web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

NZ Power verdict is in

Written By: - Date published: 7:09 am, June 5th, 2013 - 107 comments
Categories: capitalism, energy, polls - Tags:

The polls are in.  Despite an unprecendented assault by the capitalist forces to protect the profits of the electricity companies, the people want change, they want lower power prices. A TVNZ poll shows 57% of people support for the Labour/Green NZ Power plan, while the TV3 poll shows 54% support. So, keep on howling, Righties. Keep putting profit before people.

107 comments on “NZ Power verdict is in”

  1. Winston Smith 1

    So why are Labour languishing in the polls?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1

      Why are you so confused about MMP?

      • Lightly 1.1.1

        Labour is up 6% since the election according to National Party pollster David Farrar’s poll of polls

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

          Even with expectations lowered to the floor, 33% is not exactly skiting material.

    • Pasupial 1.2

      Have you considered changing your nom de plume to O’Brien? That would suit you better.

      • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1

        O’Brien knew his shit though :)

      • freedom 1.2.2

        considering Winston’s views on most topics,
        his choice of handle exposes literal ignominy more than literary irony.

        • lprent 1.2.2.1

          Nah. Think of the fictional Winston Smith after he was broken in the rat-room.

          After he has turned on the love of his life. And when he is slavering with adoration at the image of Big Brother….

          Ummm doesn’t that fractured personality look a lot like our Winston Smith? Doesn’t use his intelligence. Just repeats whatever propaganda he heard last from Big Brother. Considers that people who think are dangerous..

          • freedom 1.2.2.1.1

            re WS, I defer to your summation,
            By the will of instinct, I tend to retain the image of early Winston. I look to a man emboldened with the vitality of realization rather than accept the futile inevitability of being broken.

    • NZ Power is a bipartisan policy. Why are the Greens polling strong? Why does every poll where someone says “National could have a majority” rely on no NZ First in parliament?

      Because Labour has allies or at least partners it can work with, wheras going into coalition with National has hurt every Party who has done it- and we thought that wasn’t even possible with United Future, which has been a one-man show since this Government started, but now they can’t even contest the Party vote, lol.

      • David H 1.3.1

        “wheras going into coalition with National has hurt every Party who has done it”

        Then Matthew that makes the National party the perfect parasite.

  2. BM 2

    People want cheap power, that is all, doesn’t matter how it happens.

    I have no idea what the rules and regs are regarding power generation, so is there any reason why a private company can’t set up and start producing electricity using coal?

    We’ve got shitloads of the stuff and it’s cheap as chips.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1

      Ethics? Intelligence?

      • BM 2.1.1

        I’m thinking clean coal technology.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

        Problem in NZ is that there’s only so many rivers you can dam or so many sites the you can stick a wind generator on.
        The only way power will be cheap in NZ is if we produce more, NZ power won’t do shit.

        • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1

          It isn’t just about cheap power either. It is also around efficient heating and insulation. A drafty house is still a drafty house no matter how the power is bought and distributed.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1.1

            I seem to recall there being a Green Party initiative along those lines. Fancy that.

          • BM 2.1.1.1.2

            One “advantage” about a drafty house allows air to circulate and stops moisture buildup.Moisture laden air takes a lot more work to heat.

            Many people with heavily insulated houses have had to install fresh air systems to control the moisture buildup, so it’s a bit of a juggling act really, you need the fresh air to keep moisture levels down but by endlessly dumping cold air into the house it costs more to heat it.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.1.2.1

              I expect that explains why the government supported the initiative.

              • BM

                Probably the best system would be.
                -House fully insulated
                -Fresh air system, hooked up to a carbon dioxide and moisture sensor.
                The fresh air system would also incorporate a heat recovery system
                -Heating would be done with heat pumps(most houses need at least 2)

                One one issue, really expensive.

                If you have an older house 40years+ the best and cheapest form of heating is with a high efficiency wood fire and heat transfer kit, you can also hook up a wetback and heat your hot water, big savings there.
                The wood fire easily puts out enough heat to compensate for the draftyness and lack of insulation.

                • stever

                  Tell that Europeans, who have had full insulation for *decades* without all that other stuff.

                  Your comment is a really good example of fact-free certainty. It is at least consistent with your political views.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.2.2

              “One “advantage” about a drafty house allows air to circulate and stops moisture buildup.Moisture laden air takes a lot more work to heat.”

              That’s what windows are for (and we could do much with passive design rather than expensive high tech solutions).

              • fatty

                yip, I have windows too.

                BM…look for the ‘clear thing’ on the wall that you look through. See if there is a latch, unhook it and open the ‘clear thing’.
                Let us know if you are still struggling with it

            • the pigman 2.1.1.1.2.3

              BM – you obviously have no experience of living in a “drafty house”.

              I spent 3 years living across the road from one of the old bungalows on Cricket Ave by Eden Park. They were basically insulation-free zones, drafty as hell, the windows weren’t even safety glass, let alone “double-glazed” *shoebox in the middle of the road alert*

              The point is it was damp as all hell (not a very damp place I’m told, but figuratively speaking). Every winter’s morning I’d wake up to freezing wet condensation on every surface. At the end of every winter, we had to throw all our pillow cases and sheets out, because they were so caked in black mould – I had only experienced asthma in childhood, but reliably had a perma-hacking-cough (I don’t smoke) throughout Auckland’s colder months while living there.

              The (sometimes howling) draft through the doors that don’t even go all the way to the floor did nothing to stop moisture build up in a house with non-existent insulation (it did encourage the mice in, though). Of course, I raised this with the landlord, but all they did was flick the house on to the Eden Park Trust Board (who then unilaterally advised they would be demolishing the place to make room for World Cup extensions). They didn’t end up demolishing the house, but you can imagine they were more than reluctant to undertake any rennovation of the place to deal with the insulation issues.

              In conclusion BM, I suspect you have no experience of living in a poorly insulated home, so STFU.

          • geoff 2.1.1.1.3

            Living in a drafty rental?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1.1.2

          Really? Then you will have no trouble pointing out the flaws in the BERL report.

          On the other hand, you could just be spouting drivel. Yeah, that seems more likely.

        • weka 2.1.1.3

          “Problem in NZ is that there’s only so many rivers you can dam or so many sites the you can stick a wind generator on.”

          Funny that, we actually live on an island with a finite amount of space and resources. What do you think will happen once we burn all the coal?

          “The only way power will be cheap in NZ is if we produce more, NZ power won’t do shit.”

          You do realise that the private companies are creaming off the profits and keeping prices high so they can do so?

          • BM 2.1.1.3.1

            Apart from contact, the power generators are SOEs not private companies.
            It’s the government who decides how much power costs.

            All the government needed to do is say, power is only going to be sold for xxx amount of dollars, problem solved no need for NZ power.

            But they won’t because the country needs the tax to keep its self running, which is why NZ power is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
            Any drop in tax take from lower power dividends will be balanced out by an increase in taxation in some other area or an introduction of some other new tax.

            • weka 2.1.1.3.1.1

              Hang on, are you suggesting that the NZ govt legislate the price that private retailers can sell at? Or are you suggesting that private retailers don’t affect price?

              I disagree about the SOEs. They are set up to run a profit like private companies, that’s the whole point.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.3.1.2

              Actually the government will save money in the long run as the tax profits lost will pay forward in increased personal well-being, which will mean increased personal income, and increased business income in sectors which rely on power heavily, such as IT or the animation industry.

        • Murray Olsen 2.1.1.4

          “Clean coal” is very popular in Queensland, especially with the miners, the state government, and those who get paid to do research promoting it. Others say it’s not particularly clean at all. I think solutions lie in using less energy, not using more with names thought up by PR gurus.

    • RJL 2.2

      Coal may or may not be cheap, however the infrastructure to burn very large quantities of it in a controlled manner to produce power, and then distribute that power to users is not cheap at all.

      Also, why would a private profit making company deliberately spend a vast amount of capital to produce a low value product? Which is the essential problem with private power producers. Consumers want cheap power, private companies want to make a profit.

    • weka 2.3

      “We’ve got shitloads of the stuff and it’s cheap as chips.”

      It’s a finite resource (you want to steal from our grandchildren), and it’s not cheap if you take into account the environment (again, you are a future eater).

    • The problem being that despite industry propaganda, “clean coal” remains a paradox, and has not even transitioned to being an oxymoron.

  3. Jimmie 3

    Hmmm so in 2014 we are going to have an election in which the voters will be choosing between NZ Power and the status quo right? If so then yup the Nats are going to get hammered.

    Oh thats right they won’t be voting just on NZ Power if they vote Labour.

    They will also be voting for higher taxes, and ETS charges, more state regulation over personal lives, going soft on crims, another enlargement of the public sector, a government where Peters, Norman, Shearer, and Harewera are going to sit around a table holding hands and singing ‘kum by ya.’

    Don’t forget a capital gains tax and a PM who can play one song on a guitar but can umm about any topic on earth.

    Yup come Oct 2014 the voters will really have a $300 bribe (remember $50 for poor folks, $500 for rich folks) uppermost in their mind when casting their vote

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1

      Your bitterness is showing, also your ignorance of Labour Party policy, New Zealand history, and your complete lack of an answer to National’s diminishing poll ratings.

      It’s hard not to feel sorry for you, but I manage.

    • karol 3.2

      They will also be voting for higher taxes, and ETS charges, more state regulation over personal lives,

      They will also be voting for higher taxes for those on higher income, reversing the tax cuts for the wealthy, higher net incomes & lower cost of living for the less well off, and ETS chargesmore realistic climate change responses, more less state regulation over personal lives of beneficiaries.

      FIFY.

  4. infused 4

    People want cheaper power, no matter what the consequences. Well duh, wtf do you think would happen.

    Breaking News
    People want cheaper, food, cars, housing, toys, beds, computers internet.

    Damm Zetetic, your brain must be in overdrive today.

    Breaking news: Labour is still useless

  5. Zeroque 5

    Those poll results are good but not as high as I would have thought. Keeping state owned assets would probably poll higher. I did wonder soon after I heard the announcement re NZ Power whether it would have been easier to have a $500 tax cut for power users (which is probably everyone?). Maybe there are benefits associated with the NZ Power idea that I haven’t heard that make it better than a tax cut?

    • felix 5.1

      That would be nothing but a subsidy to the power companies.

      It would do nothing to address the issues that cause the prices to be so high. Nothing at all.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.2

      Maybe there are. Why don’t you muster an argument or something?

    • Lightly 5.3

      if you did a $500 tax cut to power users, that would cost the government something on the order of $1b a year. NZ Power costs $80m a year because most of the cost is paid for from lower profits to private owners.

      • GarethGee 5.3.1

        Until such time as the country suffers when those providers build fewer and fewer power generating facilities and scrimp on maintenance of existing infrastructure. Why? Because what’s the incentive? Who do you think will pay then? Yup, the public. Talk about putting the cost on your kids and their kids for short-term political gain.

        • Chris 5.3.1.1

          “Until such time as the country suffers when those providers build fewer and fewer power generating facilities and scrimp on maintenance of existing infrastructure.” GarethGee

          Precisely why Govts should control vital infrastructure.

        • Murray Olsen 5.3.1.2

          What percentage of the present power generating facilities were built by private providers? What’s their incentive to build them when the government is prepared to do it, with our money, then sell them off cheap? You make a great argument for state ownership, Comrade GG. Thanks.

      • Colonial Viper 5.3.2

        if you did a $500 tax cut to power users

        a) the country needs more taxes, not less
        b) giving a $500 credit to power users is a far simpler system which leaves the IRD out of electricity supply.

        • Cant remember my last username 5.3.2.1

          “the country needs more taxes, not less”

          Please please please let that be the Labour / Greens election slogan leading into 2014

          • Colonial Viper 5.3.2.1.1

            If you don’t tax a dollar, then you have to borrow it from China or UAE. Not good options.

            • Cant remember my last username 5.3.2.1.1.1

              By the same argument if you don’t spend a dollar you don’t have to borrow it…

              [lprent: Let me congratulate you. You have passed 30 comments now without forgetting your handle. Makes a change from having to keep pulling you out of moderation like the bad old days back in 2012. :twisted: ]

              • Cant remember my last username

                I use multiple devices that often don’t save my details – however I never forget my new handle as it particularly appropriate to the situation the previously caused me to forget it…

                I must also congratulate you for resisting the urge to ban me for the last 30 comments – I obviously becoming more left wing as I get older :)

                [lprent: More likely that you have learnt how to stay within our policy bounds. When I am scanning in moderation mode I mostly don’t ‘read’ the comments, I just look for tell-tale patterns for people I should get interested in for good or bad. There are way too many comments to actually spend time comprehending all of them.

                So the good news is that I hadn’t noticed your comments whilst scanning so I never looked to see who you “were”. But there were several one or two liners today (troll spoor) and I didn’t recognize the handle so I looked back in the past. The bad news is that your comments have never interested me enough to stop and read them… Keep trying though. :twisted: ]

                • Chris

                  It often doesn’t require more than one line to put your view across. Please let me stay, I’m not a troll, just a newbie to The Standard :)

  6. Shaz 6

    The reported stats in the TVNZ poll are interesting – pointing I would think to a skewed sample. For example if 80% of the sample’s 57% of supporters live in households with five or more adults then this accounts for about 45% of respondents (at least) from the whole sampled population who come from such households. Having dome quite a lot of phone canvassing I’d say the proportion of people living 5 adults to a household is much smaller.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1

      The five stages of grief, part one.

      • the pigman 6.1.1

        People answered that they’d support this policy?! Bloody morons! Who is to blame for this?

      • Shaz 6.1.2

        Um No! Actually I support the policy. My complaint is with the article itself. It’s either a poorly written article or a skewed sample. Stats NZ 2010 report says that “the average size of New Zealand households is projected to decrease from 2.6 people in 2006 to 2.4 people in 2031.” So a survey where at least 45% of the respondents are in households of 5 or more _adults_ can only represent a poorly structured sample population which in turn undermines the quality of the debate around this issue.

  7. Winston Smith 7

    Unemployment down, Crime down, Business confidence up…this is what people will vote on, sound bites like this.

    And of course national will point out things like this:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8755819/Hobbit-driving-big-surge-in-tourism

    and people will remember that Labour/Greens and the Unions were against the deal (sound bites remember)

    I’m feeling more confident about the next election especially with shearer as the leader of the opposition but what I’m hoping is Key goes up against Norman in a debate…

    Key took out Clark and Goff, he’ll have no problems pointing out why Normans a fruitcake

    • bad12 7.1

      Slippery Key couldn’t take out a 4 year old, the Clark government after 3 terms was always vulnerable to voter fatigue,

      Given that in real terms Slippery’s National government has a wafer thin majority via the ‘rigging’ of the Epsom electorate He hardly ‘took out Goff’ as you say,

      Chanting ‘show me the money’ at your opponent in a debate is hardly a tactic pointing to intellectual depth more a publicity stunt…

      • Winston Smith 7.1.1

        “Chanting ‘show me the money’ at your opponent in a debate is hardly a tactic pointing to intellectual depth more a publicity stunt…”

        – Still won and thats the name of the game

        • tracey 7.1.1.1

          No actually it’s not Winston. That you think it is is where we are going so sadly wrong. It’s not about winning it’s about building a brighter future. Gosh where did I used to hear that?

          • Winston Smith 7.1.1.1.1

            Its about winning power so you can implement the changes you feel will best serve the country and at the moment the people of NZ think National is the best option.

            • freedom 7.1.1.1.1.1

              According to the 2011 Election,
              only 37% of registered voters thought National was the best option.

              This common mistake even happens in the House on a regular basis. The Government are never called on it. Happened again today. Predictably, when defending its economic sink-hole of a financial plan, National’s percentage of the vote was stated in favour of the actual percentage of the voting public that it received. Both percentages, for whatever reason, ignore the most basic fact which is those registered to vote are not the only New Zealanders that matter. It is always good to remember this when discussing a policy that wants to save a fragment of New Zealand’s self-determination. Once parliament is in session the percentage should go out the window and you should be there to do the job you are paid to be doing, you are meant to represent New Zealand, not percentages of it.

              • weka

                +100, well said freedom.

                MMP is supposed to be taking us closer to collaboration. People who think that governing is about playing a game to gain power and then doing what you want with it are selfish and greedy and ruining the world for the rest of us.

              • Colonial Viper

                only 37% of registered voters thought National was the best option.

                22% thought Labour was the best option.

    • overseas tourist arrivals were up 10 per cent from 2012 for the first four months of the year.

      Actually the hobbit was a flop for tourism from North America, virtually no one went to New Zealand – Air NZ had to remove flights because there wasn’t the tourism they were expecting. I doubt Chinese tourists count as a ‘hobbit surge’, as Disraeli said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. The reality is that increases are from Asia, and they are nothing to do with the hobbit. Winston Peters would call it an Asian invasion rather than a hobbit surge.

      • dumrse 7.2.1

        “The reality is that increases are from Asia, and they are nothing to do with the hobbit”. That’s a very definitive statement. You are obviously in the know, care to share your source ?

    • Colonial Viper 7.3

      Of course business confidence is up; businesses like the idea of lower power bills too, don’t you know.

    • tracey 7.4

      You seem more confidant about who will win the election than you do about the actual future for NZ, you still base it on Bill’s surplus mantra = successful country?

      • Winston Smith 7.4.1

        Fortunately National winning the next election will help the future of this country

        • Colonial Viper 7.4.1.1

          it’ll help the top 2%, but leave us increasingly vulnerable to shockwaves from overseas.

          • Winston Smith 7.4.1.1.1

            You mean like how we’ve gone through a global financial meltdown, two earthquakes and a major draught and are the envy heaps of countries?

            • Colonial Viper 7.4.1.1.1.1

              Each cut has weakened the trunk further and left more people in desperation. Can you not see through your blindness. Are we the envy of collapsing economies? For a badly managed circus, we’re holding our own.

            • freedom 7.4.1.1.1.2

              wow we got through all that and only:
              ; lost 200,000 people to Australia,
              ; had democracy destroyed in CHCH,
              ; watched billions in profit disappear from kiwisaver and the cullen fund,
              ; sold off the very foundation of our laws,
              ; gutted the social care of our social welfare system,
              ; broke education
              ; aligned ourselves closer to the world’s primary warmonger
              ; and readied our IP and copyright protections for euthanasia via the TPPA

              all that and we only had to borrow 55 billion dollars to do it all ( but yet we apparently still need another thirty billion to pay for CHCH ,)

              sorry Winston I interrupted your adulation, what were you saying ?

            • Pascal's bookie 7.4.1.1.1.3

              The govt got through the GFC thanks to Cullen not listening to everyone who was demanding tax cuts for years and years, and fixing ChCh’s broken windows is being interpreted as the economy bouncing back.

  8. Coronial Typer 8

    Can someone get a link to the Brent Leyton (CE Electricity Authority) presentation now on NBR that attacks the Labour-Greens policy front on? Ideally would be great to see the full 28 page report.

      • Ad 8.1.1

        Much obliged. I think the other side are gearing up with a wider group of ‘industry’ and the self interested for an influencer campaign to counter this.

        Don’t think for a moment that popularity will win here.

        Shearer’s circle see this as the main public manacle to the Greens. Don’t dare trust him not to dump it and the Greens along win it if he sees it as expedient to do so.

  9. GarethGee 9

    NZ Power, eh? Sounds so very… hmmm… Muldoonesque. Why didn’t Key think of it first?

    • Colonial Viper 9.1

      Why? Because Muldoon recognised the importance of strategic energy infrastructure. Key does not.

      • freedom 9.1.1

        Key recognises the importance of it all right. He just believes it is too important to be in public hands

      • GarethGee 9.1.2

        I guess it passed you by, but I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of likening Key to Muldoon, while pursuing the most Muldoonesque of policies in the form of NZ Power. And now for the stinging rebuke…

  10. vto 10

    But if I could own shares n a power company then I would want things the other way around

  11. Yes 11

    Oh for goodness sake guys. I could put a policy out that nationalizes mars den point and drop fuel prices by 20% then ran a poll I would get 57% support as well but then when I didn’t that then I would not be able the infrastructure costs and suppliers and we would have fuel shortages to run all the green buses.

    Another non poll about about a loaded policy. Where are all these massive surpluses labour made?

    • Yes 11.1

      Couldn’t pay for the costs etc of running the plant…poor grammar..distracted by the fight in the state of origin

    • lprent 11.2

      Sucked up in some really stupid and unaffordable taxcuts. Where have you been since 2008? Antarctica?

      If the tax cuts from 2008-2010 (yes including Cullens attempt to keep up with National’s irresponsible bullshit about surpluses) had not been put in place, then we’d have only have had a small debt. But reducing the revenue at the same time as having a recession is outright stupid.

      But I guess you are too thick to understand reality…

    • Colonial Viper 11.3

      Oh for goodness sake guys. I could put a policy out that nationalizes mars den point and drop fuel prices by 20%

      Fuel prices need to double in the next 7-8 years.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.5

      Where are all these massive surpluses labour made?

      They’re in 1999, 2000, and 2001-2008.

      If other wingnuts are as innumerate as you are, that probably explains why they always do a worse job of running the economy than the Left. Lower per capita GDP. higher unemployment, higher public debt. Yeah, yeah, I know you desperately want the opposite to be true, but it isn’t.

Links to post

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere