Limos for me, job cuts for youse

135 comments on “Limos for me, job cuts for youse ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   15 February 2011 at 11:31 pm

   B.B.B.B.N.B

   Bennett Bene Bashes from Brand New Beemers.

   And you can quote me on that.
   • ZeeBop 1.1

     16 February 2011 at 8:51 am

     Just goes to show the current train wreck that is modern right wing politics. Community Max spending on dithering churn. Health care blow-out costs as citizens haven’t the money to get preventive care and so leave expensive medical science of surgery to pick up the pieces. Just two of the other stories today, Community Max and Southern Cross new record surgery numbers! We are coming off a era of cheap oil, promises of even cheaper oil that fuelled loose finance, which gave the western economies so many choices that the invisible hand disappeared – stupid become vogue. The invisible hand disappear from right wing common sense! Its a joke that with one hand the far right nutters that inhabit our government economic departments and ministries are bailing out the private sector banks yet on the other hand are saying leave it to the market. Its truly astonishing that the government parties of the right are seen as free market when in fact they are stodgy old crony capitalists who use government to keep government off governing their mates! And was it all predictable, hell yeah, the bastards knew that if the courts of public opinion aren’t sitting, if the judge is asleep, then the happy man bitches of high finance write themselves checks. And who covered their arses? The mass media going gutter zombie. Cheap energy destroyed the western banking system and the elites of the right still won’t admit it, and religious wed themselves to the emergent philosophy of the era of cheap oil, neo-liberalism. You don’t grow a forest by chopping down all the trees. We won’t grow a economy by selling it offshore. We can’t grow a future if we breed a poverty stricken class who see the only way out as an airline ticket. We cannot function as a society without a generous, even handed approach to equality! Gift giving binds families, binds communities, binds society, when its all for one crime wipes out any economic profit. Ask any farmer whose had their stock stolen, or lost money on wide fluctuations of the exchange rate, or world commodities and find themselves hopeless in debt for following the neo-liberal agenda. We’re fooling ourselves if its just about limos, its about zombie stupid rightwing nutters have jobs in high places.
2. bobo 2

   15 February 2011 at 11:32 pm

   Why the fuck are the cars no good after 3 years, a bit like this government? and if they do need replacing every 3 years surely leasing is a no brainer?
   • Zetetic 2.1

     15 February 2011 at 11:37 pm

     I’m shamelessly stealing that 3 years line
3. Jenny 3

   15 February 2011 at 11:33 pm

   As the most likely user of these vehicles after the election, Blinglish was the frontman for this story on One News.

   As an unabashed abuser of the government housing allowance. – An administration led by this man would be the most venal, corrupt and right wing administration in living memory. No doubt Double Dipton will be looking around for people with a similar taste for the baubles of office to support his administration.
4. randominanity 4

   15 February 2011 at 11:39 pm

   Commercial agreement was signed in 2008 with BMW NZ Ltd that included a condition the company would get to supply the next round of replacements discounted rate. The contract is due to be tendered again in 2014. While the BMW’s are valued at $170K each the speculation back in 2008 was that the Gov’t had got them for around 70-90 thousand each
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     15 February 2011 at 11:50 pm

     Even after special one off discounts from the manufacturer to the local franchise (which might be as much as 15%-20% off retail), $90K per unit would still be a loss to BMW NZ.

     I’ll ask around my contacts, but I’m pretty sure that a factory backed discount of 50% is unheard of from any prestige European marque.
   • Zetetic 4.2

     15 February 2011 at 11:51 pm

     why doesn’t govt say ‘no thanks, we’ll keep these for three more years, here’s a little something for breach of contract’? No skin of BMW’s nose, they can sell them at full price instead.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.1

       15 February 2011 at 11:58 pm

       Key Government probably didn’t notice that this contract was in place and the cars already on the water until the last minute.
     • bobo 4.2.2

       16 February 2011 at 12:01 am

       yeah the contract doesn’t require they be replaced after 3 years, so why now ? Has John Boy soiled his limo’s designer leather upholstery after an allnighter , being the raging sex symbol that he is…
       • Akldnut 4.2.2.1

         16 February 2011 at 8:57 am

         Wants to ride in a new car on the public purse before he hits the road in Nov.

         Making offer to BMW cause he sees an opportunity selling second hand limos (he’s going to need a backup plan come Nov)

         Something to show all his fellow catwalkers on K RD
     • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 4.2.3

       16 February 2011 at 9:43 am

       It’s a stellar demonstration of the fact that National is all mouth and no trousers when it comes to business. Allegedly they’re better managers of the economy due to their business backgrounds, yet not one of them appears to have the ability to re-negotiate a contract with a car dealer!
5. Dilbert 5

   15 February 2011 at 11:42 pm

   Can somebody please elaborate on the “Goff giving up the Limo’s” statement.

   I’ve had a quick look on Stuff and NZ Herald and can’t see anything about this in regards to this story or is it older news?

   Thanks
   • Zetetic 5.1

     15 February 2011 at 11:55 pm

     knew someone would ask.

     he said he was giving them up in feb 2010 after his surface travel bill was bigger than key’s for second half of 2009. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3376266/Goff-balks-at-cost-of-limos

     His travel bill plummeted in 2010 as you can see in the most recent mps’ expenses. He confirmed on the tv that it was because he was using taxis. can’t find the exact article.
     • Dilbert 5.1.1

       16 February 2011 at 6:53 am

       Thanks Zetetic, I agree that was a good move by Goff.

       I don’t think though that Government Limos should be available to opposition, Former PM’s etc. It always come across as “We’re important too so give us our status symbols”. I would be much happier to see Limos limited to the PM, Deputy PM and The speaker only.
6. M 6

   15 February 2011 at 11:44 pm

   Hell, Bling Bling my car’s 18 and there’s hopefully a couple more years’ life in it yet.

   Best comment: Metiria saying that National was creating unemployment 🙂
   • kriswgtn 6.1

     16 February 2011 at 7:35 am

     My beast is 20 this year and still going hard out,will prob last another ten easy

     This out of fucking control spending has to stop

     Although when Jacinda Arden was asking re the $300,000 job scheme and the pumpkin I had to laugh 🙂
     • Lanthanide 6.1.1

       16 February 2011 at 10:05 am

       “My beast is 20 this year and still going hard out,will prob last another ten easy”

       Assuming you can afford to fuel it for the next 10 years.
       • Deadly_NZ 6.1.1.1

         16 February 2011 at 8:36 pm

         Mines 23 years old and just had a new cam belt and have panel beater brother for the rust, and I try not to hit things. But with the price of petrol now it’s like the go juice is gone and we been kicked to the kerb.
       • kriswgtn 6.1.1.2

         16 February 2011 at 9:44 pm

         Hell yeah Ill make sure I have plenty of diesel stashed and i shall buy me a horse
         so my beast only gets taken outlike the vintage it is 😛

         my anti spam word= alternatives

         What shall YOU be driving

         😛
7. Descendant Of Smith 7

   16 February 2011 at 6:55 am

   Isn’t the general principle with government cars that they buy the cars discounted, don’t have to pay the tax on them that the public do and 3 years is at about the point where you can auction them off to the public for about the same price you originally paid for them – neutralising most of the purchase cost?

   I’m not defending the purchase by any means but had always understood that was the logic.
8. kriswgtn 8

   16 February 2011 at 7:36 am

   well since they reckon they’re there for the people,how about catching the fucking bus like the rest of us

   oh no cant mix with the peasants they might wanna string us up

   You should see the tossers hooning round Wgtn- anyone would think they’re the second fucking coming

   BMW’s suck anyway

   much rather have my beast with its custom bullbars

   heheh good for ferals and politician collecting 😛
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     16 February 2011 at 8:46 am

     Haha yeah it would take some bravery.

     Captcha: balls 🙂
9. George D 9

   16 February 2011 at 8:22 am

   Why aren’t we buying locally made cars? Oh, right, we destroyed that industry.

   Why aren’t we using more modest Holden limosines? Oh wait, the Clark Government signed this contract, against the urging of the Greens. It was a political suicide tablet, and they should have had the sense not to have taken it.

   As much as I dislike this bunch of shiny fakes, they can’t take much of the blame here.

   Can’t wait til a bunch with spine finally make Government, if that ever happens.
10. tsmithfield 10

    16 February 2011 at 9:06 am

    Given that it was Labour that got us into a contract with BMW in the first place, I think the government is probably doing the right thing for the following reasons:

    1. Don’t know what the contract says, but I suspect the Government probably got a sweetheart deal in the first place based on continual purchases of BMWs over a given period. So the government may have been contractually bound to replace the old ones with BMWs.
    2. The cars have probably just come out of factory warranty. Also, the government may have had free maintenance for the warranty period as part of the deal, if it is anything like the deals my company has had when purchasing new cars. Given they are European cars which are bloody expensive to work on and relatively unreliable, and that any free maintenance package may now have terminated, then getting rid of them now is probably the wisest thing to do.
    3. Given that the government would have got the original cars at a super discount price in the first place, they may well be able to sell the old ones at close to original purchase price.
    4. The justification would be cost of new, less sale price recovery from old, less maintenance costs avoided by replacing old with new. It might well be that the equation justifies replacing the vehicles. Until we see that equation, it is difficult to judge the merits of the purchase.
    5. Also, there is the intrinsic premium of ensuring that overseas guests see us as a modern, up-to-date, relevant country, rather than a backward hick one that can’t afford modern cars.

    A far better outcome would have been for the Labour government to have purchased Lexus cars rather than BMWs. These are glorified Toyotas, so they have the inherent Toyota reliability so we could happily own these for longer than the factory warranty period. Also the capital cost is less than BMWs, but they still do the luxury job required for government status.

    So, really, it seems to me that you should be pointing the finger at Labour for making the dumb decision to get us into BMWs in the first place.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:25 am

      Blame Labour? Let’s not forget that only NAT / Mp / Dunne will be getting the benefit of these BMWs.

      The Government should have negotiated to defer their purchase. It may have cost them a penalty but in these tight times should have been done. But perhaps the tight times only apply to commoners and ordinary workers.

      I agree with you ts that Lexus could/should have been considered, those are great cars. (Even though Toyota quality has been tarnished in recent times).
      • Deadly_NZ 10.1.1

        16 February 2011 at 8:39 pm

        And as Jonky is the Minister for state services WHY did he find out about the Shiney new Beemers from a driver??? Don’t he read his documents and e-mail???
    • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 10.2

      16 February 2011 at 9:51 am

      To summarise – National lack the ability to re-negotiate a basic commercial contract.
      • tsmithfield 10.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 10:01 am

        It takes two to tango. You are basing this on the assumption that BMW would be willing to negotiate.
        • Lanthanide 10.2.1.1

          16 February 2011 at 10:08 am

          Pretty simple – renegotiate or we cancel the entire contract.
        • Zorr 10.2.1.2

          16 February 2011 at 10:13 am

          And you are basing your argument on a government that has been out of power for 3 years…
          • Tigger 10.2.1.2.1

            16 February 2011 at 10:28 am

            Tsmith – really? You’re running the whole ‘we’re stuck with the contract’ line? I thought this was a government of real people – business owners etc rather than union wankers and pussy teachers. What’s a little contract to them?

            Tell you what though – release the contract Blinglish – I’ll have a look at it (contract lawyer here) and give you some free advice…
            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.2.1.1

              16 February 2011 at 10:31 am

              Interestingly, LAB know exactly what the details of the contract are.
        • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.3

          16 February 2011 at 10:24 am

          It takes two to tango. You are basing this on the assumption that BMW would be willing to negotiate.

          Bejeeezus. What kind of Righty are you?

          They are a frakin car company. We are the new Zealand GOVERNMENT. How many customers in NZ exist who would even consider buying 3 dozen brand new 7-series limos? My guess is ONE. The Government.

          Negotiate with us if you want any future business at all, or waste your time and money, take us to court, and lose all future chance of business with us.

          It explains a lot of Key, English and the rest of the NATs are wet biscuit negotiators like you ts.
          • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 10.2.1.3.1

            16 February 2011 at 11:25 am

            And it’s a good demonstration how effective National’s negotiators will be when it comes to PPPs – utter crap. Us taxpayers will be on the hook for expensive infrastructure, ruinous penalties and disastrous contractual conditions because the Nats are so utterly pathetic on the commercial negotiation front.
          • orange whip? 10.2.1.3.2

            16 February 2011 at 3:37 pm

            Nah, you can chop and change parliamentary protocols and conventions on a whim…

            …but relations with car dealers are sacrosanct.
      • Deadly_NZ 10.2.2

        16 February 2011 at 8:42 pm

        Unfortunately they do have the ability to breathe. and talk, and sell us down the river.
11. Jono 11

    16 February 2011 at 9:26 am

    “Good on Goff” being being part of the 5th Labour government which signed the bloody contract in the first place which stipulates that the cars had to be replaced after three years. I hope the parliamentary party aren’t as hypocritical as you guys. If you want to moan about this then maybe vote for, you know, the (Green) party which actually opposed this in the first place.
    • Zetetic 11.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:39 am

      “If you want to moan about this then maybe vote for, you know, the (Green) party”

      who says I don’t support the Greens?

      It was RAM last time, but I’m disillusioned.
    • Zetetic 11.2

      16 February 2011 at 9:40 am

      “the bloody contract in the first place which stipulates that the cars had to be replaced after three years”

      yeah. whoever heard of altering a contract?
      • infused 11.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 3:35 pm

        I take it not many of you have created contracts before. You can’t just alter a contract.
    • Colonial Viper 11.3

      16 February 2011 at 10:28 am

      Interesting Jono. Go on, tell us how you happen to know the specific clauses in the contract.
      • ianmac 11.3.1

        16 February 2011 at 11:11 am

        In any case times in 2007 are very different from now.
        Give up your jobs folk. No pay rise to keep pace with Cost of Living. We Government elite need your money to travel in luxury.
        (Someone said this morning that the discount was on the tax or GST or something not the actual Retail price of $200,000??? If so figures like $80,000 per car are mischievous.)
12. tsmithfield 12

    16 February 2011 at 9:29 am

    If there was a penalty, then you would need to add that into the equation I gave at point 4 above. This may have meant it was economically unviable not to go ahead with the purchase.
    • Crashcart 12.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:42 am

      Not often I will agree with TS but this seems to be the result of a poor contract negotiation from the previous government. Selling now will offset more of the initial cost and reduce maintenance costs. As much as it seems like a splurge it makes spending sence. The previous government should have gone Lexus. If they had this wouldn’t be happening right now, and if it was it would all be on NACT.
    • Colonial Viper 12.2

      16 February 2011 at 10:29 am

      Madness. You guys are shit negotiators. See my point above on how many customers in NZ would even be in the market for three dozen 7-series limo, and then take a guess at whether or not BMW really want to piss that customer off and take the NZ Government to court.
      • infused 12.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 3:38 pm

        A contracts a contract.
      • joe bloggs 12.2.2

        16 February 2011 at 3:42 pm

        speaking of shit negotiators look what the last Labour govt negotiated:

        A Department of Internal Affairs spokesman said the new limousines were bought under the terms of a deal signed by Labour in 2007. It included a clause stipulating replacement with new vehicles after three years. That contract expires after another three years and the Crown will go back to the open market for its next fleet.

        Mr Key said today it was a six-year deal signed in 2007 with a three-year rollout.

        The Department of Internal Affairs made the decision, Mr Key said. That was signed off by the previous government.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706548
        • mickysavage 12.2.2.1

          16 February 2011 at 4:16 pm

          Hey Joe

          The contract had an option in it that the Government could choose whether or not to exercise. It chose to exercise the option. It did not have to.

          Game, set, match.
          • Deadly_NZ 12.2.2.1.1

            16 February 2011 at 8:47 pm

            And the minister in charge of the department that signs them off is dah da dah John Key!

            Checkmate.
            • Colonial Viper 12.2.2.1.1.1

              16 February 2011 at 8:49 pm

              Lets OIA for the signature 🙂
13. mike 13

    16 February 2011 at 9:30 am

    Better still, why dont we purchase Holdens from Oz. A third of the cost and it looks good for us in terms of building stronger CER which is the reason Gillard is here at the monent, plus it will make JK’s pansy image a little more muncho…god he needs it righr now!
14. johnm 14

    16 February 2011 at 9:35 am

    John’s cultivated his image: Flash suits, good grooming and an uncontroversial persona and Mr nice image to hypnotize the electorate; American style cultivation of charisma. Look at me not the fact I’m going to flog off your assets to FOREIGNERS. Buying the limos is part of this image mirage bullshit.
15. mickysavage 15

    16 February 2011 at 9:40 am

    All that I can say is thank you National for presenting the left with a big club to hit you over the head with in election year.

    The arrogant stupidity of this decision goes to show that everything that we have been saying is correct and that you are a bunch of out of touch born to rule gits whose only purpose is to gouge yourselves on privilege to the detriment of the rest of us.
    • tsmithfield 15.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:42 am

      I think this is bound to backfire, if National makes public an agreement signed by Labour which stipulated replacing vehicles every three years.
      • Crashcart 15.1.1

        16 February 2011 at 9:44 am

        Exactly. I am hopeful that the left will win this year so I would advise caution until people are sure of what the terms of the original contract were. Could really come back and bite Labour on the ass.
      • Kaplan 15.1.2

        16 February 2011 at 9:49 am

        That’s a big if TS. I find it highly, make that very highly, unlikely that the contract would be so tight that it is not possible to defer even a year for little or no cost, and even if there was a cost it would certainly be nothing near the cost of replacing the whole fleet. That’s just ludicrous..

        The big mystery here is how the Nats have handled it so badly. How could they not know this would be a big issue? Did they really think they could just point the finger at the contract? A lot of swing voters aren’t going to buy that argument when it’s so easily discredited.
        • tsmithfield 15.1.2.1

          16 February 2011 at 10:00 am

          Go back to my opening post. The cost of any penalty would need to be added into the equation I set out in point 4. When taken altogether, it might be unviable not to replace the cars. BMW aren’t stupid, they would probably make sure any penalty meant they would win either way.
          • Kaplan 15.1.2.1.1

            16 February 2011 at 10:05 am

            The chances that the penalty would equal or get anywhere near the actual cost of the replacement is zero TS and you know it.
            Find me any goods purchase contract, anywhere, that has a penalty that comes close to the actual cost of carrying out the contract. It’s just not credible.
            The cost to the BMW agent of the government not going through with the sale would be the admin cost of reselling the cars to someone else, which they would do at a higher price than the discounted cost to the government anyway.
            • Crashcart 15.1.2.1.1.1

              16 February 2011 at 10:11 am

              You are ignoring the fact that they get to sell the existing cars as they own them. This will offset a lot of the initial cost due to them being discounted and only 3 years old. Add to that the fact that they will be coming out of warrenty and European cars cost a fortune to maintain the fact is it may make more financial sence to get rid of them now.

              People often atteck TS rightfully for ignoring arguments and just banging a catch phrase. Well this time people are ignoring his argument just to bang a catch phrase.
              • Lanthanide …

                16 February 2011 at 1:19 pm

                “Add to that the fact that they will be coming out of warrenty and European cars cost a fortune to maintain the fact is it may make more financial sence to get rid of them now.”

                So they won’t be worth much on the second hand market if they’re out of warranty and cost a lot to maintain then, right? So how much will really be recovered through selling them?
      • Deadly_NZ 15.1.3

        16 February 2011 at 9:08 pm

        No OPTION to renew.
16. Richard 16

    16 February 2011 at 9:41 am

    Nice dog whistling..

    It is *completely* standard for the government to upgrade their fleet, top of the line is expected; they are the leaders of our country aren’t they?

    I get given a new car every year its ridiculous enough that they have to wait three
    • Zetetic 16.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:49 am

      given a new car every year? Just your every day Kiwi eh?

      Do you cry if you have to drive a motor without that new car smell?
    • Kaplan 16.2

      16 February 2011 at 9:51 am

      If the entity giving you that new car every year was borrowing $250,000,000 every week just to stay in the black do you still think they would be so free with their cash?
      No. Neither do I.
    • Colonial Viper 16.3

      16 February 2011 at 10:00 am

      Hey Richard, I guess you’ve also been telling the ordinary workers lower down in your organisation that they need to buck up their ideas, tighten their belts and not expect too much this year in pay increases eh?

      Asshat.
      • fatty 16.3.1

        16 February 2011 at 10:33 am

        Richard…you should change your name to Dick….no doubt that’s what your workers call you anyway
    • Deadly_NZ 16.4

      16 February 2011 at 9:13 pm

      Why would you want a new car every year???? I find I enjoy any car I own in the second and third year more than the first. You know you just need time to get used to the beast. I prefer something I have driven for a while as I get to know all it’s little peculiarities, and am Not in a continual state of surprise
17. Jono 17

    16 February 2011 at 9:51 am

    “The arrogant stupidity of this decision goes to show that everything that we have been saying is correct and that you are a bunch of out of touch born to rule gits whose only purpose is to gouge yourselves on privilege to the detriment of the rest of us.”

    Wow. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but again, it’s a contract signed by the Labour government in the first place. I don’t disagree for a second that if it were up to the Nats they wouldn’t do the exact same thing, but seriously, get real…

    If the “big club to hit you over the head with in election year” is this then the election is as good as lost, sorry.
    • Kaplan 17.1

      16 February 2011 at 9:56 am

      I don’t give a crap what this means for the election. I want to know why this government are so irresponsible and inept that they can’t properly handle something as paltry as a contract to buy 34 cars. All they seem to have is ‘it’s their fault’. It’s beyond pathetic.
    • mickysavage 17.2

      16 February 2011 at 10:01 am

      In money terms it is not huge ($7 million or so) but in a time of austerity when the economy is that bad the Governement intends to sell profitable strategically important assets to supposedly keep it’s head above water it is really stupid.

      Politics is as much or more about imagery and feeling than it is about reality. The imagery here is appalling.
      • Jono 17.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 10:08 am

        Ah, I dunno eh, I just hope you end up being right & my first impression is wrong =) Just had a look at kiwiblog & even he can’t be bothered trying to put a positive spin on it so hopefully it takes off a bit; I just hope any Labour people are smart enough to keep quiet about it.
      • Crashcart 17.2.2

        16 February 2011 at 10:08 am

        This is why the initial headline grab is good. Perhaps let it die down then come back to it closer to the election. At the moment the actualities of the contract don’t matter. People are seeing this as wasteful. If it is pushed to hard it may turn around and bite Labour.
18. Richard 18

    16 February 2011 at 10:45 am

    How about you all learn to show some respect?
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      16 February 2011 at 10:58 am

      Sorry, didn’t mean to have a personal go, mate.

      For myself, I wanted to point out that the daily perks that senior business people and leaders in this country experience is a world apart from that of ordinary workers.

      Not only that, these senior people are more than willing to tell ordinary workers what is good for them, but it is not what they apply to themselves.

      Massive tax cuts and new Beemers for Govt ministers on $200K p.a. plus. Minimum waged? Here’s 25c an hour, don’t spend it all on a pint.
    • kriswgtn 18.2

      16 February 2011 at 11:01 am

      To who? YOU??

      anti spam – Elsewhere
      Thats what i suggest you do if you dont like it here

      Kiwiblob needs you now beyotch

      Go have a lick
    • Deadly_NZ 18.3

      16 February 2011 at 9:24 pm

      What like in South park????

      Okay

      ASS
19. Craig Glen Eden 19

    16 February 2011 at 10:58 am

    So what you want to be called Sir Dick?
20. Richard 20

    16 February 2011 at 10:58 am

    It’s refreshing to see my money get spent on something other than social welfare.

    It simply doesn’t look good for our PM to be chauffeured in anything less than the latest model.

    When you work hard and become successful you realise the importance of presentation.
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:00 am

      Although I might have a personal go if you keep up with this let the poor eat cake while we drive Beemers shit.

      When you work hard and become successful you realise the importance of presentation.

      Righties playing the game of envy and greed with each other, great.
21. hobbit 21

    16 February 2011 at 11:03 am

    A contract signed by Labour! Do you often shoot you’re feet off like this Zetetic?
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:03 am

      And beemers enjoyed by Key, English and the rest of the NACT troughers!
    • ianmac 21.2

      16 February 2011 at 11:19 am

      In 2007 it seemed like a good idea.
      But this is 2011. Unemployment rising. So bad we have to sell the silver. Cuts in Public Service.
      Herald: “International ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has welcomed the Government’s plan to bring its finances back into surplus sooner but doubts there is sufficient fat in the state sector for cuts there to yield meaningful savings.”<
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/markets/news/article.cfm?c_id=62&objectid=10706501
      But wait. 2011 is not bad enough to stop us buying 36 top line BMWs
      • Deadly_NZ 21.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 9:28 pm

        It’s Great when even Standard and Poors call’s Ol’ jonky a liar .. No wonder Granny herald tried to bury that story……. Now I really await with baited breath the spin on this, I need a good laugh.
        • Colonial Viper 21.2.1.1

          16 February 2011 at 9:34 pm

          “Standard & Poors have acknowledged that the majority of our foreign debt lies in private hands – something we have said from the beginning.”

          “Partial sales of these assets will allow the Government to offer the private sector additional tax relief, enabling struggling ma & pa households to pay their debt down faster. This far sighted plan aids in the rebalancing of the New Zealand economy, and shows that National remains ambitious for New Zealanders”

          *on second thoughts maybe I shouldn’t be helping them out*
22. Richard 22

    16 February 2011 at 11:03 am

    The tax cuts are in proportion to the amount of tax paid by the individual.

    You are distorting the picture by comparing the amount of money *retained* by people on each end of the spectrum.
    • Colonial Viper 22.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:05 am

      The tax cuts are in proportion the amount of tax paid by the individual.

      Yeah, and a far higher proportion was given to the top earning individuals.

      42% of tax cut money to just 10% of earners. John Key up$1000 p.w.

      Giving Government resources away to the rich, forget about the hungry, struggling and cold.
    • Marty G 22.2

      16 February 2011 at 11:27 am

      The tax cuts were not in proportion. If you were John Key, you got a $23,000 cut on your PM salary alone, a 9% increase in net income. If you are on the Kiwi median income of $27,000 you got a $735 tax cut, a 3% increase in net income.

      And this is before counting the GST hike, which hits those on lower incomes harder according to the Tax Working Group.
23. Richard 23

    16 February 2011 at 11:11 am

    The top earning individuals are the most productive members of society, why are you opposed to giving relief to the very people that finance the social welfare in this country?

    You demonize those who should be applauded and respected.
    • Colonial Viper 23.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:15 am

      The top earning individuals are the most productive members of society

      LOLz making money from money is worthless. Nothing is produced, just paper tokens claiming real assets.

      Where are the well paid jobs they are generating for ordinary workers? Where?

      A few of the wealthy add true value to the real economy. Lots of others are scammers and gamers.

      You demonize those who should be applauded and respected.

      Frak off. We’re not going to be a working serf class bowing down to new feudal lords, waiting for drippings off the Manor table. Get some self respect man.
      • infused 23.1.1

        16 February 2011 at 3:45 pm

        You assume everyone who is rich made it in the markets?
    • Marty G 23.2

      16 February 2011 at 11:21 am

      “The top earning individuals are the most productive members of society”

      do you have evidence of that or is it just a religious mantra?

      Is Paul Reynolds really contributing as much production as 300 cleaners or a hundred senior policy advisers?

      Basic market theory tell you that wages are set by supply and demand for specific skill-sets, mediated by the bargaining power of the two sides and government legislation. Productivity does not determine wages – that’s econ 101.
24. mickysavage 24

    16 February 2011 at 11:14 am

    Please everyone DNFTT
    • Colonial Viper 24.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:17 am

      😉
25. Richard 25

    16 February 2011 at 11:30 am

    “Making money from money is worthless”

    This is the engine of the civilized world, where have you been?

    “Where are the well paid jobs they are generating for ordinary workers? Where?”

    So the negative effects of too much regulation is the fault of the top 10% income earners in NZ? Are we to be held responsible for the GFC?

    “Frak off. We’re not going to be a working serf class bowing down to new feudal lords, waiting for drippings off the Manor table. Get some self respect man.”

    I’m not asking you to bow down; just show a level of decency and respect (hint: it will make you argument look more credible)
    • Marty G 25.1

      16 February 2011 at 11:41 am

      “The top earning individuals are the most productive members of society”

      capital allocation through financial markets can over ever be a means to an end, real wealth is the production of goods and services. after all, it is goods and services that we consume, not financial instruments.

      “Are we to be held responsible for the GFC?”

      those that believe wealth is all about exchanging imaginary signifiers of value are to be blamed, yes. they have actually undermined our ability to actually produce real things by sucking up skills and capital into a money go round that produces nothing.

      and don’t go demanding respect because you have money. It’s not riches that make a man respectable but what he contributes to his community.
    • Colonial Viper 25.2

      16 February 2011 at 12:02 pm

      So the negative effects of too much regulation is the fault of the top 10% income earners in NZ? Are we to be held responsible for the GFC?

      Sorry mate you are day dreaming.

      The wealthy investment banks ran a scam, you fell for it, tax payers all over the world are now paying for the highly toxic big banking casino bets (thanks to politicians who preferred to bail out bankers rather than their own populace), and the bankers have already returned to taking multi-million dollar bonuses.

      Still no jobs for ordinary workers from your so-called productive rich mates as they continue to skim off the real economy.
      • Pascal's bookie 25.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 12:49 pm

        The wealthy investment banks ran a scam, you fell for it, tax payers all over the world are now paying for the highly toxic big banking casino bets (thanks to politicians who preferred to bail out bankers rather than their own populace), and the bankers have already returned to taking multi-million dollar bonuses.

        Yeah. The parasites should show some respect and stfu for a decade or or two. Failing that, go galt already and see how that works out for them.
    • Pascal's bookie 25.3

      16 February 2011 at 12:45 pm

      (hint: it will make you argument look more credible)

      Says it all really. And speak for yourself. Also, fuck.
26. tsmithfield 26

    16 February 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Another point is that it is bad for our international reputation to back out on deals. It suggests to overseas traders/creditors that our government is unreliable. We already took quite a credibility hit when Labour canned the F16 deal. Agreed, that was probably at a scale where the economics of the deal over-rid any negative impact. However, in the case of the beamers, the value is probably so small that its probably not worth the impact on our international credibility if we cancelled the deal.
    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      16 February 2011 at 12:13 pm

      Private sector change their minds on deals, pull out of contracts, discontinue relationships all the time. And everyone knows times are tight, the US and UK have cancelled billions in defence contracts and put off other spending indefinitely.

      Your rationale is empty and I was hoping NACT were better negotiators than that.

      Be credible yes, be chumps no.
    • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 26.2

      16 February 2011 at 12:45 pm

      Another point is that it is bad for our international reputation to back out on deals. It suggests to overseas traders/creditors that our government is unreliable.

      Good grief, ts, that’s a truly hopeless argument.

      Let’s assume that the government exercises the cancellation clause in the contract (because there will be one), and that somehow using our rights under the terms of a contract is seen as “unreliable”. Just what will these negative impacts be, exactly? BMW will refuse to sell us any more cars? Every car manufacturer in the world will stop sending vehicles to NZ? The rate the government pays on sovereign debt will increase? S&P will put us on negative BMW watch?

      Sorry, but it’s a specious and stupid argument.
27. tsmithfield 27

    16 February 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Like I said above, where the economic payoff outweighs the credibility hit then cancelling a deal might be justified. However, in this case, the cost is small in relative terms, so it probably isn’t worth the credibility-hit to cancel. Otherwise, next time we want to buy something really expensive and strategically important on favourable terms we might be reminded that we are the nation that has a proven history of welching on deals (F16s, and now cars). Also, that NZ is not prepared to stand behind even the most measly of deals. So it will be cash-up-front please.

    Also, the political hit will be very short-term because I suspect this deal will be turned back on Labour for being such numpties for getting us into it in the first place. No matter how much Labour squeal about it now, they can’t escape this unfortunate fact.
    • Colonial Viper 27.1

      16 February 2011 at 12:34 pm

      Like I said, foreign governments have been cancelling contracts and laying off staff around the world. We’re in the same boat Key says, so lets tighten our belts too.

      Private sector interests pull out of deals and cancel contracts all the time when the environment changes.And the environment has changed.

      It’s just business after all, its not your family honour.

      And seriously, what are BMW going to do about it? Do they have any other customers in NZ ever prepared to buy 3 dozen 7-series in one go? Do they ever want NZ Government business again?

      Hey if businesses don’t want to deal with an entity with a budget of $70B p.a. they can go, someone else will take their place.
28. Rhinocrates 28

    16 February 2011 at 12:36 pm

    “Negotiate with us if you want any future business at all, or waste your time and money, take us to court, and lose all future chance of business with us.:

    FWIW:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-12_Avenger_II

    The contract was cancelled in 1991 due to cost overruns, and Boeing is still litigating, and they’re still a major US govt contractor. Not smart, not fair, but it happens.
    • Colonial Viper 28.1

      16 February 2011 at 12:41 pm

      That’s the US system of political-military-industrial complex all in the same bed for you.
    • Armchair Critic 28.2

      16 February 2011 at 1:06 pm

      The contract was cancelled in 1991 due to cost overruns…
      Not according to your link, which states that the government found timing and cost issues as per this sentence:
      Beginning in early 1990 McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics revealed delays and projected cost increases
      The same link summarises the reason for cancelling the contract as:
      The government felt the contractors could not complete the program…
      Sounds like the delays killed it, rather than the cost.
      All up, quite different to the NZ government and its crown vehicle fleet. For example, the BMWs are an “off the shelf” item and the NZ government is not directly funding the development costs (unlike the A12), and the BMWs are not designed to kill people, they have a useful purpose.
      • Rhinocrates 28.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 1:15 pm

        Agreed in terms of detail, but my point is that there was a seemingly rational decision to be taken by then-GD/McDD and now Boeing, but they chose not to follow it. Their pragmatic decision to litigate may have been based on their perception that they could get away with it – probably for the reason that CV has pointed out.

        “BMWs are not designed to kill people, they have a useful purpose”

        That A-12s kill people would not have been a factor in anyone’s equations. “We” defend ourselves, it’s the other bastards who “make war.”
29. tsmithfield 29

    16 February 2011 at 1:02 pm

    CV “It’s just business after all, its not your family honour.”

    Reminder to myself. Never do a business deal with Colonel Viper.

    Rhinocrates “The contract was cancelled in 1991 due to cost overruns, and Boeing is still litigating, and they’re still a major US govt contractor. Not smart, not fair, but it happens.”

    Another leftie to avoid doing business with

    Lefties seem to be so happy to welch on deals. No wonder the world of business is so hard for you..
    • Colonial Viper 29.1

      16 February 2011 at 1:04 pm

      Wow, did you see the deals that Hotchins welched on? How about the buyers for our Skyhawks?

      I’m sorry mate, but business is business and you are bad at it for wanting to give money away during a recession.
    • Rhinocrates 29.2

      16 February 2011 at 1:21 pm

      “Another leftie to avoid doing business with”

      Oh grow up. Puerile name calling and sweeping generalisations are not an argument.

      In any case, GD/McDD welched on their deal by not delivering the product on time and on budget, as they were contracted to do.
      • tsmithfield 29.2.1

        16 February 2011 at 1:22 pm

        Read the link I gave in my post below.
        • Rhinocrates 29.2.1.1

          16 February 2011 at 1:30 pm

          So?

          It’s an ad.

          Of course reputations for integrity matter in business, especially on the ideal level playing field, but like a frictionless surface, its an abstraction, there are foolish businessmen, and there are cynics who decide that they have muscle and that matters more. Your point is what, exactly?
30. tsmithfield 30

    16 February 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Well, Hotchin’s reputation is worth less than shit, which is what NZs will be if we keep welching on deals. If there was a compelling economic reason to do so, then there might be a case.

    However, in this case there may be very little cost, or even a net benefit for proceeding with the deal when everything is added up (see my opening post point 4). So, it simply it isn’t worth undermining our international credibility over this deal.

    For lefties who have difficulty grasping the concept that reputation is an immensely valuable asset, here is a link for you
    • Lanthanide 30.1

      16 February 2011 at 1:27 pm

      ts thinks it is bad for us to try and renegotiate or back out of a contract worth approx $7m (presumably there were ‘opt out’ clauses in the contract – that’s a standard feature of contracts). He thinks this would harm our international reputation.

      He doesn’t have any problem with foreign nationals coming into our parliamentary sessions to give speeches though.
      • Colonial Viper 30.1.1

        16 February 2011 at 1:37 pm

        Has ts even noticed that there is a global recession and governments all over the world are cancelling or deferring such spending? What is business going to do, decide to not deal with all these governments in future?

        I mean, pulling home help for the elderly is not a reputation problem for the government, but not splashing out on luxury products from a corporation is?

        That’s just a bit too twisted.
      • tsmithfield 30.1.2

        16 February 2011 at 1:44 pm

        “ts thinks it is bad for us to try and renegotiate or back out of a contract worth approx $7m”

        So you think it is OK to dishonor our international obligations? Even if there is little cost or even a positive benefit by proceeding with the deal?

        “He doesn’t have any problem with foreign nationals coming into our parliamentary sessions to give speeches though.”

        Is there some contradiction I am missing here?
        • tsmithfield 30.1.2.1

          16 February 2011 at 1:49 pm

          CV “Has ts even noticed that there is a global recession and governments all over the world are cancelling or deferring such spending?”

          Yawn. Are you actually going to read what I write? I have said several times now that where the economics of the situation over-ride the reputation-hit then cancelling a contract might be justified. In the case of the cars this is clearly not the situation. Remember, its not just the headline price. You have to consider the total cost/benefit analysis of the transaction. That may actually be very good. If that is the case, then cancelling the contract is not justified on either economic factors or the impact on our international reputation.

          Anyway, I have already said signing up for beamers in the first place was a stupid idea. You seemed to agree earlier on. So are you going to demand that Labour apologies for dropping us into the shit on this one in the first place?
          • Colonial Viper 30.1.2.1.1

            16 February 2011 at 1:53 pm

            So you think it is OK to dishonor our international obligations? Even if there is little cost or even a positive benefit by proceeding with the deal?

            Seriously dude BMW NZ are a NZ car franchise they ain’t the UN.

            $7M in new BMW limos or home help for 6000 elderly for a year. Oh tough call eh ts? But I guess leaving the elderly to fend for themselves is OK for our reputation, right?
        • Bored 30.1.2.2

          16 February 2011 at 2:04 pm

          Hi TS, I have not read the whole thread so could not possibly comment upon whether you are right or not. You do ask a valid and pertinent question (So you think it is OK to dishonor our international obligations? ) about a lot of the transactions that occur here and internationally.

          An observation: the “rules” and “laws” around contracts are normally put in place as a safeguard against dishonourable / dishonest behavoir. It then becomes a grey minefield because there are inherant questions about the fairness of the rule that we are suppposed to adhere to, and whom it benefits (particularly with regard to who is framing the law)? Then there are the practical questions about enforcement, such as who has a big enough legal budget to fight enforcement?

          Call me a cynic but ultimately it comes down (in my very extensive experience of contracts and transactions) to the Golden Rule; he who has the gold makes the rules (including framing legislation / trade deals etc). Ethics / honourable behavoir come a very distant second.

          PS the corollary to the Golden Rule is he who has no gold cant pay.
31. Santi 31

    16 February 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Key has lost the plot. Roll him!
32. randal 32

    16 February 2011 at 1:46 pm

    according to bing bings toyboy it is normal commercial practice to buy new cars all the time.
    well I suppose if yu treat government as a business (your very own business) then it might be ok but how long did parliamentary services have the ltds before the bmw’s?
    were they replaced every 3 years?
    looks very much like to me that someone is paying off a few political debts by using taxpayer money to line a cardealers pockets.
    • tsmithfield 32.1

      16 February 2011 at 1:51 pm

      So, I assume you mean Labour, when they signed up for the deal in the first place? I guess so, because there were all sorts of allegations about corruption flying around at the time. So nothing would surprise me.
      • mickysavage 32.1.1

        16 February 2011 at 2:03 pm

        TS has this sophisticated approach to trolling where he repeatedly asserts something to be true (in this case that the Government has to otherwise it would be breaching a contract with BMW to replace the older vehicles) and that something adverse will happen.

        He then manages to tilt the debate where his proposal is accepted as fact.

        There is no proof that the contract required the Government to purchase the new vehicles. A recent comment by Key suggests that the government decided to elect to take an option under the contract.

        So instead of wasting comments on him why don’t we require him to provide proof of his assertions.

        And DNFTT …
      • Richard 32.1.2

        16 February 2011 at 4:09 pm

        ts.

        Just yesterday you were telling us that “Parliament is the law”. Here, for example

        So, according to you — even if there was a contract — the government could legislate themselves around that problem.
        • The Voice of Reason 32.1.2.1

          16 February 2011 at 5:34 pm

          Mint! Nailed in just a few words, Richard, well done.

          It’s been a tough few weeks for Timmeh, sorry, TS. What with Can’t be Arsed John, then Horny John, followed immediately by Mincing John, then signs of independent thought from both TV channels, a drop in the polls, an ill conceived No Winnie pact and an absent Minister during the worst unemployment in a generation, it’s all starting to go pear shape for National.

          Still, TS is right about one thing. It’s an appalling look when a Government breaks its word, which is why I’m ever so pleased they stuck to their promise not to raise GST.

          Oh, wait …
33. gobsmacked 33

    16 February 2011 at 1:59 pm

    It’s official: John Key is not in charge.

    “That decision to invoke that rollover and bring new cars in was made by the Department of Internal Affairs without reference either to their minister or to me,” he told reporters.

    Mr Key found out about the new cars when one of the drivers told him.

    Told by his driver? That’s taken directly from an old episode of “Yes, Minister.” I kid you not.
    • Colonial Viper 33.1

      16 February 2011 at 2:10 pm

      I figured that the NACTs aren’t actually paying any attention to what they are spending money on. That would be detail, you see.
    • Armchair Critic 33.2

      16 February 2011 at 4:29 pm

      Why not, Roger Douglas took advice from his taxi driver and look how well that worked out.
34. D14 34

    16 February 2011 at 4:06 pm

    From Trevor Mallard on red alert
    http://blog.labour.org.nz/
    ‘There was a right of reorder built into the contract but no obligation. And the way they have gone moving to a four or even five year cycle would have been fine.’
    • Colonial Viper 34.1

      16 February 2011 at 4:22 pm

      Well that simply takes the biscuit 😀

      Did Crosby Textor forget that LAB had copies of the contract on hand???
35. stever 35

    16 February 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Confirmed in the House:

    1. there was an option to renew for a further three years, which was taken up;
    2. this was done by that part of Internal Affairs which is Ministerial Services;
    3. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is John Key.

    What can we conclude from this? Well, for one: that John Key doesn’t do his job properly. Or possibly, for another, that John Key wanted to renew the contract.

    Either way, it’s another example of John Key not taking responsibility, and looking for someone else to blame.
36. Craig Glen Eden 36

    16 February 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Well dont all the RWNJ look like apologists now, thanks for the spin guys. So who was it that this was going to bite?Righties, bring on the election cant wait for those Nat ministers to pull up in the new Vehicles at public meetings!

    Key what a Richard head
37. Jim Nald 37

    16 February 2011 at 9:20 pm

    v.t.b.o.
38. randal 38

    18 February 2011 at 1:23 pm

    as hambureger phil heatly was heard to opine: we only use them discretely and we are discrete.
    yeah right phil.
    with a double order of cheeze.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS