Such a clear stance
March 13th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarAudrey Young at the NZ herald reports:
Labour leader David Shearer won’t rule out supporting Winston Peters’ policy of buying back Mighty River Power shares at cost if they form the next Government. …
Mr Shearer said, “We won’t rule it out but we won’t rule it in either.” Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.
Incredible. They are saying we might confiscate your private property but we’re not going to tell you whether we will or not before the election.
No Right Turn is outraged, saying it is “spineless chickenshit” behaviour.
Related posts:
- More clear stances from Labour
- And another clear stance
- According to Labour the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales
- The HoS Poll
March 13th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
I think this is Shearer’s biggest mistake yet. He will be ridiculed across the political spectrum right through to the election.
He will follow it up with a bigger mistake if he doesn’t do anything about this one, quickly.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Captain Mumblefuck Shearer is nothing less than a traitorous economic saboteur.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:29 pm
This isnt much different from National saying at the last election “we want a mandate to sell some state assets, but we will only sell them if conditions are right”
ie: we wont rule it in and we wont rule it out.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:29 pm
So, Labour Party… are we living in Venezuela (where any company can be nationalised at the drop of a dictator’s merest whim)?
Or do property rights mean something in NZ?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
The fact is issues aren’t black and white, hence Shearer is allowed to have a bob each way on some things.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Is it a taking if they use the standard takeover rules presumably known in advance by shareholders?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Shearer will come to regret this particularly if the demand is large as the pre reg suggests it will be. He is going to get owned in the election campaign the way he is going.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Perhaps if Finance Minister in waiting Rusell Norman prints enough money he may nationalise Contact and Trust Power as well.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:44 pm
barry Says:
This isnt much different from National saying at the last election “we want a mandate to sell some state assets, but we will only sell them if conditions are right”
ie: we wont rule it in and we wont rule it out.
—————————
Not really Barry. “we will only sell them if the conditions are right” means “if the bottom falls out of the stock market we aren’t selling anything”
Shearer is saying that “we may or may not confiscate your property and we’ll only let you know after you vote us in”.
Lets put it a different way. A lot of people invest in houses. How do you think they would feel if Labour decided to say “we may or may not confiscate your investment properties to build 10000 new homes, but we’ll only let you know if you vote us in”
OH bugger, did I just give them an idea of what to do for the housing?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:44 pm
“No Right Turn is outraged, saying it is “spineless chickenshit” behaviour.”
Hang on. How can this be “spineless” when the Right has expended so much energy telling us that the sale of MRP is unprecedently popular? “290 000 expressions of interest in two weeks c.f. 300 000 signatures in a year!”, as someone crows on another of your discussion strings. The implication being that that old chestnut of the Right – the “silent majority” – is now voting with its wallet. Signatories to the CFI petition are the misguided minority etc etc. If that is the case, surely the “spineless” thing for David Shearer to do would be to roll over and follow the righteous herds.
Why is a reversion to full SOE status for MRP – and so “depriving” an investor of his shares (i.e. buying them back) – any more reprehensible than this government selling off what belongs to me and every other NZer already for absolutely no remuneration? If said investor feels uncomfortable with the prospect, then he need not vote Labour. I hardly think the resentment of the rentier class will express itself in a decreased share of the vote for Labour at the next election.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Your second ever post and a masterpiece of dumb non-comprehension of the point. Well done Guthrie.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Cunningham, I thought Shearer had survived his bumble and bluster leaving no one else with the guts to challenge him throught to the election campaign.
But things are worse than I thought in the Labour camp if he survives this. the reaction to this is not just laugher and scorn from the right, it is derision from the left. No tight turn is one example.
And as expected the Standardistas are spitting their contempt more than ever. Of course some there want him to commit to a buyback and force a sabotage of the share sales. But there’s something worse than Shearer not doing what they want, and that’s Shearer not doing anything of substance. And worse still apparently deliberately deciding to make a definite decision to remain undefined.
They hate the Labour caucus leaning towards the centre, but they hate lily livers even more.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
@Guthrie
There’s nothing “spineless” about committing to re-nationalise. It might not be popular around here, but it would be clear … before the election. People could make an informed decision.
What’s “spineless” is not saying before the election, what Labour would do. Shearer would be eaten alive if he tried to get through 2014 like that.
He’s a goner, anyway. Step up, Grant.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Shearer is just embarrassed that he has been caught pre-registering for shares. And he doesn’t want to piss off Peters, since Peters might be his Deputy PM after the next election.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
The bit from that article that scared me was not Shearer saying they might buy the shares back at the same price they were offered (which while not ideal at least doesn’t represent a big loss to investors).
The scary bit was Winston when asked how he would repurchase them:
“Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible”
This is a fair enough approach – it is a direct reversal of the government’s transaction of selling the assets and paying down debt. And the historical dividend returns on the assets are higher than the government’s costs of borrowing so there will be no great win or loss either way.
But this is freaking scary:
“but there are other resources,” he said. “You’ve got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise.”
The money in MY Kiwisaver account is MY money not Winston’s slush fund! If he wants the government to buy something they should borrow or raise the funds not steal them from savers!
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
GuthrieKeyboard: “…this government selling off what belongs to me and every other NZer already for absolutely no remuneration?”
Actually what you and every other NZer own is debt.
Vote:When you and every other NZer pay net tax and you and every other NZer get out of debt, then (maybe) you and every other NZer can start claiming you own some assets.
March 13th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Has the Maori water thing really gone down the drain? Will Shearer tell the turkeys what is on the menu for Thanksgiving only after they have voted for him.
All this shit is really making it hard for John Banks to write an honest MRP Share Prospectus.
[David Sharer – hahahahaha haha ha – um ... sorry]
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:37 pm
“Yesterday Winston Peters flung down the gauntlet on asset sales, declaring that NZ First would buy back stolen assets at no more than cost – and borrow if necessary to do it.”
Does Winston Peters’ “at cost” include the investment costs? (opportunity/time/labour costs) I assume not, he probably regards these valuable things as worthless.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
A threat to undo, by forced purchase or whatever, would be a very serious thing and I think if ever made requires something of more import than the sale of Mighty River Power.
While I don’t thing the sale is a good thing because it won’t be a good deal I also don’t think claims of a mandate to it hold true either.
A vote for a government is not a vote for every policy it espouses. We often have to pick the least of evils and don’t have the choice of someone we agree totally with.
So it occurs to me that if proponents of a forced acquisition wanted to make a strong case, and a referenda having been initiated, why not make the claim contingent on the results of the referendum?
Accept that if no majority refutes a mandate to sell in the referendum it’s time to be quiet on the issue and stop making dire threats. That has the virtue of making the inverse a strong claim to speak on behalf of the public for those confident they have support.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Fentex , the question wording for the referendum was fixed before the petition started, no flexibility allowed as far as I know.
After some of the assets are sold the wording becomes a nonsense, becasue it names all three power companies and Air New Zealand (I don’t know what you’re supposed to answer if you agree to selling some and not others, that’s another flaw in the single yes/no question requirement).
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Why do people keep saying that these assets are theirs? They belong to the New Zealand government (i.e. the crown)which is a separate entity to any individual. Such assets are the property of the crown and nobody else. The crown is simply a vehicle which collects taxes and provides services and amenities to the public (not excluding tourists who may use a national walk way or similar amenity).
Saying that the crown cannot sell “my assets” is horribly misinformed. The government can pass any law they please, and any subsequent govenerment cannot be bound by said laws.
Additionally, the government is getting renumeration for these sales as is every single New Zealand taxpayer by way of no need to raise taxation or change the current mix of services (ceteris paribus). The rest of the world does not owe us a lifestyle.
Although a vote for a government may not be for every policy it intends to make, a vote for such government gives implicit agreement with policy (as one would not vote for something which they felt so strongly against; one cannot have the cake and eat it to).
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that the state will treat you as an equal in commerce. Persons are obliged to the state, so personal property is not the same as real property.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:38 pm
I’m starting to wonder how much money and what deals the current Govt are doing with David Shearer to make him and Labour appear so bloody stupid. What is going on? Does National stay in power as long as Shearer gets what he wants (funds for UN)
Vote:Is there some big immigration deal going on with the countries UN suckholes to?
Things just aint right, Shearer just can not be that fucking thick and stupid
March 13th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Guthriekeyboard
So much ignorance packed into one post. “any more reprehensible than this government selling off what belongs to me and every other NZer already for absolutely no remuneration”….what do you mean no remuneration? What part of asset SALE do you not understand? The whole reason for the float is to determine exactly what the taxpayer’s remuneration will be. If the taxpayers didn’t want this sale to proceed then more of them should’ve voted for parties that opposed it. This is the first sale of an SOE whose sale was made subject to the will of the voters – more voted for parties that supported the sale and so guess what – the election promise is being fulfilled. Last time I looked thats called democracy.
Shearer is spineless because he won’t commit to the very position you clearly are espousing. You encapsulate Labour’s terrible dilemma – Shearer knows to signal Labour’s commitment to a buyback would depress the share price and show him to be utterly ignorant of markets and how they work and yet he does not want to be out demagogued by Peters and wants to pander to him to be in the box seat to form a governing coalition with him. This fence straddling will come at a big political cost. George W Bush was able to neutralise Kerry over the war in Iraq in the 2004 election when Kerry uttered the infamous phriase “I was for the $85 billion before I was against it”.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
No this is an attempt to sabotage the float, plain and simple. By being equivocal they hope to scare people off so they can then crow that the hated asset sales are only popular amongst the 1%ers.
That’s their strategy, it’s quite obvious.
The counter-strategy is equally obvious, Key simply appoints Joyce to oversee the float and sits back and watches as in interview after interview Joyce, the one-man govt, beats the stupid useless journo unfortunate enough to interview him on the float over the head with the obvious question: “when are you going to ask Shearer to come clean and tell us what he is going to do, when are you going to do that? When? Excuse me, when are you going to ask him?” And so on.
It’s a bit of a shame that Joyce can’t simply take one of the other National Ministers: e.g. the one actually responsible for the float, and give them some coaching, but apparently the pool of Cabinet talent is rather thin on the ground and that just doesn’t work since such obvious questions on various other things haven’t once yet been asked by any other National Minister, despite them being obvious, as this one is, as well.
But seriously, even though I’d rather have the chimps from Wgtn Zoo in the Cabinet if it was a choice between them and a Liarbore/Gween/WF/Mana coalition, I’m getting a little bit tired of the fact that the 5th National govt’s Cabinet is barely performing above the level that said chimps would be doing, were they in charge right now, today.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 8:25 pm
The clown couldnt make a decision to save himself. He has to wait until he sees which way the tide of public opinion is going before he has the balls to make a public comment on any subject. His public utterings leave me in no doubt that he is totally incapable of running the country so long may he and the Labour/Greens Coalition stay on the opposition benches. It would be an absolute disaster for the country if they ever gained the Treasury benches.
Vote: