Farrar: Ironically being political and shallow

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, September 4th, 2011 - 66 comments
Categories: assets, business, dpf, privatisation, spin - Tags:

Been reading David Farrar’s column in the Herald yesterday “Asset sales – what’s the political cost?“. I’d say that his opinion is exactly what I’d expect from someone who spends their time at the political trough theorizing about business rather than doing it. Rather than look at the potential costs to the businesses and therefore downstream for the country he prefers just to look at politics.

Sadly this focus on the politics is kind of excusable in his case – he doesn’t know any better. As far as I can see, Davids experience has never been to operate a business operating fully in the private sector. He has been a staffer around parliament followed by running a polling company (whose major business appears to be the private polling for the National party) and political blogger and now seems to be morphing into the voice of National in the media.

Outside of the political blogging my working life provides quite a different viewpoint. I have been worked in private industry in NZ throughout my working life. Over the last few decades this has been for tech companies exporting offshore. I’ve helped form and grow several companies. I even went back to university to pick up a MBA to give myself better tools for the task of being better at business.

But the difference between David’s theoretical approach and mine can best be summed up in his spin..

With $220 billion of existing assets, the proposed sales by National represent around 2% of the Government’s total assets. It’s hardly a closing down sale.

Indeed. However that completely misses the point about why the government built and holds those types of assets.

The government origionally built these strategic assets because private industry wouldn’t put in the required capital and they were natural monopolies providing services to other companies and individuals. As a country we had to have them to grow. With its ability to raise capital cheaply and a set of objectives that operate over a longer term than profits during the next managerial tenure, the government was in a position to build strategic services.

Why were they strategic? Lets emphasize that again. Other businesses required the services provided to be able to build their businesses. Without the underpinning of reliable services businesses would spend much of their time in crisis mode dealing with outages in services rather than focusing on their own operations, markets and customers.

Take an example of the electricity supply for Auckland businesses. In 1998, I was in the Auckland CBD when we had 5 weeks of rolling power blackouts.

Queen Street was almost deserted for the first few days, as few businesses could operate. Some brought goods out onto the street to sell, but heavy rain in the first week made that impractical. Generators were brought in from around the country to power essential services and some businesses. These made Queen Street a very noisy place and thus deterred customers. Some businesses estimated that the outage cost them at least NZ$60,000 per week.

Now this type of outage isn’t an uncommon in some countries that I have visited. The cause was an organisation that had simply let their  maintenance and capacity growth slip. This is the common theme through the power outages in Auckland in 1998, 2006, and 2009 from one part of the electrical supply system of another.

In each of these, I have been one of the dozens of people standing around drawing wages and costing the company I was working for. I often have been the person worrying about being unable to do business, finding out how robust our organisations infrastructure is and keeping an eye on the deadlines. Needless to say, those business affected are unable to recover their losses directly from the power company. And those costs are enormous across the areas affected.

Sure it is nice for a business if it can get its basic services provided at a lower cost – not that has been a notable feature of privatization. But the costs in not having reliable services are almost invariably far higher than the potential savings. It simply doesn’t matter to me in a business if I have dozens of possible providers of retail services saving a few dollars a week when a single failure in their suppliers can waste all of the other costs for a day or weeks. This is the case if I am powering the company, sending/receiving offshore data over our limited cable infrastructure, getting critical parts or sending product/people through Auckland’s sole international airport, or looking at the air-freight capacity.

People in other markets will be interested in different services, but when thinking strategically will be more concerned with reliability of the services that they depend on than David’s interest in political costs.

David (and for that matter Bill English) do not seem to get this. They concentrate on irrelevant spin that carefully misses all of the crucial factors that businesses worry about. For instance David says…

It is literally impossible for a foreign company to take control. In fact it will be impossible for a foreign company to have a share-holding in excess of 10 per cent.

Perhaps David should look at where the effective control lies in most listed companies. It is frequently exerted by minority shareholders because many investors are as passive as Bill English seems to think that the government should be. Generally companies and investors in other companies form formal or informal working alliances with others to achieve their common objectives. Quite simply this is a rather pathetic meaningless political figleaf.

David’s ‘economic’ factors are kind of hilarious in their narrow political and non-strategic focus.

Not every private company is better performing than every public company. But overall, the evidence is that private ownership does lead to better performing companies. This is of course a key difference in ideology between the left and the right.

Of course the question that David very carefully leaves out is for whom to those private companies perform better for? Their shareholders or for the country as a whole?

We’re now decades into the political privatization of strategic assets. But what is clear is that shifting the number of retailers in the electricity sector doesn’t provide the security of supply that other businesses want in this country. We are running so close to the boundaries of the supply vs demand that an earthquake in the wrong place could give us the power shortages that currently afflict Japan. The history of privatizing telecommunications is replete with examples of price gouging by natural monopolies with minimal and slow upgrades in capacities. We have the example of NZ Rail where private owners stripped profit by allowing the strategic infrastructure required by many businesses to deteriorate.

This is why kiwis and especially kiwi businesses are skeptical about privatization of utilities. It seems to largely benefit the shareholders more than the country. Perhaps if we put a considerable duty and cost on the shareholders for not providing reliable services? But that really seems to defeat the rationale for privatizing in the first place if you have to regulate them so tightly. Not to mention it will probably be about as effectively enforceable as National’s figleaf ownership caps (which probably violate a number of our free trade obligations).

A strong secondary reason is the desire to give New Zealanders some more reliable investment options than finance companies.

Which really begs the question about why NZ companies do not list on the NZ stock exchange? And why many investors including myself avoid it. Despite the amounts of money invested around NZ, only a minuscule fraction is available from the stock exchange.

The investment climate in NZ is completely biased towards investing directly into property privately where there is no tax on capital gains. Much of the investment money in the stock market prior to the crash went into finance companies was because they were about the only stocks with more attractive rates of return than speculating on house prices. To achieve those returns they were clearly running their businesses with unacceptable and concealed risk levels.

How is having a few low return utility companies bulking out the stock exchange going to magically change that? The structural problem at the heart of investment in NZ needs to be addressed and this type of pallidness is simply political fluff that governments do when they don’t wish to face the hard and important issues.

A tertiary factor or reason is lowering the amount the Government will need to borrow. The total amount reduced is not huge, but it does send a signal to rating agencies that the Government is serious about keeping gross debt from exceeding a certain level.

He is right about how little it will raise. He is wrong about how rating agencies will read it. Rating agencies look at the longer term rather than the short term. They can read a balance sheet. The reason why these assets are highly salable is because they are profitable. The government currently demands a very high dividend from many of the organizations and the loss of part of that dividend will affect their ongoing fiscal position far more badly than keeping them. Not to mention that it isn’t that likely that the other shareholders will be as interested as the government is in high dividend payments. The loss of revenue to the crown is what the rating agencies are more likely will look at, because over time it increases the risk of lending to the government.

In short, the current round of privatization proposals by National and their mouthpiece has been notable for not making a case for doing it on any basis that would quell the alarm that many businesses will feel. Rather they appear to be more interested in laying political spin with their reasons concealing a bad case of ideological stupidity

66 comments on “Farrar: Ironically being political and shallow ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. crashcart 1
    4 September 2011 at 11:26 am

    I read his Party Political Ad in the Herald yesterday and wondered why it didn’t have a authorised by statement at the end. It was so one sided and politically biased the stupid reference to his National links didn’t caver it in my opinion.

    What was good to see was how few people in the comments section bought his spin. They really tore in to him.

  2. Rijab 2
    4 September 2011 at 11:26 am

    How can our mainstream media let such poorly constructed & blatant propaganda be given such a platform?

    David may be an intelligent and able commentator at times, but he is being downright disingenuous with this asset sales vomit. Well done LPrent for a sound retort. If David reads this he’ll be doing so with a red face, as I’m sure he already has from reading the comments on his nzherald article.

  3. ghostwhowalksnz 3
    4 September 2011 at 11:32 am

    You left out the bit where his weekly columns are probably ghost written by Bill English or his tax payer funded staff.

  4. fabregas4 4
    4 September 2011 at 11:34 am

    It was great to see how many readers saw this tripe for what it is. Assets sales are the game changer come November.

  5. logie97 5
    4 September 2011 at 11:58 am

    Did you have to include his photo with this article. Ahhhhhhhhhhh …….?

    • lprent 5.1
      4 September 2011 at 12:03 pm

      Well in my posts I try to leave at least one good feature of whomever I am roasting at the time*. That was his. 😈

      * you ever notice how I have to be annoyed at someone before I write a post?

    • HC 5.2
      7 September 2011 at 12:30 am

      logie97 – This photo of David does not get out of my mind now. Since you mentioned this, I have seen some old documentaries, reports and photos of some of the leaders, key persons and supporters of that party that ruled Germany and later Austria and large parts of Europe between 1933 and 1945.

      The face on the photo above strongly resembles the face and features of a person belonging to that party. All that is missing is a military hat, a uniform and certain emblems symbolising the membership to that party.

      It may sound offensive, but this is real. I am reminded of such a personality, who strongly resembles the person in the photo above. Is this a co-incidence, or can conclusions be drawn from features being very similar- also meaning that mentality, conviction and psyche must be very similar?

      Just a thought in passing.

  6. RedLogix 6
    4 September 2011 at 12:08 pm

    I’ve long argued that the crucial test of privatisation can be determined from this simple question, “What would happen if it failed?”.

    Now that failure can be technical or commercial, it doesn’t really matter which… but if the answer is that the government would be politically compelled for whatever reason to bail the entity out… then it should never have been privatised in the first place.

  7. mickysavage 7
    4 September 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Good comment lprent.
     
    The debate about privatisation drives me to distraction.  It is only going to be partial and the Government will retain a majority stake the right continusly chant.
     
    Associated with this is the “protection” that a single foreign entity will own no more than 10% of the chare holding.
     
    This all ignores the basic problem that when you corportise and list a crown entity you change it irrevocably.
     
    For instance once you hand governance over to a board of directors they are obliged to have the dollar signs in the middle of their sights when they make decisions.  If burning coal is better than developing geothermal then so be it.
     
    A classic example of the problem occurred with Air New Zealand a few years ago when the announced the shut down of the Christchurch Maintenance base.  The EPMU lobbied Cullen as owner of 83% of the shares to reverse the decision.  His response was that he could not interfere because of the minority shareholding.
     
    The tories know this but continue with the spin or lies (however you are feeling) that fundamental change will not occur.  It is guaranteed to occur.  NZ don’t go there …

    • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1
      4 September 2011 at 12:38 pm

      The minority shareholding will allow a full takeover.
      Thats the real idea behind privatising by stealth.
      After the election we will hear that ‘there are too many power companies’ .
      Then Contact will push to takeover one of the newly listed companies with a starting point of 10%, they will line up say 2 others who magically have 10% each- this gives 30% as the prelude for a full takeover.
      English and Key will say their hands are tied because of the benefit for the 49% private owners- voila the lot is gone before you can say – I told you so

  8. ropata 8
    4 September 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Farrar is astute to focus only on public perceptions and his party’s image.
    John KY is the pied piper leading voters to fairyland on trail of pixie dust.

    How boring of Labour to talk about reality and the social & fiscal impact of destroying our asset base!

    “Asset Sales: What’s the political cost?”
    DPF never asks what is the long term cost to NZ businesses, government revenues, or private citizens

  9. randal 9
    4 September 2011 at 12:32 pm

    National is supposed to be the party of business but Farrar and the party have never created one business since the election. All they have done is leeched off the real producers and hidden their depredations behind a wall of poisonous vacuous nonsense.
    And the fact is that they couldn’t run a business if they tried.

    • Bob Stanforth 9.1
      4 September 2011 at 12:39 pm

      Why would a political party create a business? Why would we want them to?

      And just as there are successful business people in National, there are in the other parties as well.

      Or was your comment just a meaningless spiteful rant?

      • joe90 9.1.1
        4 September 2011 at 1:00 pm

        Why would a political party create a business?

        Why bother even creating businesses when you can steal them off the taxpayers who created them.

        * In December 1986, all of the top 10 companies originated in the private sector and had a total sharemarket value of $20,712 million.

        * Thirteen years later seven of the 10 companies started in the private sector and had a market value of $13,044 million.

        * Today, only four of the top 10 have a private sector background and their sharemarket capitalisation is just $10,866 million.

        Where have New Zealand’s private sector entrepreneurs disappeared to?

        • pollywog 9.1.1.1
          4 September 2011 at 1:02 pm

          Where have New Zealand’s private sector entrepreneurs disappeared to?

          …they all became slumlords and live overseas for 9 months of the year.

          • Bob Stanforth 9.1.1.1.1
            4 September 2011 at 1:39 pm

            Actually, I think you’d be surprised that that isnt the truth. I sold my IT consulting business a while back. Ive since started two more companies, both profitable, one web based, the other niche consulting, the latter that Im about to sell.

            The web based one I will sell probably within 10 years. Most of the people I work with and for are self employed, building businesses here in NZ. One of my friends just sold his to an American company for a significant sum of money.

            The vast majority of employed NZ’ers work for small companies, privately held organisations, some like mine. And thats part of the reason why sharemarket valuations to me are meaningless – the role of large organisations is changing, which is seeing the rise of small fast moving niche players.

            I will be 50 in a few years, and will work part time on and in my businesses for a few years yet. Its fun, and I love the people I employ and work with. And everywhere I look I see more of that happening. The rise of NZ’s small company continues.

      • ropata 9.1.2
        4 September 2011 at 1:01 pm

        I seem to recall a recent post on this site where the author looked at the backgound of the MPs, and Labour clearly had the majority of self-employed or small business owners. NACToids are pinstriped corporate ladder climbers not business creators.

        • Bored 9.1.2.1
          4 September 2011 at 1:24 pm

          Very prescient comment, the bit which really fekks me off about corporate business types is that they would not know business if they tripped over it: most are private sector beaurocrats pretending to be “capitalists”. The vast majority are merely wage slaves, going by the Marxist definition of relationship to production they are not even petit bourgeois…mere non owning functionaries..(lick spittle running dog roaders to use Maoist Chinese lingo).

          Labour needs to reconnect to the working man, a huge proportion of whom are self employed working for rates that the corporates will pressure mercilessly as the focus goes onto costs.

        • mik e 9.1.2.2
          5 September 2011 at 8:46 pm

          More theocrates reformed school teachers failed farmers leaders nut jobs that kill the jobs

      • Ianupnorth 9.1.3
        4 September 2011 at 1:29 pm

        Bob, I commend you for being the only right sided person to actually comment; whenever there is a post that is critical, truthful and presents an accurate reality, those on the right are nowhere to be seen – you mate, broke this tradition, so kudos where it is due.
         
        It still remains that it is stupid to sell off profitable companies, thus removing the profits from treasury.

        • Bob Stanforth 9.1.3.1
          4 September 2011 at 1:57 pm

          Thanks Ian – I dont believe in mindless support of anything, even my kids 🙂

          Im not sold on the asset programme, but Im holding judgement until I see what rules will be in place around ownership and transferability of that. It makes sense to me to sell a minority stakeholding off to NZ investors, especially KS investors, as our market is tiny. But lets keep as much of it here in our hands as possible. And lets have a reasoned and reasonable debate about it, not descend immediately in to name calling because someone doesnt toe the company line. None of this directed at you BTW.

          But again, thanks, and likewise 🙂

          • mik e 9.1.3.1.1
            5 September 2011 at 8:59 pm

            Bob Stanforth would you sell your best performing assets or shares . You wouldn’t unless you were bankrupt. This govt isn’t quite bankrupt yet but if we selling of our cash generating assets like the power companies we will be bankrupt and we will have to sell the rest of if we have another crisis it will happen. The returns from these high performing assets will help pay down this debt in eight years . These mates of yours in the National party won’t be around in{8years] parliament to take the blame for such a stupid mistake tell them that.The 4 pwer companies +solid energy have had increases in profit up to 50% this year its dumb dumb and dumber to sell these assets .if you say you are good at business you would see plain sense and stand for whats right.And not bob duck and weave like yopu political masters.

      • lprent 9.1.4
        4 September 2011 at 1:34 pm

        Umm I retract part of this. I see Bob’s response was to randal and not me… The joys of replying whilst moderating is you don’t see context.

        Umm Bob, did you read the post? What I said was that the government created these companies originally for a specific reason. They were needed to support other businesses and no-one was willing front up with the capital to put them into place.

        But you do appear to be profoundly ignorant about the business history of this country. Perhaps you should look at the origins of the largest companies actually listed on our exchange. You will find that most of them started as government created organisations (telecom and all the power companies for instance) or were set up after a government prototype/study (NZ Steel comes to mind) or developed their size with the tacit semi-monopolistic support of the government (Fletchers comes to mind).

        What does get set up by private enterprise in NZ are the smaller companies like the ones I work in. Starved of investment capital we usually wind up selling equity off directly to overseas buyers because the local exchange cannot fund anything apart from a asset strip on a privatized government property. Now does that sound like a dynamic free market to you?

        There are a number of business people in National. However apart from farmers there are very few people in National who have ever even worked in a export based industry. It has always been notable to me that most of the business experience in National have been suppliers to the local retail markets or parasitic asset strippers. Exporters live in the free market competing worldwide. We know exactly what free markets look like because we deal with them all of the time. The businesses that National seems to want to support are not what what I’d call particularly free market.

        • Bob Stanforth 9.1.4.1
          4 September 2011 at 1:53 pm

          Sometimes, just sometimes its not about you Lyn. Keep your insults to yourself you arse – I wasnt commenting about your post, it was a very good and reasoned post, BTW. I was commenting about the mindless spit laden rant. Even a newbie web twat could see that.

          Feel free to throw observations into your comments, but dont expect me to agree with them – they arent factual, just as mine arent. But dont bother with the insults just because I dont start with a slavish approval of your post. Try debate, not insult, and you will get reasoned and considered debate back.

          • ropata 9.1.4.1.1
            4 September 2011 at 3:41 pm

            I agree that your comments aren’t factual Bob, if anything you’re the one losing the plot and throwing insults about. Is it your business model to build up a small company then flog it to a foreign corporation?

            One of my old mates from engineering school has a small company making a certain device and has had $$$ multi million buyout offers from Aussie but he prefers to keep the jobs and skills local.

            My father spent 40 years building up his smallish company in south Auckland employing 30-40 guys then when he retired the other directors sold out to a big firm who ended up shutting the place down.

            This story has been repeated large and small across NZ for decades, no wonder we are in the crapper

            • Bob Stanforth 9.1.4.1.1.1
              4 September 2011 at 4:11 pm

              Actually, you couldn’t be further from the truth, yet again showing that when you make an assumption, you stick your head up your arse. 🙂

              My IT consulting firm was sold to the people I employed, and I still own a 30% share in their success. The company grew from 10 to now 25.

              The insult was directed at Lyn, who had decided to take an ill-conceived thrust at me, and ended up making himself look like an idiot. You started the queue by the looks of it.

              So, try this, will use simple words. Hows about debate instead of assumption driven stupidity? Go on, try it. 🙂

              • ropata …
                4 September 2011 at 4:47 pm

                I was debating, you had earlier claimed that “the rise of NZ’s small company continues”, which I think is true only for a minority, but in other significant sectors of the economy the decline is dramatic.

                Decline and fall of Kiwi private enterprise

                • Bob Stanforth …
                  4 September 2011 at 4:52 pm

                  And nothing you stated or quoted applies to small companies, even slightly.

                  • ropata …
                    4 September 2011 at 5:49 pm

                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/5161079

                    Receiverships this year are more than 200% up on five years ago, and the total number of business failures have yet to taper off …

                    NZ Shareholders Association chairman Bruce Sheppard : “it’s pretty bloody ugly out there” …

                    Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly : “A lot of the companies that were marginal after the financial crisis have gone and we’re now talking about the survivors. But we’ve still got a weak internal economy, so we are seeing even some of the strongest cashflow businesses struggling.”

                  • ropata …
                    4 September 2011 at 9:13 pm

                    Sometimes it’s hard to get the facts from underneath all the good-news government spin, there’s usually a couple of upbeat pro-National articles per day in the business pages, but remember who owns our major news outlets

  10. alex 10
    4 September 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Stunning post, articulate, detailed, clear and accurate. Exactly what the National Party’s asset sales spin isn’t.

  11. prism 11
    4 September 2011 at 12:38 pm

    @ropata – I think you might have a valuable familiar image with the idea that Jokey Hen is a pied piper leading the innocent to oblivion. Without saying so there is the recall that he was a ratcatcher who stole the citizens’ taonga from them. That piedpiper term could be used as a constant up to November and be effective. Who needs Crosby-Textor when there are you and me!

    • ropata 11.1
      4 September 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Thanks, the Pied Piper story seems apt, especially the part where the future of a community is taken away.
      Marketing isn’t a strong point of mine, I can’t stomach the illusory world of crosby textor marketing shite.

      (I’m an IT analyst in my day job and have to deal with marketing types on occasion, they are all about glamour and image and positive thinking, whereas I am pretty much the opposite, I have to measure *actual* outcomes and be a bit paranoid)

  12. prism 12
    4 September 2011 at 12:42 pm

    @lprent – Very well stated blog. No doubt about it having one’s own money and efforts put at risk in a business or personal project definitely gets the antenna twisting and sharpens the coping techniques.

  13. pollywog 13
    4 September 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Dude’s pissing in the wind. Ain’t NO WAY middle to lower NZ is gonna go for asset sales.

    On a side note, it’s not racist, but what do you call it when you have a dislike of short, pudgy, right wing bald guys with glasses ?

    I bet Farrar wears ill fitting suits, doesn’t tie his laces and has small hands as well…ewwwwww 🙂

    • felix 13.1
      4 September 2011 at 1:15 pm

      “On a side note, it’s not racist, but what do you call it when you have a dislike of short, pudgy, right wing bald guys with glasses ?”

      I believe the term you’re looking for is “sentient”.

    • vto 13.3
      4 September 2011 at 3:59 pm

      Simple mr polly. It is called racism by another name.

      And it is just as bad. Shame.

      • prism 13.3.1
        4 September 2011 at 5:55 pm

        @vto You’re so pure and good.

      • felix 13.3.2
        4 September 2011 at 6:42 pm

        Short, pudgy, right wing bald guys with glasses are a “race” now v?

        Jeez.

        • Deadly_NZ 13.3.2.1
          4 September 2011 at 7:58 pm

          In his case I’d call him the Poison Dwarf…

        • vto 13.3.2.2
          4 September 2011 at 9:00 pm

          messers felix and prism, on further deliberation and consideration you’re right. Let’s get ’em!

          Stupid useless fuckers that they are. Bloody no good, always getting thrown in jail and arrested. I blame it on the red-headed colonists, they just let people get away with everything … and they bloody steal everything. Just see what lprent says in this very post. He’s onto it. bloody looters the lot of ’em. Yeah, I’m voting Winston.

          • prism 13.3.2.2.1
            5 September 2011 at 10:42 am

            @vto – Vote for Winston seems a good idea for you. He gets all heated about matters too but delivers his lines with less swear words and he has so much aplomb and generally adds some style to the rest of the scrum in parliament. I hope he gets enough votes to put in an appearance.

          • marty mars 13.3.2.2.2
            5 September 2011 at 11:21 am

            I don’t agree with your incitement to get “short, pudgy, right wing bald guys with glasses” – to get everyone all worked up may cause riots and frankly, they are not ‘bloody no good’ or ‘always getting thrown in jail and arrested’ – I would imagine they are underrepresented in those institutions. Please give even further deliberation and consideration vto. 🙂

          • ropata 13.3.2.2.3
            6 September 2011 at 12:10 am

            Incidentally the middle aged whilte male in a position of trust seems to be the leading demographic for white collar crime, so vto’s sarcastic comments about looting and getting away had an accidental element of truth.

      • ropata 13.3.3
        4 September 2011 at 7:13 pm

        Are Munchkins a separate race now? 🙂

  14. HC 14
    4 September 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Indeed I have started to enjoy David Fartars weekly Herald pieces, because they are often so easy to dissect and expose. Also looking at the response views they are mostly very negative about him and his views. He hardly ever delivers reliable facts, distracts from the truth and tries to be an expert at misinforming people to achieve re-enforcing negative bias towards the left and more centrist positions others hold.

    And you are right. A person like him does not display much real life business or other expertise.

    A wannabe Spinmeister who tries to make this his career.

    • tc 14.1
      4 September 2011 at 3:52 pm

      In a real unbiased paper, there would be a matching article by someone from the other side of the political spectrum for readers to compare whereas our only daily national paper continues to provide a NACT soapbox….comments are one thing but full and fair debate….not in granny herald.

      The absence of the usual sideshow John fan club members on this post comes as no surprise…nailed lprent, also the cost to the eventual users with generators adding profit to satisfy greedy minority shareholders cascading through the grid operator, then the lines businesses and finally the retailers, each having a higher input cost plus their margin to shareholders.

      Probably making a buck at the generator end become 2-3 bucks when the consumer eventually cops the ticket clipping at each layer.

      • Anne 14.1.1
        4 September 2011 at 5:25 pm

        In a real unbiased paper, there would be a matching article by someone from the other side of the political spectrum for readers to compare

        Yes, and the obvious choice would be Gordon Campbell from Scoop. The trouble is, Campbell’s intelligent, rational and well informed commentary would show up Farrar for the half-baked Nat Party hack that he is.

    • Deadly_NZ 14.2
      4 September 2011 at 7:59 pm

      I prefer to read the comments he always seems to get slammed in them.

  15. Tangled up in blue 15
    4 September 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Farrar is a good example of why people should support policy on a case by case issue rather than being partisan. He’s invested so much of his life into bagging Labour, that even when it’s clearly evident that Labour’s policy around asset sales is more beneficial for New Zealanders; he is forced to suppress the miniscule amount of political impartiality he had and advocate a position he knows very well will only benefit private shareholders.

    Shame on his dishonesty.

  16. randal 16
    4 September 2011 at 2:50 pm

    why should a government create ‘new business’?
    well bob stanforth that was nationals political plank, their manifesto if you will.
    and their stuffed little popinjay hootin said they would create 170,000 jobs.
    so if they are not there mto create new business what are they there for?
    or is that mean and spiteful in your book.
    is asking for the truth too hard for you?

  17. randal 17
    4 September 2011 at 2:52 pm

    oh and if they are not there to create new business then why are they selling old businesses that belong to the people and not to them?
    or does that truth hurt too?

  18. logie97 18
    4 September 2011 at 3:27 pm

    The NACT meme has always been that government should not be in business – that private runs things better than government. So what is the advantage of selling only 49 pcnt into private hands? Is it just for a guaranteed income for investors with no risk, and a chance to recoup losses for those who have got burnt by so many failed private sector run industries/institutions.

  19. MikeG 19
    4 September 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Farrar has also avoided any mention of the revenue that the assets generate – my guess (and I’m too lazy to do the research) is that the assets they are selling provide a reasonable percentage of the non-tax revenue that the Government gets.

    The Govt may only be selling selling 2% of the total assets, but what % is that of the revenue generating assets, i.e. excluding schools, hospitals, roads… ?

  20. jingyang 20
    4 September 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Lprent, You may a very good case using many rational, strategic, business and financial arguments against Farrar’s political arguments, however, since it is clear that the Nats’ reasons for selling are entirely political (ie; to please their backers) then you are really pissing up against a wall in terms of changing the government’s mind.
    Where this post IS effective is that it helps to make the debate political as readers start looking closely at what the Nats are really up to. Hopefully by November the political cost of the privisation policy will to be too much for the Nats to bear.

  21. Tangled up in blue 21
    4 September 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Dude’s pissing in the wind. Ain’t NO WAY middle to lower NZ is gonna go for asset sales.

    It’s seems that a lot of this ‘middle to lower ‘group against asset sales still intend to vote for National.

    But what exactly are they gaining at the expense of asset sales?

    • Anne 21.1
      4 September 2011 at 9:58 pm

      They think they’re going to continue to ‘feel good’ no matter what happens coz John Key says they will, and if they don’t John Key says it’s all Labour’s fault and they believe him.

    • pollywog 21.2
      5 September 2011 at 9:16 am

      It’s seems that a lot of this ‘middle to lower ‘group against asset sales still intend to vote for National.

      i think your lot are in for a short sharp shock if they make asset sales the cornerstone of their campaign strategy…

      …just like the backdown on mining conservation land in the face of massive protest and demonstrations, there is no way Key will get a green light from the average kiwi battler to sell off our state silverware

      once it’s exposed that that’s pretty much all the Nat’s have as their plan for economic salvation they’ll be gone come November.

      it’s gonna be hella fun watching Key get pwned in the leaders debates. That pained spoilt brat look he pulls when he’s flustered is priceless…

    • mik e 21.3
      5 September 2011 at 9:04 pm

      More debt longer to pay it off cult worshipers don’t need reasons they just follow their leaders no matter how painful the journey, thats why all these finance companies were able to take so much money of so many people, just smile nicely and he’s such a nice man I gave him all my retirement funds.