3 News polls mums and dads

43 comments on “3 News polls mums and dads ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   10 August 2012 at 12:23 pm

   Pity they didn’t ask “why or why not”.
2. Cnut 2

   10 August 2012 at 12:55 pm

   All dye-in-the-wool tories?

   I wonder how many Labour MPs will buy shares if they become available.

   I’m certainly not a dyed-in-the-wool tory and don’t support asset sales but if they are sold I’m up for as many as I can get because I can’t see anything to be gained by not doing so, and at least the ones I get WILL be held by a mom-and-dad New Zealander rather than some fund manager’s portfolio as are my Contact shares still – and I wouldn’t condemn any Labour MP for taking the same decision.
   • bbfloyd 2.1

     10 August 2012 at 2:10 pm

     You may not be a “dyed in the wool tory”, but you still play their silly games… How stupid do you think people are?

     Or are you such a tory that the intellect required to fathom how easily your reactionary posturing can be seen through is missing?

     Tip for the intellectually challenged…. speculating on the behavior of labour mp’s at the first opportunity(relevant or not)is a dead giveaway when it comes to spotting a “dyed in the wool” mossbacked tory…..
   • Fortran 2.2

     11 August 2012 at 1:49 pm

     Cnut

     Every Kiwisaver will have a share. The Fund Managers cannot wait to get their hands on every share available to them.
     They consider that the partial SOE’s are a good long term investment for their members I’m told.
3. shorts 3

   10 August 2012 at 12:55 pm

   I’d suggest there’s a good % of chardonnay socialists who won’t be turning their noses up at the share float

   how many Labour MPs do you think will grab a chunk?
   • bbfloyd 3.1

     10 August 2012 at 2:21 pm

     how boring shorty…. you are as obvious as cnutty above…..Do you tories have no imagination whatever? Or is smugness and self importance a positive trait in toryland(fantasyland to the uninformed)…?
     • shorts 3.1.1

       10 August 2012 at 3:52 pm

       I’m no tory thank you very much bbfloyd and am insulted by your allegation, but will discount it as you don’t know me

       I’m not smug, I am concerned that some within the so called left wing party will partake in the supposed windfalls of the partial privatisation of our assets – which is of course their right… but one most of us poor working stiffs a) can’t afford and b) don’t want to happen in the first place

       sorry if I startled your high horse
     • Cnut 3.1.2

       10 August 2012 at 6:04 pm

       Fact: subject to it stacking up as a sensible investment I intend purchasing a tranche of Mighty River Power shares should they become available.

       Fact: I have never voted for any “right-wing” party in my life.

       Therefore Fact: not all asset-sales shares will go to “dyed-in-the-wool” Tories.

       Comment is free, bbfloyd, but as the Guardian maintains: “facts are sacred.”

       To comment on your points – though it isn’t clear to me what they actually are – I have some money to invest. I’m not sure if that offends you in itself (and I would argue it doesn’t make me a tory whether I want to be one or not) and if it does what you think I should do about it (make sure I spend all my income when it arrives on ‘things’ whether I need them or not, or on booze or on the biggest mortgage I can support or on horses or ladies or whatever so that I’m always broke by next payday?) but the fact is I have some money to invest and the Government, stupidly in my opinion, might be offering me an opportunity to invest in Mighty River Power.

       On the face of it, it looks to be a good investment: secure, likely to grow and with a moderate income stream – but that’s my opinion, not fact. I suspect the Government will offer it at the low end of its valuation, in part to try make it attractive to ‘mums and dads’ investors like me and in part to avoid getting egg on its face with a Facebook-type float fiasco, which to me makes it look an even better investment. Plus the idiot Goverment is even offering me a bonus for doing something I would probably do anyway which makes what looks like a good investment look even better. Of course I’ve still to look through the Prospectus and the Government has still to pursuade me that Maori claims to water aren’t going to be a problem but subject to that it looks to me to be a sensible investment – and sensible investments in New Zealand are pretty rare beasts as anyone who invested in Hanover et al will tell you.

       Now, the New Zealand Labour Party could tomorrow stop me – and I suspect a great many people – from considering partaking of this sale by announcing that as soon as it is back in power it will re-nationalise all New Zealand power companies and run them as I believe they should be run – as a single, integrated system and as a common public utility at cost. Do I hear any such announcement from the Labour Party?

       If I chose not to invest in these assets sales would it stop them? Would it in fact have any impact on them whatsoever? Would anyone even notice? Sure if the NZ Labour Party was organising a boycott of the share issue I would sign up to and, say, promise not to buy any shares if, say 70% of New Zealanders made the same promise (for whatever reason) which boycott would have a meaningful effect on the sale. Is the New Zealand Labour Party doing any such thing?

       As for smugness – well, that’s your perception and there’s nothing I can do about your perceptions. As for fantasyland- well, all the above seems pretty hard-headed to me but by all means point out to me what you believe I am fantasising about – if you can pursuade me you would be doing me a favour, and that’s a fact.
       • McFlock 3.1.2.1

         10 August 2012 at 6:39 pm

         If I were in a bar in a corrupt country and someone offered me goods I knew were stolen, I could use your excuses:
            
         If I didn’t buy their goods, they’d still keep thieving, they’d just sell to someone else. Me refusing to buy the stolen items would have no impact on the crime rate whatsoever.I’d make a reasonable amount of money on the deal if I bought them at that price. The cops/militia won’t do anything, even if I complain. If 70% of potential customers refused an called the cops, I’d join in and have an impact, but there isn’t. 
                         
         But the fact is, even if nobody else on the planet cared, I’d still know that I’d bought stolen goods. To me, that’s always been the dividing line between “tory” and “lefty or liberal”. The tory asks “can I get away with it, and if I can what other reason is there for me not to use it to my advantage?” whereas the lefty goes “this is wrong. I will not do it or put up with it”.
              
         I’ve always thought it mildly humourous that many tories who believe in individual responsibility actually look to their community for moral boundaries, and it’s the so-called ‘collectivists’ who draw their moral compass from within (or at the very least an individual connection with a magic book). 
         • Cnut 3.1.2.1.1

           10 August 2012 at 10:23 pm

           Explain to me how buying shares in a state-owned asset equates to buying “stolen goods”?

           The state on behalf of the tax-payer holds assets which (for example) returns a dividend of $10 million a year to the public purse. If the state wanted it could tell the managers of the asset to forget a return and simply provide the good – say electricity – at cost. Or order the managers to show a profit of $20 million a year. All three decisions are political ones.

           An asset with a reliable dividend stream of $10 million a year would have a capital value of, say, $200 million. If the state on behalf of the taxpayer decides to sell it for $200 million and spend it on schools, hospitals, roads, Blackhawk helicopters, conference centres in Twizel or bidding for the 2018 Winter Olympics that, too, is a political decision which our democratic system – love it or hate it – permits and for which the Government is answerable at the ballot box.

           Through the medium of the state I would be buying from the taxpayer of New Zealand a small share in a power company, and paying the taxpayer real money for it. Will I be getting a bargain? Probably, if previous Goverment sales are anything to go by, but is that my fault? Will the Government fritter it away on over-expensive, badly-designed, and pointless pet projects? Probably, if previous Governments gaining windfalls is anything to go by. Is that my fault? I didn’t vote for this Government, after all. Is it my job to save this idiot Government from itself? But would I be buying stolen goods? Not in my book.

           Oh, and FWIW I believe New Zealand’s electricity generation industry should be run on a non-profit basis as a public good.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1.1

             11 August 2012 at 1:23 am

             Explain to me how buying shares in a state-owned asset equates to buying “stolen goods”?

             They’re being sold against the will of the owners, i.e, stolen.
             • aerobubble …

               11 August 2012 at 10:35 am

               A financial company went belly up. The board decide to sell to another financial company and got
               all those who were owed money to sign up for the deal. Thus the board managed to create consent and so distance themselves from accusations of inappropriate management. This is no different
               from what Key has done, he said he’ll sell them, Labour didn’t sell its wears very well, and so
               Key scrapped into power. Our very democracy is corrupt, the shonkey way governments can
               rush and sell, is mere tip of the per-verbal.

               The global market failure will continue until we redress the ease to which politicians can
               run amok with power. Look at each of the countries under stress, all in EU, US, etc.
               Starting with Iceland where they let a few unaccountable run the banking industry into a joke.
               Or Greece where politicians with no backbone don’t collect the taxes of its people.
               Or Spain, developer madness. Or the UK, ground zero for Thatcher’s revolution. Os
               the US, where printing money is fun, and Congress is full of twits.

               This is one of the generational political population collapses, ridiculed out of office when the
               people get fed up with all the lying, corruption and incompetence.
           • Tracey 3.1.2.1.1.2

             11 August 2012 at 11:18 am

             Being stolen is not the point, the point is being made about ethics. Where people’s ethics sit on any given issue. Mr Key claimed his ethics were high when in opposition, particularly in relation to MP and ministerial standard. They dropped a long long way once that lie was bought by the public. Did he do anything illegal in changing his mind? Nope, no law broken. Doesn’t mean t’s ok?

             The law sets the lowest acceptable stand not the highest as some like to believe.

             In the end cnut I think the point being made is that you say you only vote left wing parties, you say you think the companies should be held for the public good but when it comes down to it you see an opportunity for a windfall for yourself and that trumps your principle. It’s your right to do so but I think some here are just pointing out the anomaly.
             • McFlock …

               11 August 2012 at 4:31 pm

               Nicely put.
                        
               Not sure it computes in someone’s head, though. 
                    
               Participation =  acceptance. Which means that actions speak louder than dull platitudes of what cnut would like to see.
               • Herodotus …

                 11 August 2012 at 5:32 pm

                 So will the be a ground swell of Kiwisaver providers to disclose that they intend/have purchased shares in any of the SOE being sold off ? There is an opportunity for a provider to say that they WILL NOT buy any and be open to those who oppose such sales to switch providers. Then imagine how that would resinate within the industry? Having an “ethical” investor. Something that the Greens IMO could champion. Because in many aspects the Red team = the Blue team
                 • McFlock …

                   11 August 2012 at 5:54 pm

                   I wish. Not hopeful though.
                        
                   Although if the Greens said they’d renationalise at purchase price, I might actually vote for them.  
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 August 2012 at 5:59 pm

                     Although if the Greens said they’d renationalise at purchase price less costs incurred by the Government

                     This is a bit better. It would mean that we get the fees from the merchant banks, consultants etc. back.
       • weka 3.1.2.2

         10 August 2012 at 6:44 pm

         I have some money to invest. I’m not sure if that offends you in itself (and I would argue it doesn’t make me a tory whether I want to be one or not) and if it does what you think I should do about it (make sure I spend all my income when it arrives on ‘things’ whether I need them or not, or on booze or on the biggest mortgage I can support or on horses or ladies or whatever so that I’m always broke by next payday?)
          

         You could instead invest the money ethically.
         • Cnut 3.1.2.2.1

           10 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

           “You could instead invest the money ethically.”

           This pre-supposes an objective ‘ethics’ of investment. Personally I hold no shares in any bank or the likes of Goldman Sachs and would never invest in the likes of Monsanto, Lockheed Martin or G4S for example. I don’t hold any tobacco company shares and am undecided about the big pharmaceuticals. On the other hand anyone with a pension fund – including Kiwisaver – is probably invested in companies I would not feel comfortable holding personally.

           I don’t feel that a power generator produces something the world would be better without, nor abuses a monopoly position, but although I don’t agree with the sale of these assets politically and think it’s a mistake for the Government to sell them on sheer economic grounds I don’t feel that imposes an ethical responsibility on me not to buy shares if they are offered any more than I would refuse to drive on a road I consider a waste of public money to have built, not go to a rugby match at a flash, quite unnecessary and over-costly sporting venue imposed on rate-payers by an ‘over-enthusiastic’ local council, nor even attend a conference at a plush centre paid for by slot-machines.
           • Carol 3.1.2.2.1.1

             11 August 2012 at 7:21 am

             Or you could do like some of us, stop trying to get some money from doing nothing but lodging your savings somewhere, and just keep your money in the bank.
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 August 2012 at 6:03 pm

               but lodging your savings somewhere, and just keep your money in the bank.

               Co-operative bank or KiwiBank please.
           • weka 3.1.2.2.1.2

             11 August 2012 at 6:22 pm

             “This pre-supposes an objective ‘ethics’ of investment.”
              
             No it doesn’t. It presupposes that you asked what we thought you could do with the excess money you have.
              
             It seems you have no ethical problem with making a profit from actions that you consider unethical. That’s fine, your own ethics are your own problem. I’m just pointing out you have a choice and could do something for the greater good as well as your own personal good. Talk of objective ethics is just a semantic distraction.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   10 August 2012 at 12:59 pm

   The asset sales are not going to create the shareholding society that the Nats sometimes use as an excuse for flogging of our assets.

   But it will create the shareholding society that they actually want. A few people with shares and everyone else living in poverty and dependence as their servants.
5. Dr Terry 5

   10 August 2012 at 1:14 pm

   Given the amount of support still enjoyed by National, one has to wonder how genuine voters are in their “protest” about asset sales? Clearly, numbers who complain are getting themselves ready to pounce upon them given the chance! As usual with human kind, self-interest comes to the fore.

   I note that Russell Norman is selected here for quotation, as usual it is not Labour! Indeed, the Greens are a viable alternative!!
6. McFlock 6

   10 August 2012 at 1:30 pm

   giggle. 
      
   If 3news polls mums&dads, does that make it a bi-3news 3-way? Because with the asset sales, 93% of the population are being fucked.
          
    
7. DropDead 7

   10 August 2012 at 2:04 pm

   Meh. The majority of New Zealanders will likely own shares through Kiwisaver and incidentally the Superfund. Not only that but all New Zealanders will retain majority ownership of the assets. Contrast this with Victoria which privatised power generation in the 1990s or plans underway in NSW where state-owned power generator companies are to be privatised most likely via sales to preferred bidders, some of which will be offshore companies.

   Viva the revolution comrades.
   • bbfloyd 7.1

     10 August 2012 at 2:25 pm

     specious oversimplification is just that…. and adding self serving assumptions to the mix doesn’t make up for that….. it just makes you irrelevant….

     it’s a good day for lampooning tories today…. lots of half wit dogwhistles sounding off….
   • Colonial Viper 7.2

     10 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

     Meh. The majority of New Zealanders will likely own shares through Kiwisaver

     Rubbish. Today, EVERY New Zealander owns the assets EQUALLY.

     Which is what you greedy grasping Tories hate.
   • Ed 7.3

     10 August 2012 at 3:23 pm

     I suspect that since Kiwisaver funds do not qualify for the bonus shares, they may well decide that they are not worth buying at this stage, but may be worth buying once those shares have been issued and a lot of smaller investors seek to sell.

     Kiwisaver funds are of course mainly held as retirement savings by “Mums and Dads” – just those not able to afford to buy directly. That may be the reason they are being discriminated against for the bonus shares.
   • mike e 7.4

     10 August 2012 at 4:38 pm

     Victorian power companies are going bust because they burn coal.Likewise NSW. the majority of Australias power is genrated by coal fired power stations.
   • Fisiani 7.5

     11 August 2012 at 4:31 pm

     Most posters on here will buy shares. Virtually all however will fail to admit doing so.
     Despite being socialists I concede that many are otherwise intelligent. Pity that they will post one thing and then do another.
     I intend to buy shares. So will my Kiwisaver Fund and so will the Superannuation Fund and the ACC.
8. Linen 8

   10 August 2012 at 2:53 pm

   “57 percent said no, they won’t”

   This might be because:

   1. They can’t afford to, or
   2. They can afford to but believe their money would be better invested elsewhere, or
   3. They can afford to but are so opposed to the philosophy of the sales that they feel being a part of it would be a betrayal of their principles despite the possible financial gains.

   A break-down of that 57% would be interesting but I suspect by far the greatest majority would be in catagory 1, in which case a useful follow-up question would have been; “Would you buy shares if you had the spare cash?”
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     10 August 2012 at 4:28 pm

     Well its a particularly vacuous and useless follow up question as those NZers already own the assets.
   • mike e 8.2

     10 August 2012 at 4:40 pm

     Dirty Linen good spin maybe we could just ask every body if they think asset sales are a good idea.
     like other poles have which show around 60 tu 70% say NO!
9. tracey 9

   10 August 2012 at 3:25 pm

   he will say … well we tried but if folks dont want the shares….
10. Herodotus 10

    10 August 2012 at 6:16 pm

    I hope all those attacking mums and dads buy shares individually will also act by changing their pension provider should their kiwisaver findalso buy power shares .
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      10 August 2012 at 6:25 pm

      better just to nail this Tory govt to the cross and renationalise
      • Herodotus 10.1.1

        10 August 2012 at 7:15 pm

        Unfortunately there will be 1-2 power generators that will have a more “diverse” ownership.
        I am still taken back as to the main reason to keep these SOE 100% government owned. IMO these companies should be merged into 1, this allowing an integrated power generation policy and that new generation can be managed for the countries best interest. Not what will make the most money or at the lowest cost.
        It should be 1 power coy working for NZ. Not many making the most for their investors.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1

          10 August 2012 at 7:24 pm

          Ah, the NZED lives again.
11. OneTrack 11

    10 August 2012 at 7:53 pm

    “57 percent said no, they won’t” buy shares. – And they wont accept the 7 billion dollars cash received from the partial asset sales? Oh wait…..
    • Crashcart 11.1

      10 August 2012 at 11:02 pm

      Is that $7billion or $5 billion or $10 billion? Oh wait thats right is a complete guess as to what is going to be made. Also I didn’t realise the government was divying that money up and handing it out. I thought they were just taking and selling the assets off to spend on real important stuff like funtion centres in Chch and refurbishing diplomatic residences. Of course not enough money to increase paid perental leave.
    • Tracey 11.2

      11 August 2012 at 11:23 am

      How will they accept it onetrack? Does it come by mail as a cheque or is it direct creditted to our accounts?

      When the money has gone, and it will be gone quickly, what is the plan B for moving our economy along? We won’t have regular and reliable dividends to bank on…
12. Tracey 12

    11 August 2012 at 11:24 am

    Notice how quickly the govt backed down on the cut to diplomatic posts, no surprise that there are high level career bureaucrats amongst them and never forget the former MPs… We were told there was too much opposition, not that the idea was wrong… What alot of power those 36 or so diplomats who ran to wellington to protest have…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS