2 to 1 against privatisation

Written By: - Date published: 7:53 am, February 18th, 2011 - 52 comments
Categories: polls, privatisation - Tags:

Last night’s TV3 poll confirmed what we knew – 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.

52 comments on “2 to 1 against privatisation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Salsy 1
    18 February 2011 at 8:03 am

    Its the ultimate gamble – They have put everything on winning the world cup (god only nows its probably match fixed) then as they say, if elected there is a mandate to go against public opinion. The following year will be dark indeed…

    • Marty G 1.1
      18 February 2011 at 8:38 am

      exactly, national will claim re-election as a mandate to do what they like on asset sales. that’s why the first flyer specifically says that a vote for National is a vote for privatisation. we can’t let anyone go into the polling booth thinking they can elect that nice man mr key but avoid asset sales

      • noeleftie 1.1.1
        19 February 2011 at 7:43 am

        very true Marty G – so power to the connected few. Time for labour to get reconnected at grass root level with the electorate by generating some meaningful debate and interest. Asset sale and privatisation ( the mandate that the tories need ) will be there downfall.
        The only good thing about john key is that he has constrained the right power blocks in the tories and honestly is seeking a mandate from the people to sell assets.

  2. Kaplan 2
    18 February 2011 at 8:08 am

    They will be pinning their hopes on swaying public opinion through the dodgy polling antics of fanboy.

  3. Anthony C 3
    18 February 2011 at 9:10 am

    That’s the great thing about National floating this policy, to sell it they have to explain it.

    It requires a completely opposite approach to the ‘hit and run’ news cycle they have helped cultivate, and is going to backfire, you can’t sell something this culturally reviled by Kiwis with a quick soundbite.

    • marty mars 3.1
      18 February 2011 at 9:20 am

      That is a great point AC – they will have to explain it to sell it – their spin will be relentless and as noted, has already started.

    • Marty G 3.2
      18 February 2011 at 9:23 am

      As proven by the mining in national parks flop. Good point.

      • Deadly_NZ 3.2.1
        18 February 2011 at 10:28 am

        And what about the big lignite plant they are talking up for down south will make $1.5 billion per year. And it looks like bugger the environment

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10706966

        • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1
          18 February 2011 at 10:47 am

          Frankly if peak oil is really as imminent as many are suggesting, I don’t have a problem with turning lignite into diesel if it means we still have fuel for our country to run on some semblence of it’s current self.

          In terms of carbon emissions and buggering the environment:
          1. Global warming is already a certainty now
          2. NZ’s emissions are a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things anyway. I don’t really see that we should be leaders at a huge economic cost. (in the future, the tourism industry is going to be substantially smaller, so clean and green branding won’t bring in the $ anyway).

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1.1
            18 February 2011 at 12:35 pm

            The environment is the economy.

            • Lanthanide 3.2.1.1.1.1
              18 February 2011 at 1:20 pm

              Well yes, in the long-run of decades, that is true.

              But in the short to medium turn, if we don’t have transport, we don’t have much of an economy. Historically humans have always chosen to take from the enviroment to create an economy. The problem we have now is that it’s gone too far for too long.

              Really it’s about alternatives:
              a) completely crash the economy, have 30%+ unemployment and widespread discontent and poverty while not putting additional pressure on the environment from coal emissions
              b) try and manage a power-down scenario to avoid the worst social repercussions, which requires increased coal emissions to manage the transition

              Of course what is most likely to happen is:
              c) attempt to manage business-as-usual which requires increased coal emissions permanently

              • Shane Gallagher …
                18 February 2011 at 2:31 pm

                Actually we have a lot of wastage that will help us out – Otago uni energy dept. has worked out that there is about 50% redundancy in our road transport at the moment (eg. trucking toilet paper to Chch from Dunedin plant and trucking same amount of toilet paper from Chch plant to Dunedin) so if we actually planned our economy we can reduce fuel usage significantly. That should give us time to restructure our transport system.

                However it would take a government with some backbone to push that through… Cannot see Labour or the Nats doing it.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  18 February 2011 at 7:16 pm

                  Got link?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  18 February 2011 at 7:23 pm

                  That’s the same kind of thing which happens with Coca Cola and their aluminium cans. Dig the ore up here, refine the alumina there, smelt the aluminium in yet another place, roll it into sheet somewhere else, turn it into cans there, and bring those cans all the way back to the starting point where they will be filled, sealed and sent back to each of those different cities/countries and put into Coke machines.

                  And why do the corporates do this? Because (of course) its the cheapest route through the value chain, from the corporate operating expenses point of view.

                  You have these value chains spanning across nations now. Yes we could optimise – from the point of fuel usage – shipping stuff between Christchurch and Dunedin, which would be helpful. But for any value chain more complex than that you will need international corporate and governmental co-operation.

                  At the end of the day the push has got to be for a localised economy. Where only very few things get transported more than one or two hundred kilometres. Again, that would be a very different economy.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    18 February 2011 at 11:10 pm

                    That’s why I keep saying that the rules in every country has to be normalised. Once costs are truly accounted for then such mass over use of transportation will stop.

                • aj …
                  18 February 2011 at 8:17 pm

                  Govt changing the direction toilet paper travels. Nanny State at it’s worst 🙂

                • Drakula …
                  18 February 2011 at 9:28 pm

                  So how about the Green Party Eh?

          • Deadly_NZ 3.2.1.1.2
            18 February 2011 at 1:58 pm

            But where will the diesel and profits go???? To the country thats bank rolling it Maybe China???? But not to the working man. Our prices will still be exorbitant.

          • noeleftie 3.2.1.1.3
            19 February 2011 at 7:08 am

            I have to agree we need to expand the money supply and create real growth in our economy of another 1-2%pa. The private sector hasnt the ability or capacity to create such levels of growth therefore we need to bring the balancing effector that we call the state into play.
            Either state / private partnerships to utilise these resources or create an mechanism that involve ownership of these companies being locked up and held by the taxpayer. Interestingly the model was for the local community power boards of the 80’s etc where the people owned the assets throught their local councils and got rebates etc.
            The only entity in new zealand big enough to supply internal generated cash to expand the economy whilst maintaining the balance of the economy is the taxpayer – maybe we all contribute another 2% of our wages and collectively create situations where that investment can both be optomised and also provide a stabalising influencer on the economy. Both kiwi saver and the cullen fund are successful models where the taxpaper has created a investment vehicle in a profitable manner.

            • Herodotus 3.2.1.1.3.1
              19 February 2011 at 9:59 am

              One issue re Kiwi Saver- ALL tax payer pays pay for the subsidy- until it becomes composulary only those with surplus available funds and are working get the full benefit. For many their financial means make this unaffordable, for those working over 65 they are ineligible and are unable to be compensated for this exclusion or to have their pay accordinly adjusted up. And allows those well paid individuals to “manage” what they are paid and perhaps sacrifice some cash in hand for pension allowances results: greater individual wealth, paying less tax- A common tread within Lab and Nat when either is in govt, look after the rich.
              Kiwisaver was a step forward pity the Lab govt assisted the same people they take pot shots at for paying too little tax, actions Lab are more deafening than rhetoric

      • neoleftie 3.2.2
        19 February 2011 at 7:53 am

        they are already putting the spin out there now.
        Half privitising SOE and selling shares to ‘mum and pop’ investors.
        If we could trust the Tories to get it right and not provide an mechansim to sell to the elites then a scheme where the average kiwi could lock-in there hard earned savings into a profitable SOE sounds like a great idea to me. It would provide the following benefits:
        1) allow average kiwi to increase there wealth generating ability
        2) provide the state with some nice cash from an increased tax rake.
        3) stimulate the economy by allowing the SOE to expand / creating jobs due to this injection of capital.
        4) prevent further Govt from selling off SOE as 50% of the shareholders are now the citizen.

        All this could be achieved quite simply and beneficially to the economy as a whole under classic policies too.

    • Lanthanide 3.3
      18 February 2011 at 9:58 am

      Yes, astute observation. It is fundamentally different from “TAX CUTS!!!!!eleven!!!!” that they did at last election, and all their other slogans.

      • noeleftie 3.3.1
        19 February 2011 at 7:21 am

        well tax cuts per see arent all bad. it depends on the timing and who get it.
        At this point in time in the economic cycle and created downturn tax cut to the upper rich were a bad idea due to the fact that:
        1) they dont need any extra friggin money – those bastards are laughing at the rest of us.
        2) we need whoever got the tax cut to spend it big time on retail in new zealand.
        3) more money to the rich just made them invest it so they can generate more wealth for themselves. My hard earned potential tax dollar that could have been used more wisely at a marco level is now being used to create more opportunity or wealth for the wealthy. Whilst the poor class get bigger by the day, the middle class groans under the tax burden, the capitalist class just go right on creating more wealth for themselve even if they have to cooped the state and economic system to do it.

  4. Olwyn 4
    18 February 2011 at 9:30 am

    Going by the TV3 clip, they have made some wiggle room for themselves should the plan start to cost them at the polls. Key was unequivocal in his original announcement, but seems now to be allowing himself some space for modifications if necessary. He has a habit of this: “Absolutely!” or “Absolutely no way!” followed by “Well what I meant was…”

    • Bright Red 4.1
      18 February 2011 at 9:54 am

      but this is already a weakened policy from what they want to do. how much further can they retreat and still deliver something meaningful for their base?

      plus a backdown doesn’t simply undo the damage that the initial policy caused, especially if trust in the politican is weakening

      • Olwyn 4.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 10:05 am

        Not sure. But I am pretty sure that their whole approach is to balance electability against rewarding their mates – no electability, no reward possible, no reward in the offing, no money to fight the election. As a left winger I am hardly going to suggest ways out of this dilemma, but if they plummet in the polls I’m sure they will find a way of “re-balancing their priorities” or some such.

        • Herodotus 4.1.1.1
          18 February 2011 at 10:28 am

          No wiggle room if you were at Botany earlier on this week. Someone asked re this if Nat would change policy. JLR stated that if you were against SOE sales then not to vote for him, as this was not one that Nat would change. Good on JLR for being up front. He will not succeed in cent govt politics with such an honest response, did make one valid pt Lab also did sell state assets, but from my investigations they did but not to this extent.

      • Deadly_NZ 4.1.2
        18 February 2011 at 10:31 am

        But the backdown would only last until they got back in to power, then the Big fuck you comes out, and off they go on their merry way raping and stealing for another 3 years..

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2.1
          18 February 2011 at 1:59 pm

          Exactly, NACT will sell the assets even if they revoke the policy before the election.

          • Jum 4.1.2.1.1
            18 February 2011 at 7:42 pm

            You’re correct 100%, Draco T. Bastard. JKeyll said so in Parliament; a vote for National is a mandate to sell.

            • Drakula 4.1.2.1.1.1
              18 February 2011 at 9:38 pm

              The bastards are so amoral they will even sell their children!!!!

              WILL!!!! they ARE selling our children!!!!!!!

              Don’t forget what Key is negotiating with Gillard behind closed doors of CER les sovereignty for us but I guess that is a different thread Sorry!!

          • neoleftie 4.1.2.1.2
            19 February 2011 at 7:56 am

            if the Tories sell assets this term then i for one will be in the street…as it folds i will be on the pavement come november anyway

  5. James 5
    18 February 2011 at 10:58 am

    I notice that TV3 when asking their question used the (P.M.’s) framing “partial asset sales” – and still there was a 60% rejection. I wonder what the rejection rate would have been if the question had simply referred to “asset sales”? Or, equally or more valid in my view, as “asset sales to U.S./Chinese/Australian interests?

  6. gobsmacked 6
    18 February 2011 at 11:27 am

    Whenever there is a poll on specific issues (like asset sales), there is nearly always a Party Vote poll too. It’s a simple matter of cost/convenience.

    So it looks like there will be a TV3 poll released on Sunday/Monday.

    Given the responses on asset sales (from the same people, in the same poll), there should be an increase in support for the three main opposition parties (including NZ First, I would guess). If there isn’t, then Labour in particular will need to have a good look at themselves.

    The government can lose the election. But the opposition need to start winning it.

  7. Kevin Welsh 7
    18 February 2011 at 1:43 pm

    I see that the faithful are not that convinced over at kiwiblog either. Its only 50/50 on their poll on asset sales.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      18 February 2011 at 1:49 pm

      Perhaps because they think partial asset sales are another sign of John Key being wishy-washy.

  8. Drakula 8
    18 February 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Partial asset sales are asset sales by stealth make no mistake about that!!!!!

    Can you trust these bastards?

  9. Neoleftie 9
    18 February 2011 at 10:56 pm

    if we are talking infrastructure the amount if truck trasports on our roading system will increase by 50% over the next 5 years – hence bolger coming out in support of our man cullen buying back kiwi rail of the profit rakers and pillages

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      18 February 2011 at 11:15 pm

      So….

      You’re in favour of buying back rail and dropping the full costs of trucking back onto the trucking lobby?

  10. Neoleftie 10
    18 February 2011 at 11:35 pm

    In this century the player who controls infrastructure inc water etc wins the game. The studies i am doing would suggest in the next fifty years the profit takers will try and control the strategic bottleneck of a country’s infrastructure. How does a multinational company keep generating profits once the globalised production factors such as productivity become optomised. They must look to new marco cost controls or profit generating avenues to protect there base returns.
    So yes keep any strategic assets such as rail and no to privatisation of roads i.e PPP toll schemes.
    There is a realisation even from main steam economists that a pure free-market system has fundamental flaws in the medium to long term.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      18 February 2011 at 11:46 pm

      Interesting insights. Yeah, and that “medium to long term” comes into play…well, pretty much now. 200 years of industrial capitalism has given way to 30 years of ponzi capitalism and now that is failing there is very little else to turn to.

      • Neoleftie 10.1.1
        18 February 2011 at 11:56 pm

        interestingly the only country that thinks beyond the next economic cycle is china…study china and get an insight how a country can control via various economic fiscal levels there economy e.g they control the value of there dollar and M3 money supply. The only big speculator in china is the state or its semi private organs.
        The chinese state is buying up global strategic assets all over the show i.e who will control the milk powder supply into china within ten years ah.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          19 February 2011 at 12:01 am

          Yet critics say China is setting itself up with too high levels of liquidity as it suppresses the value of the renmenbi, and that inevitable asset bubbles and speculation will result.

          As you say, the state are the big players yes, but China has at least 70 USD billionaires now, and possibly tens of thousands people worth >US$10M who can each play the asset bubble game.

          Essentially though I agree – its foolhardy to sell our hard strategic assets to China for pallets of freshly printed US dolalrs.

  11. Neoleftie 11
    19 February 2011 at 12:09 am

    i could suggest look to see which country is buying up american bond releases at a staggering rate to offset its liquidity and retain some balance. China uses artifical methods or marco levers to keep there economy from over heating. very much a mixed economy.

Links to post