What if Labour lost the referendum?
March 22nd, 2013 at 11:00 am by David FarrarAdam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:
Almost one in five New Zealanders who oppose the partial sale of Mighty River Power intend buying shares in the company anyway, according to a Herald-DigiPoll survey.
But the survey also indicates opposition to the sales plan is softening, with just over half of the 750 respondents saying they are against it compared with almost two thirds a year ago, and as much as three quarters before the 2011 election, which was largely fought on the issue.
According to the poll, conducted between March 11 and March 17 during the Government’s initial Mighty River Power advertising blitz, 52.2 per cent of respondents opposed the sale and 41.9 per cent supported it.
That’s a big change – from almost 75% against to just over 50%.
I have always assumed that any referendum vote would be a massive vote against.
Every CIR to date has always had a massive vote in favour of the desired outcome of the petitioners. The results have been:
- Firefighters 88%
- Size of Parliament 81%
- Justice reform 92%
- Smacking law 87%
How much of a political disaster would it be for Labour and the Greens if they lost the referendum? They’ve spent $400,000 of their parliamentary budgets on getting people to sign the petition. The referendum may cost the taxpayer up to $10 million to run. They’d be laughing stocks if they lost the vote they spent so much money on trying to achieve.
Of those opposed almost a fifth intended buying shares while 30 per cent of all those polled said they would buy shares. The survey has a margin of error of 3.6 per cent.
Turnout could be fascinating. Those who have purchased shares and support partial asset sales may be highly motivated to vote in the referendum as if the referendum endorses the sales it would discourage Labour, Greens and NZ First from confiscating their shares back after the election. And those against may wonder what is the point when one or two companies have already been floated by the time of the referendum.
Related posts:
- According to Labour the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales
- So when will Labour and Greens vote to repeal anti-smacking law?
- Truth asks what will Labour do?
- Greens trying to buy a referendum
March 22nd, 2013 at 11:10 am
They’ve spent $400,000 of their parliamentary budgets on getting people to sign the petition.
How much money is being spent on the ads trying to get people to sign up for share in Mighty River Power?
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:10 am
I am sure there will be many who will still oppose the the selling but will still secretly buy shares. A bit like Labour/Green MP’s opposing the Hobbit movie but quite happily accepting an invitation to the screenings…
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:14 am
I’m sure that Labour would respect such an outcome. I mean, come on, it’s not as though Labour says one thing but then does the exact opposite when it is politically expedient.
@Graeme, not sure what relevance that has, but there is a return on advertising the sale, whereas the return on a pointless taxpayer-funded referendum is zero.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:21 am
I don’t understand this, Shearer and Cosgrove have been clainming “over 80%” are against the sales.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:28 am
Well if you want to get all pedantic, none. The advertising is to get people to register their interest, not commit to buying.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:28 am
Relax people. Labour will do what their internal polling instructs… no more no less. It’s a game to gain the treasury benches and as always our money is just a play thing for them.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:31 am
In any case, the result is nonbinding. However, the point is that this will cost nine million dollars. And I am appalled that Labour and the Greens have spent so much of their parliamentary services budget on this when they need to present a supplementary and enhanced case for a capital gains tax in this context. It is one thing to launch a negative campaign against a given legislative reform, quite another to present a coherent and realistic positive alternative.
This is a link to the text of the CIR Act 1993:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0101/latest/DLM317193.html
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:39 am
Can you do an official information request on what they have spent?
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Yeah I don’t know why Mr Farrar keeps banging on about the cost of the referendum when it’s costing more than $100 million to promote and implement asset sales. Someone’s obviously creaming it, but DPF doesn’t care.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 12:14 pm
ross69 (2,156) Says:
“Yeah I don’t know why Mr Farrar keeps banging on about the cost of the referendum when it’s costing more than $100 million to promote and implement asset sales. Someone’s obviously creaming it, but DPF doesn’t care.”
The difference is Nat are doing what they said they would do but Labour and the communists are blowing public money on an issue that is already dead and buried.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 12:33 pm
CardiganGuy
If they have the Referendum at the same time as the local body elections the cost will be less than $4 million.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 1:06 pm
This is what we do in New Zealand:
Spend beyond our means, throw money down the toilet in non productive areas, ahhh ahh ah… sell assets, over tax, under tax, drive out foreign investment, spend some more money, sell some more assets
And repeat
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Will all those Anti voters tell their Kiwi Saver Managers that they are not to buy any shares ?
Or will they just keep quiet preferring not to know.
It is probable that the largest, numericallty, holders of the part SOEs will be Kiwisavers, as should be – these shares are a good long term investment, being the Kiwisaver mantra.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 2:56 pm
And the point of a non binding referendum?
All that effort and your representive (yeah right) can still ignore you.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Paulus is right. Unless you are in a KiwiSaver cash only fund you will be the benefical owner of MRP shares as your fund manager will be buying these as part of your portfolio.
Just the same as your fund manager will have bought Air NZ shares on your behalf and will buy some of all the future floats.
Thats one reason why Im not getting carried away with buying 2 many myself even though I have registered all the family and the family trust and the dog ( only kidding about the dog).
Of the 400K plus registrations I suspect about 200k to 250k will finally sign up and get around $2500 worth of shares ( $2000 as guaranteed plus an additional 25% for registering. As the Gumint will want the IPO to go well suggest the strike price will be at the lower end of the analysts current predictions so figure a price of around $2.25/2.30.
I suspect the loyalty bonus shares will be for those who hold their shares for 12 months and the bonus will be a 1 for 12/15 shares.
Div yield should be around 5%/6% so better than money in the bank.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm
“Almost one in five New Zealanders who oppose the partial sale of Mighty River Power intend buying shares in the company anyway, according to a Herald-DigiPoll survey” Arguably, more pertinant is the Q – how many / what proportion of people who signed the petition will buy shares? I didn’t sign the petition, but I’m opposed to the sale too. However, as the decision to sell has been made; I’m interested in buying some shares and have registered for information.
David, you keep banging on about Labour / Greens using their parliamentary resources – so what? If they didn’t spend it on this issue, it would be spent on something else, so it’s not as if it is costing the taxpayer anything additional (which, I accept, cannot be said for the cost of running the referendum itself). For those who support National, it could be seen as a positive thing that its opponents are throwing their limited resources at this instead of attacking the Government on some other issue.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:06 pm
I have no idea why you have that quote at the end! This does not support your thoughts/cause. If I understand the statements:
* almost a fifth of those who opposed sales will buy (margin of error 3.6%)
* 30% of all polled will buy (margin of error 3.6%)
So as little as 16% of those who opposed will buy. Doesn’t sound like a massive turn around to me. Definitely not conclusive evidence of, well, anything at all. And it’s probably lower than that because the well used word “almost” is in there meaning “we just rounded it up to make it sound better”
And as little as 26% will buy – that’s hardly a win for the public of the country. Lose the benefits of 50% of the company profits across 100% of citizens but 26% may be able to gain – what do the other 74% of people get?
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:15 pm
I am sure there will be many who will still oppose the the selling but will still secretly buy shares.
Just because you don’t think it’s a good thing for the country doesn’t mean that excludes you from buying when it’s put on the table. If you want to make sure you/your family/your country benefit then you’re going to buy regardless – esp. if you resigned to the fact that the sales are going ahead.
So I’m sure there will lots who oppose the selling who will buy. But I wouldn’t describe it as “secretly”. But, hey, don’t let me stop you from defining your little groups of people into little cubby holes of who they are.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 11:35 pm
The real issue is what would happen to New Zealand First’s position if a majority supported sale.
They favour referenda, and are the ones leading the campaign to buy back shares if they are sold.
Vote: