit of a generalisation but I’ve seen plenty of evidence of that. I’ve taken the liberty of blogging your comment.

    But similar sentiments can also be seen from the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >3. that the masses are just itching to support THEM

    I think it’s more that they are like 19th century European missionaries, dispensing their enlightened wisdom and charity to the noble but needy savages, who aren’t able to think for or act for themselves. But will be eternally grateful for the baubles bestowed on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    I just don’t understand Labour’s obsession with what one has between one’s legs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. southtop (265 comments) says:

    burt (5,736) Says:
    November 15th, 2012 at 10:40 am
    This sort of move from Labour will open the door wide for an extreme right wing party…

    I’d just like one decent right wing party to vote for!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Every person living the ‘prescribed’ life – that’s what the Labour lead Left is all about.

    And the best part is – the government has consulted with ‘experts’ to determine what the prescribed behaviors should be.

    What could be wrong with that? ………….Oh I know –

    “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed.” -Ayn Rand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    This is what happens when the activist base of a party becomes so unrepresentative of the country. I was a witness to, and on the receiving end of, how the Clark led Labour party dealt with the right faction that had supported Rogernomics – in simple words we were driven out of the party. I remember the very last Labour Party meeting I ever attended. I was an LEC delegate on the Regional Council for the Canterbury region. A meeting held in a musty hall in St Albans was debating what to do with the a very profitable boarding house that the LRC owned in central Christchurch. It was in fact pretty much the sole source of income for the party outside of dues. I came from Mike Moore’s electorate – one that always paid its full dues on time in fact often we’d pay 3 years worth of dues in one go. At the time most of the electorates in Chch were way behind on their dues and their MPs and LEC Chairs would trot out a variety of excuses as to why. One of the MPs moved a motion that the LRC sell the boarding home and use the profits to pay the arrears for all the recalcitrant electorates. I argued vehemently against the motion because the asset was getting such an excellent return on the original investment and it seemed foolish to sell the family silver due to the lack of discipline and fund raising focus of a few electorates. I will never forget Marian Hobbs, then only a Regional Councillor before she became the Wellington Central MP, not only arguing in favour of this folly but personally and nastily denegrating all on the right in the region who had called for fiscal sanity. The motion passed, the building was sold and I knew my days in Labour were numbered.

    Many of the small business owners, white heterosexual male small c conservatives were similarly drummed out of the party. I recall having lunch with a solicitor mate in Chch about 10 years after I left the party who was a party member. This man would’ve made an absolutely first rate MP and he tried to get onto the regional list. I told him frankly that he would be rank very low because he was the wrong gender, occupation and sexual orientation and sure enough he was ranked last. I can’t recall how much longer he stayed in the party – may be 2 election cycles – long enough to be passed over for any significant power role in the party. He could run rings around most of Labour’s current front bench!

    When you create a party in the image of a small more extreme activist base far out of touch with mainstream New Zealand and drive out the few members who are, you end up with remits of the type you have detailed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Rich Prick

    I just don’t understand Labour’s obsession with what one has between one’s legs.

    Because supporters of socialism have nothing between their ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Such extreme policies will probably prevent Labour gaining power. We can be thankful of that. What concerns me is that this sort of thing may move the centre of political debate further to the left.

    We have seen this with the current National government, which has essentially claimed the ground previously occupied by Labour. This has meant the Labour has the option of moving further to the left (as they appear to have done) or aligning themselves with Nationals policies, or moving to the right of National. None of those options are very appealing and it is a clever move by National.

    The only way out for Labour is to get back to basics and deal with the issues of relevance to the working class majority. The issues of a few angry minorities should not dictate policy. Most gays, Maoris, etc want the same things as every one else anyway. You can not expect to win a majority of votes by appealing to a minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    What Labour really needs is a new catch phrase, a meme to get into peoples heads so that when ever they’re having an issue, they’ll think Labour and vote Labour. How about: Labour, the discriminating party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    This is an indication of what happens when desperation hits a party. Having made no traction over the last 4 years, has appointed weak leadership and the moderates within a party start to lose their voice. The lunatic fringe gain more airtime.

    What these idiots fail to understand is that the battle for parliament is won with by attracting the swinging voter. The moderate in the centre of the bell curve. Act were never able to work that out, it was a concept that completely eluded Brash both as leader of National and as leader of Act and lurching further to the left is simply not the answer for Labour.

    For Labour to defeat National they have to be seen to be electable and these policies are simply idiotic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    There is no lunatic fringe in the labour party, there is only the labour party

    Now DPF , everytime you talk about your mate grant Robertson, this shit is what you are actually endorsing.

    As someone said above, to para phrase ..this sort of rubbish comes out of a 6th form lesbian support group

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    What these idiots fail to understand is that the battle for parliament is won with by attracting the swinging voter.

    The battle is won by focusing on what the national electorate is concerned about. The list of remits is not that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (8,944 comments) says:

    I’ll contribute to a hard right wing party to add some balance – you want to lead it or should you and I fight it out to see which of us leads the charge against the rot of socialism.

    I’d just like one decent right wing party to vote for!

    I’d be happy if the National Party stopped drifting to the left and returned to its founding principles. These principles won it a long term of government when it was first elected, and they apply just as well now as they did then.

    If that is what makes me far right then so be it. I’ll wear that label willingly.

    There is no good reason for the party to have ever moved away from these principles, and that they have betrayed them so fully is the main reason NZ is in the excrement it is in today.

    NZ National Party Founding Principles 1936
    “To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry”.

    Instead we have announcements like this from Key and his bunch of Labour-lite sycophants-

    National Party Senior Spokesperson 2011- “Conservatives are viewed as not in touch with middle New Zealand and not in line with John Key’s broader image”

    Pathetic spineless Marxist weasels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (7,739 comments) says:

    What we need red is more party’s on the right of national. The left have the moderate labor, red greens and far extreme manaless.
    liberal and conservative right find common ground on economic issues But are diametrically opposed on some social issues.
    There is room for both views to the right of National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Labour should have a talk to their PI membership base. Not one PI parent I’ve ever come across says “the exams arte too hard, dumb them down so my kid succeeds”. Instead they pour everything they have into making sure their children do well, and as a result they excel in numbers well in excess of their proportion of the population.

    Well may we scoff, but middle NZ possesses a similar belief advancement on merit so this will make Labour unelectable as anything other than a minor party. Which makes NZ effectively a one party state. That is never a good thing, no matter how much the present leadership manages to confect an everyman image.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    The Labour Party of 2013 is a collection of homosexual activists, communists, teachers, lecturers, social workers, unemployed and trade union militants. They live inside a Trojan horse called The LABOUR PARTY. The front person is the nice Mr Shearer and before him the nice Mr Goff.
    They will try to convince the population of NZ to drag them into the city in 2014 and then unleash hell for 3 years. and then change the rules to stay in power for 9 before we again overthrow the barbarians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mara (787 comments) says:

    Ah yes, gender equity. As all “correct” thinkers now realise, there are at least a half dozen or so genders whose sensitivities need to be considered. You have your trans-genders, intergenders, hopelessly confused genders, the “how dare you label me” genders, temporary genders and all the other righteous souls of the gender persuasion who demand equality. I expect Labour will provide it. Eventually. But so will National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    mara:

    You have your trans-genders, intergenders, hopelessly confused genders, the “how dare you label me” genders, temporary genders…

    No wonder it engenders such confusion…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (1,762) Says: “I argued vehemently against the motion because the asset was getting such an excellent return on the original investment and it seemed foolish to sell the family silver …”

    Which kinda begs the question: Were you for or against the sale of Telecom or any of the other state assets which were turning a profit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Yoza
    Telecom was a part of the Post Office – a carry over from the late 19th century when the government was the only entity with the ability to raise and expend the capital necessary to build large nationwide infrastructure. The social usefulness of the taxpayer owning Telecom had long expired. Even as an SOE, its ability to innovate was hangstrung – by the need to pay all its profits to the consolidated fund rather than invest in new technology. Much of the explosion in new technology that saw the expansion of cell phone networks was only possible under private ownership driven by competition and market impertives. In hindsight, the better model for the sale of Telecom was like the initial Air NZ privatisation – ie a NZ share market float versus the trade sale model but either model was preferrable to the full government ownership.

    The social need for the Canterbury Regional Council of the Labour Party to retain Cropston House had not expired – indeed it was the sole income generating asset the LRC had at the time. The comparison is factuous and confirms you to be the lefty partisan hack you have always come across when posting here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    ” Even as an SOE, its ability to innovate was hangstrung – by the need to pay all its profits to the consolidated fund rather than invest in new technology. “

    I was working or Telecom at the time. The change over to completely electronic exchanges from the mechanical type was well underway. The expansion of the cell phone network happened in under a monopoly, even though Telecom was a private entity there was no other mobile provider/competition, so I don’t know how the “…expansion of cell phone networks was only possible under private ownership driven by competition and market impertives.” fantasy is relevant.

    The more recent explosion of cellphone use is more a consequence of the assembly of electronic products being outsourced to cheap labour markets – a condition Telecom could have exploited regardless of whether it was a private or public entity.

    Telecom was an important social asset that returned a healthy profit to the its collective owners, much like Cropston House (which I only know about from your version of events). Although, judging by your response, I suspect you too are well aware of the obvious parallel between selling either valuable asset to satisfy a short term debt ‘crisis’ – a debt crisis being the rationale at the time for selling Telecom at a bargain basement price – and the foolishness of such a sale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kiwi in america (2,454 comments) says:

    Yoza
    It was the pace of adoption of new technology that differed. Even the old Post Office eventually introduced push button phones to NZ – only 25 years after American consumers had access to them. The usefulness of cell phones was only as good as the cellular networks behind them – investment in these networks would’ve been as slow as the slow conversion to electronic exchanges without the massive internal investment that Telecom embarked upon after privatisation. Deregulation (which I’m sure you would’ve opposed at the time) brought Vodafone and other providers into the cell phone market forcing Telecom to innovate more rapidly. Had Telecom still been an SOE it would’ve been unable to respond to these competitive demands as rapidly as more of its profits would’ve been required for the social good vs investment in new technology.

    The health or otherwise of the nation’s accounts was unaffected by the sale of Telecom. The loss of the dividends after the sale (the loss of the social good you so lament) was made up by the additional taxes the government received from a more vibrant and growing private sector (a notion lost on socialists who forget that unprofitable companies pay fewer or no taxes and employ fewer staff who in turn pay less taxes and spend less) that resulted from more efficient, technologically nimble and productive Telecom. Telecom was of more use to the wider society because of the greater productivity that better and newer technology brought to businesses abd consumers and the levelling of price increases brought about by better competition. The arrival of 2 Degrees is a classic example of this.

    Cropston House was at the time the Canterbury Labour Party’s sole asset – Telecom was not the NZ Governments sole asset – not even close to it. The impact of the respective sales was vastly different on the respective entities cashflows. You comparison is stretched to make your ideological point – something you never fail to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Yoza

    Were you for or against the sale of Telecom or any of the other state assets which were turning a profit?

    Another socialist who wants to live in la la land that the Telephone side of the post office was turning a profit when it was sold… Bet you think Railways was profitable before it was sold as well… muppet !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote