assets

Stop asset sales

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 9:36 am, April 12th, 2011 - 24 comments

Nice to have

Written By: Tammy Gordon - Date published: 10:21 am, April 7th, 2011 - 25 comments

The PSA is the frontline in our fight against National’s plans to savagely cut our public services. Much in the same vein as the sticker campaign that Eddie posted on yesterday, the PSA has used humour to get across an incisive message: what the rich elitists in National consider ‘nice to have’ is very different from what we value.

Economy

Written By: Ben Clark - Date published: 8:25 am, April 3rd, 2011 - 84 comments

The economy, shall we say politely, is facing some difficulties. With a National government there was no plan as to how to weather the economic storm, we just got tax cuts for the rich and an economy that just can’t get growing.

2 to 1 against privatisation

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 7:53 am, February 18th, 2011 - 52 comments

Kiwis are strongly against selling our public assets. National’s policy is opposed by 60% and supported by just 30%. That’s more opposition than the mining proposal. There’ll be no back-down from the Nats – pillaging the State is a core reason for them wanting power. On these numbers, it may lose them the election.

Not for sale – first flyers

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 12:00 pm, February 15th, 2011 - 45 comments

To avoid another three years of backhanders to the rich, falling wages, rising unemployment, and asset sales, we have nine months to chip away at National’s support. As in 2008, The Standard will be running a campaign offering flyers etc for your to print off and deliver around your neighbourhood. Privatisation is an obvious first target.

Fallow latest to slay privatisation arguments

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 8:02 am, February 11th, 2011 - 45 comments

Brian Fallow has put the nails in the coffin of the Nats’ privatisation arguments. His column goes through the excuses that National has come up with for selling the family silver and none of them stack up. Nor does Key’s ‘money-go-round’ where the state-owned Cullen Fund buys these state-owned assets to free up cash for the state.

Tuku wades in again – same result?

Written By: Mike Smith - Date published: 10:34 pm, February 8th, 2011 - 16 comments

There are some interesting legal and constitutional parallels between the Maori party’s attempts to rid themselves of Hone Harawira and previous unsuccessful attempts in Tainui to have their Kauhanganui  chair dismissed for raising awkward questions about use of tribal finances.  Tukoroirangi Morgan was a key player in the Tainui ructions; now he has waded into […]

Testing Key’s $33 billion line

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 11:54 am, February 4th, 2011 - 12 comments

One of John Key’s excuses for selling our SOEs is that we need the cash to buy $33 billion of new assets over the next 5 years. Sounds like a lot, eh? It turns out the Crown spent $42 billion on new assets* over the last 5 years without selling our SOEs and even with that $33 billion of new capital spending the deficit will be gone in 4 years … I wonder what Key’s next line will be.

Time for the Goffice to step up to the plate

Written By: Eddie - Date published: 11:36 am, January 29th, 2011 - 137 comments

We face a stark choice this year: a Labour-led government, which will create fairer tax and invest in jobs and innovation, or National-led government, which will govern for the kleptocracy, giving them tax cuts, then selling our assets and slashing our public services to pay for them. So why is the Goffice doing such a bad job making the case?

Selling assets to pay for tax cuts for richest 1%

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 7:50 am, January 28th, 2011 - 171 comments

John Key, very optimistically, reckons he can raise $10 billion by selling our assets. Key’s Government gave massive tax cuts, averaging $16,000 each, to the richest 1% of taxpayers that they’ll get year after year. The present value of those tax cuts for the richest 1% is over $10 billion. He’s selling our assets to pay for tax cuts for the richest 1%.

Slash & sell … then crash

Written By: Zetetic - Date published: 10:55 am, January 27th, 2011 - 6 comments

Ironically, the best response to Key’s ‘slash and sell’ agenda came from Obama, whose spotlight Key is always trying to share: “Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.”

Nats start the election campaign

Written By: IrishBill - Date published: 7:12 pm, January 26th, 2011 - 53 comments

Halfway through last year I suggested we’d see a July election as National raced to lock in a second term before their numbers fell.

I reckon that’s exactly the strategy we’re seeing today. The tories know that their numbers are only going to go down this year as their policies bite so they’ve decided to put the pedal down.

The Sell-off Begins

Written By: Bunji - Date published: 12:04 pm, January 26th, 2011 - 160 comments

So John Key’s great bit of policy for the election is to sell off the family jewels.  Generations of New Zealanders have built up these assets, and now, like in the 90s, National intend to flick them off to foreign investors, and drain the country’s wealth.

Privatisation stalking-horses on the hoof

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 2:30 pm, January 17th, 2011 - 15 comments

The Herald today has an article that serves as a stalking-horse for privatisation of public assets. Privatisation is a core part of National’s agenda- it will have to push for it in some form at the election. Articles like this one are all about softening us up for that campaign.

Farrar joins call for SOE reform

Written By: Eddie - Date published: 7:00 am, December 24th, 2010 - 95 comments

Say you run a large company. Say the manager of a division in your company chose do a deal that improves the division’s own profitability instead of one that would have made the division less profitable but the company as a whole more profitable. You would be angry. So why are the people who run our SOEs required to act like that?