Insult to injury

Written By: - Date published: 10:33 am, May 20th, 2012 - 37 comments
Categories: privatisation - Tags:

Not content with selling your assets off, National has put aside $120,000,000 of your money to tell you that you should like it.

And, just to add more salt to the wound, Bill English has described the cost as “low by market standards”. That’s right, you should be pleased that the government is getting you such a good deal on a public relations campaign designed to make you feel better about them flogging your assets.

You couldn’t make this shit up.

37 comments on “Insult to injury”

  1. Poission 1

    Bill English also says the increase in consultancy cost by Govt departments ie 336-525$m in the last four years is the 6% increase in inflation.

    Seems either the poor quality paid advisers have mislaid the zero,or both the ministers and consultants IQ is significantly below market values.

    • Dv 1.1

      6% increase would be 356.16m

      The difference is actually 56%

      May be he misread the % added a decimal point and rounded up 56% to 6% Huh?

      At a 6% per year the 2012 value will be 424m

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      And I note that he’s managed to inflate his guess about how much the sale of our assets will get as well:

      Finance Minister Bill English confirmed the spend would total “around 2 per cent” of the proceeds from the partial sale of selected state assets – up to $7 billion.

  2. Johnm 2

    Agree 100% IRISHBILL. Look round the World the market is dead.NeoLiberalism is finished accept for what it always did- syphoning wealth up to the 1%. Sensible Governments such as South America’s are Nationalising and husbanding their people’s Commonwealth not throwing it away to more free market money junkies.Consultancies are some of the biggest resource wasting scams going.

    • Johnm 2.1

      It’s a Struggle between the greed of Capitalists who want their usury paid off and want to charge rent on assets once owned by the people and the wellbeing of the people which after all is democracy and not rule by the money junkie kleptocrats currently in charge and determined to dismantle the Commonwealth at all costs. The frontline is Greece:

      “Greek leftist leader Alexis Tsipras: ‘It’s a war between people and capitalism’ ”

      Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/18/greek-leftist-leader-alexis-tsipras

    • quite correct. greece will probably have to nationalise everything and stop importing shit from overseas. while dickhead bankers like kimjohnkey sell things to pay interest to foreign moneylenders to further borrow MORE money to then send back overseas as lost capital for NZ and kiwis. it makes you want to rig up the meter to repatriate 49% or your electricity bill.

  3. I just spent a couple of hours at the Avondale market collecting signatures.  I also did a bit of a stint about two weeks ago.  Three of us collected 150 signatures in an hour and a half.  People were queuing at times.

    Many very negative comments were made about John Key, all along the line that he has misled the country and that this was his plan all along.

    Now is the time for all good lefties to collect signatures.  You never know if we can just terrorise an MP enough they may fold.

    And $120 million will not change public perception.   In fact the Government should realise that it will make matters worse because it is another weapon to clobber them with.

    • Te Reo Putake 3.1

      Same result at my local market this morning. Including a couple signing up who support the sales, but want a referendum anyway because they don’t think Key has a mandate.

    • muzza 3.2

      MS and Voice, great stuff with the signature gathering etc.. Thats called getting involved!

      The propaganda cash will be shared by the same companies, once you follow it around!

    • James 3.3

      Many very negative comments were made about John Key, all along the line that he has misled the country and that this was his plan all along.

      Except that it was one of the few areas of National policy that was clear.

      New Zealanders asked for this. No one to blame but themselves.

      • weka 3.3.1

        I didn’t ask for this and I didn’t vote National (or any of the Nat supporting parties). But I do agree that it was bloody obvious that this is what National was going to do, so what were those voters on the right thinking?

        • James 3.3.1.1

          Yip, the majority of New Zealander voters decided for you. Not really fair to have a go at National for doing exactly what they said they would do. They lied, stole and broke enough in their first term and got rewarded with a second. Seems odd to reward bad behaviour and punish them for following through on a promise.

          • Matt 3.3.1.1.1

            True but it seems more than fair, in fact it seems like a civic duty, to go after National because what they’re doing is bad for the country.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.1.2

            This is actually the reason why we need binding referendums on major policy. This would allow a government of which the majority wanted without having to accept policy which the majority doesn’t want.

            Besides, this we’re supposed to be a democracy and not a dictatorship and in a democracy the administration is guided by the people and not the elected representatives.

            • weka 3.3.1.1.2.1

              +1

            • lefty 3.3.1.1.2.2

              Binding referendums right now would be a disaster. Referendum without good information become a playground for bigotry, ignorance and stupidity. In the shallow democracies we have now many people would likely vote against their best interest because they are influenced by various right wing memes and propaganda, just as they do in general elections. Almost certainly those chosen by our political masters to be blamed for the systems failure, like beneficiaries, would be at great risk if their fate were to be decided by referendum.

              What we need is democracy. Not this shallow excuse where you get to have a vote every few years on who is going to rule you, but a real democracy where we have control of what happens in our workplaces and in our communities , where we have control of time and the space around us, where we design an economy to meet our needs, where we talk to each other instead of rushing past each other on the way to carry out the next chore for our economic masters, where our wealth is commonly owned and our problems are shared, where each of us is guaranteed an income big enough to live on and we share the socially necessary work after that, were we can each pursue satisfying and useful activities that are work but not made to do paid work, where discussion and thinking are valued and our education is about learning not preparing for the job market.

              In such a society regular voting on important issues might usefully be part of the democratic structure, but not the most important.

              • Draco T Bastard

                Democracy has got stuck in a single mode and that mode is turning into a dictatorship. The only way to break that dictatorship is to increase the peoples say on what happens in their society. Yes, democratise the workplace and get ownership of our resources back off the capitalists but what about referendums isn’t democratising our community?

                • Colonial Viper

                  binding central govt referendums is the end goal of a long process. More stuff to have more votes on won’t change a thing. Except drop voter participation rates.

                  Lets get civics education, involvement in local government, and the socialisation of the economy happening first.

                  • Carol

                    We need a revamped grass-roots community initiative to rebuild the ideal of the old Workers’ Education Association. No government run education system is going to initiate a successful civics education any time soon, or in a hurry.

                    We need to take back education for the people!

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Having the ministry doing research and getting that research out to the teachers and schools is a good idea, having the government be able to interfere with that against the research is the problem.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      We need a revamped grass-roots community initiative to rebuild the ideal of the old Workers’ Education Association.

                      That’s right. Anything we do for NZ must be 100% Tory-Proofed.

                      And Labour are too gutless and too slow to push for real effective change.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    There’s stuff to be done along the way but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have binding referendums as a goal.

        • Dr Terry 3.3.1.2

          Yes, it was very clear. Please never assume that (most of) those on the Right actually “think”. Greed and short term magic is what they are about. These folk have had near four years to discover Key’s deceitful ways. Now numbers of them are bitching and moaning, finally and in the end!!

      • BillODrees 3.3.2

        James, 
        When a new government gets elected it is usully because the previous crowd lost for a range of reasons.
        When a new government gets elected it ususually has a manifesto with, say, 100 various statements, commitments, promises etc. Asset sales was one of those in the Natz case.
        The public and the opposition still have a right and a duty to challenge and un-rail each and any policy that it finds flawed. 
        Selling unique, strategic, scare, difficult to re-produce assets like Hydro Dams is flawed. It only has to rain and you make money!!  It has to be one of the most dangerous and stupid acts in the history of NZ. 

        • James 3.3.2.1

          Selling unique, strategic, scare, difficult to re-produce assets like Hydro Dams is flawed. It only has to rain and you make money!!  It has to be one of the most dangerous and stupid acts in the history of NZ.

          I agree completely. That’s why I lost all respect for the majority of New Zealanders when National were voted in for a second term on a platform of privatisation and austerity.

          • Ant 3.3.2.1.1

            I agree, people were well warned but still National won almost half of the vote, now we all wear it.

            I’m more insulted by the people who voted National and are now having a grizzle about it.

          • Johnm 3.3.2.1.2

            100% right James! Those who voted Nats did ’cause they viewed them as looking after their already privileged positions here in NZ. E.G. No Capital Gains tax for property speculators, for one instance.This divide and rule sectional politics has been encouraged here since the Rogernomics disaster came in.

          • stever 3.3.2.1.3

            Though to be fair-ish—the news that came out later (that we’ve actually been promised 51% of the “shell” companies, and the actual physical assets–like dams, power stations etc.—are held by companies owned by the shell companies, and are therefore fair game, under the “mandated” rules, for a sell-off of 100%, leaving “mums and dads” owning largely worthless shells) was not mentioned during the election. Because, of course, if it had been mentioned the Nats would have loss, going by the polls done on assets sales.

            That’s setting aside the details between voting and non-voting shares etc.

  4. weka 4

    The costs were for advertising, PR, legal, banking, call centres and other administrative charges.
     

    Call centres??

  5. ochocinco 5

    The funniest thing about this isn’t mentioned by anybody: why do we need consultants?

    Why does our State Service (which spends so many billions a year) not have the IN HOUSE competency to provide the service these consultants would?

    The Treasury should have the staff to do this (probably for less than half of what we’re spending on consultants) but it doesn’t. Why?

    • bbfloyd 5.1

      the short answer is that WE don’t need consultants….. on the other hand, there are rather a large percentage of the current crop of ministers that don’t have a clue how to do their jobs… paula “beachball” bennett is a prime example of a minister who requires consultants to work out policy for her… she is by no means the only one ….

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2

      Why does our State Service (which spends so many billions a year) not have the IN HOUSE competency to provide the service these consultants would?

      Because more profit can be gotten out of the government if that government is forced to hire consultants than if the government just hired people directly on normal wages.

      The Treasury should have the staff to do this (probably for less than half of what we’re spending on consultants) but it doesn’t. Why?

      It probably does but using them won’t channel taxpayer money into NACTs supporters pockets.

  6. captain hook 6

    who gets the $120,000,000?
    the same ad agency that runs the nats election campaign?
    this is just patronage pure and simple.
    giving money to your pals.nice work if you can get it.

    • Descendant Of Smith 6.1

      Didn’t know that when I posted the National Party connections earlier today.

      Open mike 20/05/2012

      Be interesting if their was a tender process, who vetted it if there was and whether any conflicts of interest were declared cause there certainly seem to be some.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago