Economic sabotage

Written By: - Date published: 12:54 pm, April 23rd, 2013 - 185 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, energy, labour, national - Tags: , , ,

The Nats don’t seem to be able to debate the Labour / Green electricity sector plans rationally. Here we are five days later and still the best that they can muster is desperate ranting.

It started with Joyce’s “the commies are coming” press release:

Labour and the Greens have jumped the shark with a half-baked Soviet Union-style nationalisation “plan” for electricity in New Zealand, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says.

“This is truly wacky and desperate stuff obviously made up in the last minute in the Koru Lounge between comrades Norman and Shearer,” Mr Joyce says.

This 1970’s scaremongering is so laughably hysterical and crude that it has found no resonance at all with the electorate. But instead of trying something more rational the Nats are doubling down on the stupid with an extra twist to the rhetoric:

Opposition accused of economic sabotage

Labour and the Greens are being accused of deliberately sabotaging the economy by proposing a Soviet-style, state-owned electricity provider.

Economic sabotage no less! Surprised that it took them five days to come up with it – it’s such an obvious (and stupid) line of attack that I covered it in the first post on NZ Power at the time it was announced:

It isn’t an ambush and it isn’t “sabotage”. It will be put to the electorate in 2014, and investors have plenty of advance warning, time to respond.

We only get NZ power if the electorate votes for it. It isn’t sabotage to curb the ever increasing prices of the failed market model, it is cleaning up the mess.

If you want the real party of economic sabotage – look to the Nats. Their misguided and discredited austerity budgets have been stifling the economic recovery in NZ for four years now – just ask the record number of Kiwis leading the exodus to Australia.

185 comments on “Economic sabotage ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • framu 1.1
      23 April 2013 at 1:05 pm

      how?

      that clip doesnt prove anything near what you want it to

      • BM 1.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 1:09 pm

        There’s no other way you could take that.
        The body language speaks volumes.

        • felix 1.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 2:04 pm

          I’m a little dense. Could you please spell out – without saying “speaks for itself” or “obvious innit” or “everyone knows” – what’s in the video that indicates economic sabotage?

          • Mary 1.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 4:20 pm

            Because Clint said “that’s not why we did it” and because we know the Greens are all liars that means it is why they did it, so it’s economic sabotage. Easy.

        • framu 1.1.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 2:18 pm

          as felix said – seeing as were all a bit dense can you point it out?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      23 April 2013 at 1:13 pm

      That’s probably because you’re delusional, seeing things that aren’t there.

      BTW, which important bit was cut out of that video?

      • Jackal 1.2.1
        23 April 2013 at 7:13 pm

        The edit looks to have been made before Farrar uploaded his version of the 3 News report, so I guess we’ll never know. However considering Patrick Gower also says:

        A Labour Greens government would bring back state control of electricity busting up the market and the profitability of power companies.

        …We can assume that the report was edited to make the Greens look as bad as possible, which isn’t very bad in my opinion compared to Keys blatant lying.

        We’re talking about policy affecting 7% of $10 Billion in revenue generated by power companies in 2012… That’s hardly going to touch profitability. In fact revenue grew by an average 18.6% last year, meaning profits should be positively influenced by revenue growth of around 11.6% per year in the future.

        The right wings fear mongering is entirely baseless!

    • TheContrarian 1.3
      23 April 2013 at 3:27 pm

      I also fail to see the “economic sabotage”.

      That is just Hughes being a mutant.

      • BM 1.3.1
        23 April 2013 at 3:36 pm

        He was asking a rhetorical question, you can see it in his face.
        The greens knew this sort of announcement would create chaos, that’s why they did it.

        Lots of dumb arses in NZ who are easily bribed, the greens and labour know that, the market knows that as well, hence the reaction.

        • felix 1.3.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 3:46 pm

          lolwut? You think he did that on purpose? Asked for a line from an adviser on camera to make a rhetorical point?

          Are you fucking insane?

          If that’s not what you mean then as before, spell it out.

          • BM 1.3.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 4:03 pm

            I think he thought TV3 wouldn’t run with it.
            The greens have had a very easy ride with the TV3 news dept, probably because Campbell and few others are major green party supporters.

            Unfortunately for Hughes and the greens that wasn’t the case this time.

            • Pascal's bookie 1.3.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 4:18 pm

              That’s right mate, it’s all a communist plot. They’re all in on it too.

            • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1.1.2
              23 April 2013 at 4:18 pm

              Actually, TV3 and Campbell live are major Communist Party supporters. Did you not realise?

              • framu …
                23 April 2013 at 4:45 pm

                so they arent all under the bed at all!!!!!!!

                you mean theyre out walking about and hiding in plain sight

            • TheContrarian 1.3.1.1.1.3
              23 April 2013 at 4:36 pm

              Errr, what?

            • felix 1.3.1.1.1.4
              23 April 2013 at 5:25 pm

              So BM I assume that’s a “No, I can’t explain how this is economic sabotage because I don’t really understand what just happened”.

              Thanks for clarifying mate.

            • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.1.1.5
              23 April 2013 at 6:44 pm

              LOL, TV3 in the tank for the greens… this whole saga is essentially one big series of “Wingnuts say the darndest things.” XD

              Just because you’re used to watching your washed out conservative friends on TV1 does not mean the somewhat less unreasonable people with TV3 are crazy leftists.

          • infused 1.3.1.1.2
            23 April 2013 at 8:10 pm

            Pretty much everyone thinks that felix.

            Even the partner was blown away by his interview. “What a dick” is all she had to say.

            He should speak more often.

            • felix 1.3.1.1.2.1
              24 April 2013 at 10:00 pm

              lolz, no-one believes he said any of that thinking it would end up on tv.

              Not even BM, and certainly not you.

        • framu 1.3.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 4:34 pm

          see, if youd gone with

          “what a twit – he doesnt know what hes meant to say and had to check – ergo their centrally controlled communists”

          i would have called you crazy but awarded some points for a logical, if somewhat tenuous, pathway

          but your real explanation – wha????

        • Clockie 1.3.1.3
          23 April 2013 at 5:30 pm

          BM. Don’t take up poker professionally. You won’t be any good at it.

    • Murray Olsen 1.4
      23 April 2013 at 3:50 pm

      ???????
      Is that actually the link you wanted to put up?

    • Mary 1.5
      23 April 2013 at 4:02 pm

      Are you saying the opposition parties aren’t allowed to announce policy? The Greens/Labour announcement is surely nothing more than telling the public what they will do. I would’ve been happier if they’d said straight away that they’d nationalise the power companies, but they didn’t. Would you’ve been happier if they’d done that? What is the real beef the right has with the Labour/Greens announcement? Is it really about the timing? Or is it about what it’s doing to the asset sales policy? Labour/Greens are part of the opposition. They have not just a right but a duty to challenge government policy they don’t agree with. Joyce and Key and Bridges are comparing the Labour/Greens announcement with North Korean politics, but the reality is that the Nats’ criticisms of what the announcement is doing to one of their policies is in fact more akin to the totalitarianism we see in North Kora because they’re in effect attempts at crushing democracy. Get over it, BM, if Labour and the Greens didn’t make the announce you’d be critical of that, too, for not having a policy. Now they’ve got one it’s economic sabotage, which it isn’t, of course. It’s called bad policy sabotage, being carried out within our free and democratic political system, and is what any Opposition worth it’s weight should be doing.

    • Clockie 1.6
      23 April 2013 at 5:15 pm

      BM. Define your terms. You (and your ilk) are using sabotage as a synonym for subversion and making it sound as though it is analogous to treason. The NZ Power announcement isn’t subversion of the State. It is quite simply (at this stage) a policy announcement. All concerned can now carry out their decision making with that information in mind. All opposition parties in all democracies that I know of have always been free to announce their policy settings at any time they wish. It is then up to the electorate to decide whether they actually get the opportunity to enact those policies. Question is; are you feeling lucky? Are you feeling lucky enough to go and buy MRP shares? Or do you think maybe the opposition might become the Government on the back of this and possibly other similar policies. You’d whine more if they didn’t announce the policy until after the share float wouldn’t you? If they do become Govt, tough titty. That’s democracy. Find something else to do with your money but don’t expect us all to cower and cringe if you threaten to take it off-shore.

  2. Mike 2
    23 April 2013 at 1:16 pm

    If it really was ECONOMIC SABOTAGE!!!!!!1!11 then wouldn’t Labour have waited until after the three share floats to announce this policy?

    And there is an easy way to stop the ‘sabotage’, postpone the sales, hold an election and see who really has a ‘mandate’

    • Pascal's bookie 2.1
      23 April 2013 at 1:21 pm

      Exactly Mike.

      This sabotage line has the potential to bite National hard. They are comitted to the MRP sale, but if the left holds up in the polls then selling anymore would just be an act of spite before they are slung out of office. Sabotage indeed.

    • Tamati 2.2
      23 April 2013 at 1:47 pm

      It’s economic sabotage because Labour is decreasing the value of the Crown’s own assets. Labour should have privatized the remaining 49%, then announced the single payer model. Ensuring maximum returns to the Crown and cheaper power to consumers.

      • framu 2.2.1
        23 April 2013 at 2:12 pm

        ouch! – can you imagine the reaction?

        it would be thermonuclear

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 2:33 pm

          Typical corporate type M&A strategy

          Surely what is good for the private sector goose is good for the public sector gander?

      • geoff 2.2.2
        23 April 2013 at 2:38 pm

        Except for the fact that it is the announcement of the policy that will probably get Labour into government. They can’t privatise the remaining 49% unless they’re in power.

      • Rob 2.2.3
        23 April 2013 at 3:03 pm

        Ensuring maximum returns to the Crown and cheaper power to consumers.

        How????

        You cant have both, unless you run the assett into the ground as you wont be funding any new capacity or even keeping up basic maintenance.

        Oh I see you will just rack up taxes. Fabulous.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.3.1
          23 April 2013 at 3:10 pm

          Taxes are fine mate, its how civilisation and the economic/social commons is funded.

          Ensuring maximum returns to the Crown and cheaper power to consumers.

          Here’s a small clue for you…the Government is supposed to look after the welfare of the people. Not act as a rentier capitalist.

          • Rob 2.2.3.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 3:13 pm

            Here is a clue for you, taxing the general population into subsistance isnt looking after the people either.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.2.3.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 3:34 pm

              Yeah, that’s why we of the left want to decrease the regressive taxes of electricity.

              • Rob …
                23 April 2013 at 4:02 pm

                I think you would find most people would like a reduction, but you are exclusive to your chosen left (whatever that is) segment. What people do not want is to be taxed heavily to support the govt controlled electricity prices and to have an industry that no one wants to invest in the also has to be maintained by tax payer funding as well. It does not make sense.

                • geoff …
                  23 April 2013 at 5:18 pm

                  Who’s talking about taxing everyone? Let’s just tax the fuck out of the wealthy.
                  Sounds good, eh?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  23 April 2013 at 6:07 pm

                  What people do not want is to be taxed heavily to support the govt controlled electricity prices and to have an industry that no one wants to invest in the also has to be maintained by tax payer funding as well.

                  Um, what? The profits that the power companies achieve are a tax – a very heavy tax in fact.

                  I’m pretty sure that the taxpayers were quite happy investing in power generation through their taxes. I’m sure that they’d be more than happy to do so again.

                  The problem is that the private sector doesn’t want to do the investing but they do want the monopoly returns that the infrastructure generates after the taxpayers have done it.

                  BTW, after the taxpayers built all the infrastructure it’s actually morally wrong for anybody, including the government, to profit from it. Which is why they should be a government service that runs at break even or, perhaps, a slight loss. And, yes, the difference would be made up by taxes. All major capital investment would be done from taxes.

                  • Rob …
                    24 April 2013 at 8:21 am

                    Great so lets lower one set of tax (elec charges) and lets rachet up the others , net result more tax, but very cleverly hidden and disguised. This is why there is no trust in Labour.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:08 am

                      …net result more tax, but very cleverly hidden and disguised. This is why there is no trust in Labour.

                      Strange, last time I looked I’m not Labour, don’t for speak for Labour and the tax rates were publicly available and not hidden.

                      No matter what happens, we do need to pay for things. If we keep capitalism and the poverty that comes with it then the people who will be paying the most will be the capitalists because it’s a) their fault that we have poverty and b) they’re the ones benefiting most from the infrastructure that the community builds.

                • tricledrown …
                  23 April 2013 at 10:49 pm

                  infrastructure that has an income !
                  your an idiot rob!
                  command an control economies are growing faster than laissez fare austerity driven economies in fact all bean counting austere govts are in recession and we would be to if not for our accidental Keynesian economy .ChCh has saved our bacon proving Keynesian policies work !

                  • Rob …
                    24 April 2013 at 8:23 am

                    I actually think you are confused, the two great examples of stimulous payments (ie Aus and USA) over the last 6 years show they achieved nothing.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:10 am

                      The only people that the US and UK have stimulated is the rich which is why it didn’t work. The insurance payouts to Chch are far broader and so actually work.

                    • tricledrown …
                      24 April 2013 at 10:15 am

                      Rob you obviously know nothing about the Australian or US economies!
                      The republicans have stymied all stimulus through the house of representatives ever since the stimulus has stopped grown has slowed and stopped read some news before making uninformed comments!
                      like wise the Labor govt in Australia has stopped all stimulus as well because of knife edged majority they are hamstrung!
                      With the likelihood of a conservative govt taking power in September the beaned brained bean counters of the right wing will put Austerity to the for claiming the Australian govt is in serious debt, when in fact the Australian govt has one of the lowest debts of any govt!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      24 April 2013 at 10:19 am

                      Aussie debt one of the lowest in the world? Not if the Right win the election it won’t be.

              • dumrse …
                23 April 2013 at 9:40 pm

                Decreased quite a bit in your nine years didn’t it?

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.3.1.1.2
              23 April 2013 at 4:16 pm

              Here is a clue for you, taxing the general population into subsistance isnt looking after the people either.

              Hey buddy, please don’t worry, I’m sure the top 2% won’t have to give up their new Audis, their holiday bachs in Queenstown, nor their regular summer skiing in Aspen.

              PS it is rentier capitalism which is pushing most people back to week to week subsistence.

              • Rob …
                23 April 2013 at 4:20 pm

                I am not worried about the top two , although you probably should be buddy. Maybe your lording it up lifestyle might have to change. Actually how do you feel about being a part of the 1%.

                I am actually concerned about the next 75% who actually pay the taxes.

                • geoff …
                  23 April 2013 at 5:26 pm

                  Don’t be such a disingenuous twat, Rob. The population in NZ is struggling to pay crazy prices for basic necessities on shit wages, and all because of the rent-seeking tory economy we live in. Nothing to do with income tax.
                  For you to blow on about taxes is completely missing the point AND ignoring a wealth of economic history which categorically shows that progressive tax systems allow economies to grow the most rapidly and provide the best standard of living for their citizens.

                  • Rob …
                    24 April 2013 at 8:24 am

                    Yes little to do with income tax now, because it is at a sustainable rate. Lets not stuff it up eh.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:13 am

                      Income tax is always sustainable as long as the person has enough to live on afterwards.

                      The highest growth has always come when we’ve had the highest income taxes and that’s repeated around the world.

                    • geoff …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:00 pm

                      Only sustainable in the sense that if it were higher for low income earners they’d be starving in the streets. If it’s so fucking sustainable then how come they need to subsidise business with working for families? If employee rights were restored and wages reflected returns from productivity gains, as they used to, then we should all be able to pay our way for the system.
                      You’re only looking at a part of the problem and not considering the whole picture.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 April 2013 at 6:30 pm

                  I am actually concerned about the next 75% who actually pay the taxes.

                  I would support tax increases on the top 2% in order to give tax breaks to the bottom 75%.

                  From what you wrote, you would agree?

          • mkesh 2.2.3.1.2
            23 April 2013 at 3:18 pm

            In fact government should be protecting the commons from being grabbed by rentiers.

        • felix 2.2.3.2
          23 April 2013 at 6:23 pm

          “Ensuring maximum returns to the Crown and cheaper power to consumers.

          How????”

          By not selling our energy assets. Duh.

      • Arfamo 2.2.4
        23 April 2013 at 6:31 pm

        National giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy, having to borrow massively from overseas and slash government spending to make up the massive unexpected revenue shortfall, and increasing GST and a whole raft of regressive and hidden taxes on the lower paid while desperately trying to flog off taxpayer owned assets to private profiteers – that’s the real economic sabotage.

    • Rich the other 2.3
      23 April 2013 at 2:11 pm

      That’s the problem, like it or not they do have a mandate.
      This policy was well debated at the last election , the nat’s won.
      What’s wrong with the govt implementing its voter approved policy ??.
      Wouldn’t they be crucified by there supporters if they didn’t honour their policy’s.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.3.1
        23 April 2013 at 2:14 pm

        No. They wouldn’t. Glad I could clear that up for you.

      • framu 2.3.2
        23 April 2013 at 2:18 pm

        i know there many who will always see it one way (or the other), but..

        1) every poll ever taken by anyone has roughly 70% opposed
        2) elections arent single issue decisions
        3) getting the most votes under MMP doesnt guarantee that any party will form the govt
        4) all the mandate is, is a mandate to govern. This means that they get to advance their policy platform, but they still have to go through the democratic process each and every time for each piece of proposed legislation
        5) winning elections AND THEN forming the govt, doesnt give you the power to force a policy – it only gives you a pretty good assurance that you will have the required numbers – but under MMP thats a much more fluid situation

      • Draco T Bastard 2.3.3
        23 April 2013 at 3:35 pm

        What’s wrong with the govt implementing its voter approved policy ??

        What voter approved policy?

        Most people are against assets sales which means selling them is unapproved.

        • Rich the other 2.3.3.1
          23 April 2013 at 3:59 pm

          Sorry draco BUT,
          A majority voted for selling at the last election , like it or not , that’s what happened.
          The coalition was formed with no coalition members objecting to the sell policy.
          Clearly the voters thought selling was preferable to a green/labour government, nothing has changed since then.

          • Pascal's bookie 2.3.3.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 4:10 pm

            A majority voted for selling at the last election , like it or not , that’s what happened.
            The coalition was formed with no coalition members objecting to the sell policy

            Does that mean that opposition parties cannot release policy?

            Clearly the voters thought selling was preferable to a green/labour government, nothing has changed since then.

            Well there hasn’t been an election since then if that’s what you mean.

            • Rich the other 2.3.3.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 5:01 pm

              Pascal’s bookie,
              The green/labour circus can release intended policy but this is a fairy tale designed to commit Economic sabotage, nothing else.

              An election isn’t due for some time, this govt has about 18 months before the next election which is plenty of time to implement the govts sell policy.
              When its complete and 49% of each of the various assets are sold NZ will have about 650000 new share holders who won’t be interested in loosing their money.
              Vote green/labour they won’t, get used to it.

              • Matt …
                23 April 2013 at 5:04 pm

                I imagine there will be about 3.x million other New Zealanders who aren’t interested in subsidizing the 650,000’s investment.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                23 April 2013 at 5:24 pm

                *laugh*

                How does the economic sabotage line work with that fantasy bubs?

                Game it out.

                National are running the sabotage line hard. It only works if people think the policy will work in reducing prices (otherwise there’s no sabotage) and if people think Lab/Green are likely to win (otherwise there’s no damage).

                So when it comes to the next float, the question will ne why is National selling?

                And you’ve said it yourself, they’ve got the 18 months and they are going to do it because they can. The economic case for the sales was marginal at best, and now they are saying it’s been sabotaged.

                The responsible thing to do, if the policy has really been sabotaged, is to go to the country and see what they want. If National wins, no sabotage eventuates as the risk would be gone.

                That’s where the conversation is heading fool, if it’s sabotaged, why are you still selling? Oh yeah, because you can because you were elected and so you’ll do it out of arrogant spite even though the markets (political and financial) think it’s risky.

                If National wants an election based on that, let’s go.

                • Rich the other …
                  23 April 2013 at 6:21 pm

                  Pascal’s bookie,
                  you’ll have to do better than this.
                  The sabotage is in the attempt to collapse the value of mrp.
                  The share price has a range between $2.20 and $2.80, if demand determines $2.20 then the shares will have been devalued by .60c which equates to hundreds of millions of dollars.
                  That’s economic treason to our country.

                  The taxpayer will have to make up the short fall in the budget or borrow .

                  Why would the govt go to the country , this was a major policy for the winning party at the last election, the responsible thing to do is to get on with what they were elected to do.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    23 April 2013 at 6:34 pm

                    But the conditions and risks of the sale has changed, and as you have pointed out, in fact significantly worsened.

                    What responsible government would still go ahead blindly, without taking the new environment into account?

                    • Rich the other …
                      23 April 2013 at 6:52 pm

                      Colonial V,
                      Conditions might have changed , that’s why the price has a 60c variation.
                      At the end of the day I think the losers will be green/labour ,the timing of their announcement says it all ,SABORTAGE.
                      I can’t vote for that lot next time and I am a traditional labour voter,( we were in short supply last time).

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 April 2013 at 6:58 pm

                      So the National Government will keep blundering ahead, even though the conditions and risks have changed?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    23 April 2013 at 6:47 pm

                    You’re not thinking clearly Rich t’other.

                    Any devaluation in the shares is caused not by Labour speaking, but by the possibility of their policy being brought in. It is fully within National’s power to alleviate that risk by delaying further floats until after an election.

                    If National wins that election, the sales can go ahead and the Crown will get those ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’.

                    National will need to come up with a much better reason to cement those losses in than ‘but but we won you have to let us’ that just makes them look like they are so sure they are going to lose the election that it is worth paying those hundreds of millions of tax payers dollars just to get get some shareholders votes locked in.

                    The idea that it is responsible to push ahead with a ‘sabotaged’ policy, when confirming the will of the country would remove that sabotage is simply arrogant partisan lunacy.

                    The country has a decision to make about this Lab/Gre policy. If they like it, that will effect the value of the SOE gentailers. It is not responsible to sell those gentailers until that decision has been made.

                    • Rich the other …
                      23 April 2013 at 7:13 pm

                      Pascal’s bookie
                      Why should they delay anything ,they have a real mandate, get on with it.
                      This approach by green/labour will decrease the opening share price and increase the investors profits.
                      Smarten up ,stop whinging and buy some shares.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      23 April 2013 at 7:24 pm

                      The should delay the sales until after an election in order to avoid locking in unnecessary losses to the Crown of hundreds of millions of dollars.

                      Your position here (that they should press ahead and lock in losses to the Crown so that shareholders make a windfall profit if national wins the next election) looks to be far closer to ‘economic treason’ than anything Lab/Greens have done.

                      See how the conversation goes Rich?

                  • Lanthanide …
                    23 April 2013 at 7:06 pm

                    Erm, no, it’s economic treason to go ahead with asset sales that have been proven to cost the country more in lost dividends compared to the interest costs.

                    National is committing economic treason, not Labour.

                • dumrse …
                  23 April 2013 at 9:45 pm

                  And you would have a dollar to win on your Sheep dip would you?

              • geoff …
                23 April 2013 at 7:14 pm

                “fairy tale designed to commit Economic sabotage, nothing else.”

                What a load of shit. Go and listen to Dr Geoff Bertram on radio nz for the truth. He’s been studying the electricity market for 20 years and he thinks that the plan has great merit, provided they get the details right.

                http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20130423-0908-the_state_of_state_asset_sales_percent_differing_electricity_policies-048.mp3

                If you still think the way you do after listening to that then clearly you’re fond of cartels and monopolies and think the vast majority of people should be getting screwed over.

          • framu 2.3.3.1.2
            23 April 2013 at 4:54 pm

            “A majority voted for selling at the last election ”

            no they didnt, they voted for parties with a range of policies

            unless of course you can prove that evey vote for national and act was cast because of their privitisation policy

            • Rich the other 2.3.3.1.2.1
              23 April 2013 at 5:21 pm

              framu,
              Why do you assume only nat/coalition voters want the partial privitisation.
              I know some labour voters who think its a good idea, your assumption that only nat voters approve of this particular policy is wrong , as you noted , voters make decisions on a range of policy’s .

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 April 2013 at 6:36 pm

                You silly billy

                Plenty of National voters think that asset sales are a dumb idea, one which sells out our country.

              • framu …
                24 April 2013 at 7:54 am

                “Why do you assume only nat/coalition voters want the partial privitisation.”

                im not – which is is kind of the point – your the one claiming a vote for nact was a vote for asset sales remember. Im saying people vote for a party for a whole bunch of reasons and its foolish to try and attribute motive in a uniform manner

                “I know some labour voters who think its a good idea,”

                and did they vote labour?

                so whats that about?

                kinda blows a whole in your single policy mandate routine

            • infused 2.3.3.1.2.2
              23 April 2013 at 8:16 pm

              No, Key said last election was on asset sales. Stop being so stupid.

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 April 2013 at 8:21 pm

                irrelevant. last election was a long time ago and market conditions have changed.

                • infused …
                  23 April 2013 at 8:24 pm

                  Not irrelevant. It’s the same argument everyone is using, which is completely wrong. The country had the opportunity to vote for any party they wanted. Full well knowing voting National was a vote to sell assets – regardless of the market conditions.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    23 April 2013 at 8:40 pm

                    Listen to yourself.

                    Are you really suggesting that National should just go right ahead and sell, no matter what has changed?

                    No one is saying they can’t go ahead. They are saying that they should consider delaying it. The most anyone is saying is that based on National’s belief that NZ Power has sabotaged the sale, they should delay the sales until after that uncertainty has been resolved.

                    Why should they lock in losses? If National wins the next election, any ‘sabotage’ on the price will be felt in the Crown’s accounts, purely because National will have locked it in there for no good reason other than ‘We won an election, so there’.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    24 April 2013 at 9:18 am

                    IIRC, National said that they won’t sell unless they get a good price, ergo, as they won’t get a good price (and never would actually) they should keep their word and not sell.

                    • Jim Nald …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:23 am

                      So they say. That will be another one to add to the litany of lies.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 April 2013 at 9:24 am

                      Unfortunately, a good price for their bankster and investor mates is as cheap as possible.

    • Sweetd 2.4
      23 April 2013 at 2:49 pm

      Are we back this this mandate thing again. So, lets see labour get over 50% of the vote else they can’t do anything, seems fair don’t it?

      • felix 2.4.1
        23 April 2013 at 3:35 pm

        No that’s not how it works at all. Parliament is sovereign. If National have the numbers in Parliament to sell assets then they can.

      • Akldnut 2.4.2
        23 April 2013 at 3:38 pm

        Fair would be Labour using the same rules of demanding shit thru bogus mandates because National and their of less than 50% of the vote did for it for 2 terms and reversing everything National has done at our expense then smack the shit out of Tax dodgers starting from the top downward – not the bottom upward.

        Starting with Multi-Multi Millionaires and moving straight over to the opposition and their backers whom most would be amongst the first group anyways then heading downward the rest.
        Now that would be fair

  3. Ennui 3
    23 April 2013 at 1:25 pm

    You know the bastards are beat when the spin word “Soviet” surfaces. More idiocy from Joyce, a clever man who does not have a clue who or what he represents when he makes such statements.

    If Joyce wanted to find some economic saboteurs he might just have a look at the people who put money into SCF knowing the government was going to guarantee it, or perhaps the mates of Shonkey who trade derivatives on Wall St. Myopia I can excuse but Joyce takes selective vision to a new height.

  4. Ad 4
    23 April 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Just totally agree with this post, but needs more analysis. Don’t have to agree with the Green/Labour tactics but National promised for two elections that we would be a richer country because of what they did. The legacy of the Clark years IMHO is holding up pretty well.

    Convention Centre/Cycleway/huge mine/financial services centre/exporting boom anyone?

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      23 April 2013 at 1:36 pm

      Building economic and industrial capability is a long, expensive process of investment in technology, infrastructure and in people. Unfortunately, the right wing view that the government has little to no role in that process, other than being hands off and staying far away. Throughout the world, that’s not a model which has worked.

  5. ropata 5
    23 April 2013 at 1:52 pm

    First came rogernomics, then ruthanasia, now bilbo english is cutting the throat of our economy with asset sales & austerity.

    Since 2008 the NACToid/MUF miscreants have given us nothing but unrestrained casino capitalism, speculation and rent seeking.

    They only get away with their corrosive agenda by circumventing democracy and lying to the public, and liberal use of media distractions and photo ops.

  6. burt 6
    23 April 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Well I guess since Labour stole National policies in 1984 – there is no reason why they can’t re-try failed Muldoon style policies. They got Muldoon elected – they might get Labour elected…

    It’s about being popular enough to rule – thats all Muldoon wanted and it worked for him…

    History repeats – only the flag colour changes.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      23 April 2013 at 2:34 pm

      burt’s forgotten that the world has actually moved on, both in political economics and in analytical policy understanding.

      • burt 6.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 2:44 pm

        CV

        burt’s forgotten that the world has actually moved on

        Monopoly price control and regulation … I suspect It’s Labour who have forgotten the world has moved on…

        But I guess if National policy is multiple companies and competition then the natural “opposition” to that is a monopoly and price control. So if nothing else we can at least say Labour are good at being opposition….. With policies like this – long may that last.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 2:55 pm

          I’m glad you don’t like this policy. Keep panicking. Tick tock 2014.

          • Rob 6.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 4:41 pm

            Yep, actually I have learnt something good from David Shearer, you will be pleased knuckledrager. Best set up an off shore bank account and get the good stuff out of here, as once these goons get in it will pretty sad around here.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 3:46 pm

          Monopoly price control and regulation

          Steve Keen has already proved that the price on the ‘free-market’ is the same as the price of a monopoly because the competitive firm and monopolies use the same pricing formula. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have a profit.

  7. One Anonymous Knucklehead 7
    23 April 2013 at 2:06 pm

    You only have to look at what the serious players are saying to realise that people like Burt, BM, John Key and Steven Joyce are full of shit:

    Morningstar, which is not involved in the power company float, still recommends investors subscribe to the share offer.

    Analyst Nachiket Moghe said the firm’s low-cost hydro and geothermal generation portfolio, as well as its retail dominance in the Auckland market, gave it a “narrow economic moat … in the oligopolistic New Zealand electricity market”.

    He estimated the firm would generate a return on invested capital of 12.5 per cent on average over the next five years.

    Economic sabotage yielding a 12.5% return.

    Keep panicking, trash. You’re gone in 2014.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      23 April 2013 at 2:35 pm

      Rentiers always want private returns in excess of 20% pa; no wonder Joyce Key etc are upset

    • burt 7.2
      23 April 2013 at 8:58 pm

      Wow, I get lumped in with the PM and the Minister for Economic Development and all I did was remind this thread that Muldoon was infamous for price control, regulation and state control.

      Is it really that hard to remember the reasons why his policies did so much damage to this country ?

      Potentially it is when Labour and the Greens start wheeling out his failed policies of the past as fresh new ideas.

      • Colonial Viper 7.2.1
        24 April 2013 at 10:35 am

        burt

        let’s hope for another nation builder, one with a vision for NZ’s infrastructure and its engineering and technical prowess.

    • tricledrown 7.3
      24 April 2013 at 10:30 am

      So why kunckledragger would you sell an asset returning 12.5% a year to pay debt costing 5.5% pa its a dumb idea and i,m glad you have pointed it out it means if mighty river power is sold off the tax payers are loosing 7% per year!
      So the govt will have to borrow or tax more to make up the shortfall!
      Great argument knuckle dragger!

  8. One Anonymous Knucklehead 8
    23 April 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Most of us are going to have more cash in our pockets. The investors will still be making 12% returns. Fewer profits will go offshore.

    Win win win.

    The whinging wingnuts will keep panicking. Win 🙂

  9. tsmithfield 9
    23 April 2013 at 3:13 pm

    So what do you say to Labour-voting kiwisavers who have had their savings reduced due to the drop in prices of in Trustpower etc? Take one for the team?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.1
      23 April 2013 at 3:16 pm

      They’ll see the difference in their powerbills and the economic boost as more cash stays onshore.

      • tsmithfield 9.2.1
        23 April 2013 at 3:27 pm

        Sure, it wouldn’t be an issue if it was just a market fluctuation. However, this proposal is likely to have a long-term effect on the value of the companies, thus is likely a real loss of wealth for kiwisavers.

        • r0b 9.2.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 3:33 pm

          The market reaction so far has been a blip not a catastrophe. THe most dangerous time is now past, and things will probably head back to normal, with this “risk” factored in with all the others. And long term? See the BERL report – economic benefits outweigh costs big time…

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 9.2.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 6:20 pm

          “A real loss of wealth” offset by lower power bills and fewer profits going offshore.

    • Karen 9.3
      23 April 2013 at 3:28 pm

      That sounds a bit hysterical. Surely Trustpower’s not the only place kiwisaver funds can be invested? Anyway, they’ll be saving on power bills, so it’ll all even out in the end!

      • tsmithfield 9.3.1
        23 April 2013 at 3:47 pm

        Thats what you would like to think. Perhaps you would like to answer my second question below.

    • Rob 9.4
      23 April 2013 at 4:43 pm

      So what do you say to Labour-voting kiwisavers who have had their savings reduced due to the drop in prices of in Trustpower etc?

      “Suck that bitches, ye haa.”

      • Clockie 9.4.1
        23 April 2013 at 5:23 pm

        What percentage of an individuals funds do you reckon would be invested in Trustpower then? How much difference do you think it will make on each Kiwisavers bottom line?

    • cardassian 9.5
      23 April 2013 at 11:00 pm

      I’m a kiwisaver. Must say I’m willing to take this policy and a savings reduction over asset sales and a higher return.

  10. tsmithfield 10
    23 April 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Do you think they will enjoy the brown-outs and power shortages that seem to be expected under the California model that the left has promoted as a exemplar of the intended policy.

    And given that the new entity will be both a monopoly buyer and seller of electricity, then what is there to stop future governments from milking this entity through dividends from increased power prices as they have already been doing with the SOEs?

    • Dv 10.1
      23 April 2013 at 3:49 pm

      How did Enron do in California?

    • ianmac 10.2
      23 April 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Don’t quite buy that TS.
      If we have that Market Force with an elected Democratic Government then surely a Major Economic Crash could not and would not happen.
      If you have the Right to Marry regardless of gender, then the World will crash and burn, and (…future governments from milking this entity through dividends ….) and next minute, men will be marrying their dogs. Logical eh?

    • Matt 10.3
      23 April 2013 at 4:34 pm

      Douchebag, that page simply discusses the procedures in the event of something going wrong. It’s like saying the safety briefing on an Air New Zealand flight is because they’re prone to crashing.

      • tsmithfield 10.3.1
        23 April 2013 at 4:45 pm

        Not so.

        Here is a quote from the document:

        To understand the situation facing California, there are three terms that need to be defined- blackouts, brownouts, and rotational outages or “rolling blackouts.” A rotational outage or “rolling blackout” is when the utility company shuts off the power to an area, turns it back on, and then shuts the power off in a different area. The power outage typically lasts 60 to 90 minutes.

        Sounds like brown outs/black outs are frequent and expected.

        • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 4:51 pm

          Useless and irrelevant. This nation has always managed its core infrastructure better than the Americans. Because we still believe in public utilities.

          • Matt 10.3.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 4:59 pm

            Yes, New Zealand, world model for infrastructure.

            What?

            • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 6:38 pm

              Yep it is.

              • Matt …
                23 April 2013 at 8:31 pm

                Right, could you pass that along to the National Infrastructure Unit, and RadioNZ who just had a feature on this topic a few weeks ago, or authors of the infrastructure comparison conducted by NZCID, or the latest World Economic Forum report on global competitiveness where NZ infrastructure ranked 47th. Oh, and maybe tell Stephen Fry.

                Awesome, thanks.

        • Matt 10.3.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 4:57 pm

          As someone who is from there, they are neither.

          It was only ever so during the ill advised semi-privatisation scheme where unscrupulous private producers were allowed to game the system and soak electricity users for massive, overinflated profit.

          Oh..

        • rosy 10.3.1.3
          23 April 2013 at 5:51 pm

          Still reads like Enron to me- the corrupt model that was replaced. The latest pic or mention of a blackout on that page is 2003. If you have evidence that the post-Enron model is responsible for rolling black/brownouts I’m keen to see it.

    • Karen 10.4
      23 April 2013 at 4:56 pm

      Personally I don’t believe the govt should sell the SOEs at all because any profits ‘milked’ would all be returned eventually to the taxpayer via govt spending on health, education, infrastructure etc.

      Remember also that if a future govt can ‘milk’ the entity, then so will the private investors who hold the 49% stake – and where will that money end up? Overseas probably.

  11. felix 11
    23 April 2013 at 4:22 pm

    Anyone who has watched or participated in these forums over a reasonably long period of time knows that there are certain commenters who act as pretty good weather vanes for various winds.

    tsmithfield is one of them, and the general rule is that if he dislikes something you can be fairly sure it represents a transfer of money or power away from the elites and toward the ordinary people.

  12. tsmithfield 12
    23 April 2013 at 4:41 pm

    It seems to me that the left’s definition of “hysteria” is “any cited evidence that clearly demonstrates that their beloved policy is in fact a crock of shit.

    • Pascal's bookie 12.1
      23 April 2013 at 5:01 pm

      You mean like Stalin Albania Sabotage North Korea Life Savings half baked soviet evidence?

      • tsmithfield 12.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 7:10 pm

        I was thinking more in terms of other stuff I have already pointed out:

        Such as:

        1. Labour via David Parker pointing out that the centralised purchasing of power is a no-go back in 2006.

        2. Exemplars of the proposed model that the left have promoted in fact are actually very poor examples. For instance, KEPCO being 49% private-owned as per the National share sale plan, and KEPCO owning its own generation capacity, quite unlike the model the left is proposing. Now I have pointed out how California is less than glamorous in its ability to provide constant power, supporting the contention from the right that the model the left is proposing will eventually result in an unreliable power supply.

        3. Asking the very reasonable question about why the proposed model should be any different to the SOE model where governments can milk dividends at whatever rate they want. So there is no guarantee of long-term benefits to consumers.

        So, how does any of that qualify as “hysteria”?

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 7:24 pm

          1) 7 years ago is a long time, in politics and in economics
          2) Single buyers have more buying power, it’s that simple. California is irrelevant to NZ.
          3) Governments can milk citizens as much as they want. That’s just the way it is.

          • tsmithfield 12.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2013 at 7:52 pm

            1) Nah. 1970 is a long time ago. And that is where it looks like the left is heading.
            2) Single sellers have a lot of power too. That is what the new entity will be. Which is why it is such a bad deal for consumers.
            3) But at least taxes are upfront and quantifiable. Very hard to know whether taxpayers are being rorted or not under the proposed model.

            • felix 12.1.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 7:55 pm

              lol.

              Most seem to agree that it’s very, very easy to know whether we’re being rorted under the current model though.

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 April 2013 at 9:28 pm

                Oh we’re definitely being rorted under the current electricity regime. Or should I say, being Rogered.

        • rosy 12.1.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 7:37 pm

          “I was thinking more in terms of other stuff I have already pointed out:”

          And people have argued your points, without you going back to support your position. Suggest you go back and read the threads, not just what you wrote.

          • tsmithfield 12.1.1.2.1
            23 April 2013 at 7:53 pm

            Just countering the “hysteria” meme the left is pushing at the moment. Anyway, I don’t think any of the points I have made thus far have been adequately answered.

            • felix 12.1.1.2.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 7:56 pm

              Thanks for that fascinating ruling Mr Speaker.

              • rosy …
                23 April 2013 at 8:38 pm

                I just looked it up and it’s that JOYCE19765a ruling where ‘If I said it it must be true’ requires no evidence and the KEY19765b ruling where opinion carries the same weight as evidence and requires no further clarification.

        • Matt 12.1.1.3
          23 April 2013 at 8:39 pm

          The only thing you’ve pointed out is that you have a reading disability, and Colonial Viper has demonstrated that he doesn’t even agree with the people who conceived NZ Power as to what is relevant.

          Double score!

  13. pollywog 13
    23 April 2013 at 7:03 pm

    I was looking for my travel bag today cos i’m heading off for a week. So i look under the bed and whaddayaknow ?

    This fucking cossack jumps out and starts dancing round the room.I said “dude, wrong country mate” and showed him the door.

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      23 April 2013 at 7:20 pm

      Haha.

    • burt 13.2
      23 April 2013 at 9:06 pm

      Yep, that’s what Muldoon said while implementing price controls, regulation favouring state run monopolies and restricting free trade with increased tariffs and taxes.

      Funny how his legacy is cast as right wing because he implemented his policies under a National government.

      Followers of a flag never seem to get past what they think the flag stands for no matter him many times they have it thrown in their face. Those failed policies of the National government under Muldoon could be repeated under Labour – but the ideologues think that being implanted under Labour will make them good – how myopic and stupid can people be …

      • mickysavage 13.2.1
        23 April 2013 at 9:08 pm

        So Muldoon was really a left winger? He was such a shyte leader and suppressed free speech and collective activity but he was a socialist?

        Burt you really need to check your links to reality.

        • burt 13.2.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 9:20 pm

          Excluding the suppression of collective activity …

          How myopic and stupid can people be … Thanks Micky … You prove my point !

  14. tsmithfield 14
    23 April 2013 at 9:13 pm

    Oh, and here is another bit of “hysteria” from someone who should know what they are talking about.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      23 April 2013 at 9:25 pm

      There’s no need to worry about destroying “shareholder value” when those shareholders maintain their value by ripping off NZ consumers and small businesses.

      • tsmithfield 14.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 9:27 pm

        Of course, I guess it is no problem to you that a lot of those who are losing shareholder value will be battlers who have built up kiwisaver nest eggs.

        • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1.1
          23 April 2013 at 9:43 pm

          Still in ChCh Tarqui?

          Walk around the battler’s hang outs and see how much of a fuck they think this government gives about their nest eggs.

        • rosy 14.1.1.2
          23 April 2013 at 9:47 pm

          The real battlers are those that can’t afford to build up their Kiwisaver nest eggs. They’re too busy working two jobs to pay the power bill after they joined Kiwisaver because their employers were going to contribute 4 percent. Only they found that incentive was taken away and at the same time GST increased and their income tax cut didn’t cover it.

          Btw I don’t think anyone has argued the NZ Power won’t affect shareholder value. You haven’t actually read the posts you’re commenting on if you think that NBR link changes anything.

          • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.2.1
            23 April 2013 at 10:05 pm

            To achieve socialised changes to help NZ, financialised leverage and shareholder value must be destroyed.

            That happens because that private value is returned to the commons.

            To Marx, this is nothing more than the ever present but often disguised tension between capital and labour, becoming obvious to all once more.

            • tsmithfield 14.1.1.2.1.1
              23 April 2013 at 10:30 pm

              Soooo….were you the architect of this new policy CV. It looks to me that it has your fingerprints all over it. 🙂

              • geoff …
                23 April 2013 at 10:50 pm

                I’m curious to know what sort of value is it if $600 million of it gets spooked and fucks off on the news of a possible policy from a party that’s not even in power. Probably not the sort of value I’d want my retirement savings stored in.

                In reality of course pension funds put money into government bonds when they near maturity so that they aren’t subjected to the volatility of the sharemarket so tsmithfield’s argument is, as usual, completely stupid.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 April 2013 at 10:55 pm

                  Now you’re asking very dangerous questions…they don’t usually let ordinary people see the truth of what goes on behind the capitalist free market curtain 😉

        • Shaz 14.1.1.3
          23 April 2013 at 10:58 pm

          a) they are all forewarned – and they could invest anywhere in the tradeables economy whose success doesn’t disadvantage the 3.6M New Zealanders who will not or cannot invest in MRP
          b) advocating private wealth and public squalor. Yuk – not attractive.
          c) The usual rubbish about trickle down wealth and rising tide raising all the boats that is cited by Conservatives as the rationale for capitalism are both contra-indicated by public asset sales.

  15. Pascal's bookie 15
    23 April 2013 at 9:41 pm

    Yeah Yeah tories. Blah blah.

    Cut to the chase, snap election or not?

  16. dumrse 16
    23 April 2013 at 9:50 pm

    I agree, let’s go to the polls now. Labor have an outstanding team with the best Leader they have had in years. Plenty of Union funds in the bank account to fight with…………. On on let’s just do it.

    • vto 16.1
      23 April 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Nup, not until you wankers promise not to fiddle the polling booths again. Meantime we’ll just keeping announcing new policies to sink your precious capital values. Suck it up sucker.

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.1
        23 April 2013 at 10:03 pm

        Fictitious speculative electronically generated volatile capital value. Not actual real world sustainable economic value.

      • Pascal's bookie 16.1.2
        23 April 2013 at 10:05 pm

        Mate, I reckon if Nats are serious about this ‘sabotage’ bullshit they have to go to the country.

        At the moment they’ve got about a 5 point gap to close, and we’ll see what people reckon.

        Banksie has a court case hanging over him, which may be problematic conversation wise, but no worries.

        Colin Craig has been a bit unfortunate, but never mind.

        There’s always Winnie for Key to have cuppa with, we’ll see how that plays out.

      • big bruv 16.1.3
        24 April 2013 at 7:19 am

        “Nup, not until you wankers promise not to fiddle the polling booths again”

        You mean by offering free meals of KFC to voters in South Auckland?

        Or by introducing the corrupt Electoral finance act?

        Or by passing legislation to make your electoral crimes legal (Pledge card)

        Or, do those things fall under the category of “nobel corruption”?

  17. big bruv 17
    24 April 2013 at 5:36 am

    Of course it is economic sabotage, anybody who says it is not is a liar, or an idiot….or called Clint.

    I did note that one of the categories this post is tagged under is “class wars”. That always makes me laugh.

    Class wars only exists in the mind of lefties and lazy people. Those who push “class wars” want what others have without having to do any work or take any risk, in short they are almost always bludgers, morons and parasites…hence they vote for the left.

    Every few years the lefty pollies will make a song and dance about power prices (while ignoring the fact that under a Labour Green govt the prices increased by 70%) or welfare, or some other made up issue and once they do get into office they do nothing at all about those issues they were once so concerned about.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1
      24 April 2013 at 7:07 am

      Of course it isn’t economic sabotage: as a result of this policy people will have more cash in their pockets, and fewer profits (I note that there will still be a 12% return on investment available) will head offshore. That will boost the economy, as BERL predict.

      “…do nothing at all…”

      The proof of the pudding is in the eating. 2014 tick tock.

    • Colonial Viper 17.2
      24 April 2013 at 9:44 am

      Of course it is economic sabotage, anybody who says it is not is a liar, or an idiot….or called Clint.

      Yes, it is economic sabotage. Against million dollar blind trusts and investment banksters looking for fat fees.

  18. halfcrown 18
    24 April 2013 at 9:42 am

    Just had a trip to the South Island. Visited Aromoana I now realise how fortunate we are in this country to have the so called economic saboteurs, like the ones who protested against the smelter Muldoon’s National government was planning to build there. I remember the same right wing shit by right wing fuckwit commentators like we have today with predictions of doom, if the smelter did not go ahead, with the same tired hackneyed phrases against the protesters or anyone who was prepared to stand up for what they thought was right and for the benefit of everyone. Through this economic sabotage by the then protesting commies, left wing lazy sods after your dollar, Stalinist idea’s, Afghanistan rebels, Taliban, Tanzania, Fred with his Fish & Chip shop or whatever label prats from the right wants to give, this beautiful place that supports a lot of wildlife was saved from having another right wing uneconomical disaster in the way of an aluminium smelter, that no doubt would have been heavily subsidised by cheap power paid for by New Zealanders.

  19. Ruobeil 19
    24 April 2013 at 10:38 am

    According to Annette King on ZB 8.15am this morning food is cheap (what happened to No GST on fruit and vegetables?) and so is water, rates and petrol…… wait

    Breaking News. Millions die around the world, from………….no electricity. LOL Priceless.

    So after spending so much time and taxpayers money running around the country how expensive fruit and vegetables are; as of this morning they aren’t. Does that include milk as well?

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      24 April 2013 at 10:44 am

      No electricity, no refrigeration of food

      No electricity, no pumping at sewage processing stations or water reticulation

      No electricity, no surgical lights, medical equipment, respirators, autoclaves, forget xrays and MRIs

      No electricity, means reliance on dirty fuel sources at and around the home

      No electricity, no ability to communicate by mobile phone networks, disconnection from vital information and the internet.

      No electricity, economic activity and income dives, and poor people die faster.

      Does that include milk as well?

      No electricity, can’t produce, ship or store milk in volume for long distances or long periods.

      • Ruobeil 19.1.1
        24 April 2013 at 10:59 am

        Approximately 20% of the worlds population survive without electricity.

        I don’t know about you, but i could survive without electricity

Links to post