Phony Tony

Written By: - Date published: 7:23 pm, June 19th, 2012 - 83 comments
Categories: Privatisation - Tags:

The Herald reports that Tony Ryall “went on the attack about asset sales outside the House, saying that Labour had a history of privatising state owned assets, often doing so under urgency in Parliament back in the 1980s and early 90s.”

Ryall was elected to Parliament in 1990 – and it was a National government that  privatised the BNZ in 1992 and Tranzrail in 1993. Fay and Richwhite asset-stripped Tranzrail, essential infrastructure was run down, and  in the end Labour bought it back.

Ryall’s a phony. National’s asset sales programme is a dog.

83 comments on “Phony Tony ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dv 1
    19 June 2012 at 7:41 pm

    So what Ryal is saying is that they look to labour for their policy development.
    Interesting

    • Pascal's bookie 1.1
      19 June 2012 at 8:01 pm

      Nah, they are saying that everyone should think about the asset sales from the eighties, and that Labour now says they were a bad idea.

      This is the argument they are rolling out on the big day.

      This is the response to the arguments being made that the policy is a stupid idea.

      “Labour should shut up and let us do this because they changed their mind about it aaaaaaages ago”

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        19 June 2012 at 8:03 pm

        “Labour got it wrong so we should be able to get it wrong” …

        Great justification. 

      • vto 1.1.2
        19 June 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Right, that does it. I am never ever voting conservtive again. P’s b you have just highlighted the evidence for their paucity of thinking.

  2. TheContrarian 2
    19 June 2012 at 7:46 pm

    National may have killed the BNZ in the end, but it was still Labour that cast the fatal blow:
    http://www.comu.govt.nz/resources/pdfs/mixed-ownership-model/mom-shppnz-wilson-dec10.pdf

    • Matthew Whitehead 2.1
      19 June 2012 at 11:47 pm

      And your point is? It was wrong no matter who did it, and there’s a pretty strong record on the left of being consistent about our principles and criticising “our side’s” mistakes loudly. Wish I could say the same thing about right-wingers.

    • bbfloyd 2.2
      20 June 2012 at 3:07 am

      Brilliant….. you’ve just successfully disappeared up your own arse contra boy……

      And i’m not impressed that you made me read 30 seconds worth of meaningless, pointless pap as well…. It actually does nothing whatsoever to prove whatever obscure point your smarter alter ego is telling you to make…….

      It succeeded in making you sound like english isn’t your first language……. But i will take a positive from this…. i always have enjoyed a bit of tory nitwit baiting……cheers for that…old chap……

  3. Jared 3
    19 June 2012 at 7:49 pm

    And yet you ignore the fact that in reality, Labour privatised BNZ by floating it in the first place, so much for squeaky clean

    • TheContrarian 3.1
      19 June 2012 at 7:53 pm

      And part of National’s 1992 sale was to rid the Govt of the day of BNZ’s bad debts – unlike today’s asset sales which are not in debt, BNZ had 2.8b signed of in bad debts then lost a further 71m before National sold it all.
      (Page 35 – http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2009dec72_4hunt.pdf)

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.2
      19 June 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Yes, that’s it! The righties have Labour there – they fell foul of dumbass policy thirty years ago and having learned from their mistakes are much worse than the dupes who haven’t.

      No, wait…

      • Jared 3.2.1
        19 June 2012 at 8:03 pm

        Subtle differences, partial privatization vs full privatization…

        • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1
          19 June 2012 at 8:13 pm

          lol.

          That still admits that privatisation is a bad thing. the argument just becomes, “We are only going to do half the stupid thing that our opponents changed their mind about decades ago”.

          It also ignores the point that doing half the thing is quite possibly even worse than doing the full thing.

          It’s an absolute pig of a policy, and the defensive nature of the government’s rhetoric today only makes them look like they know it, IMHO.

          • Jared 3.2.1.1.1
            19 June 2012 at 8:20 pm

            The argument against full privatisation in the 80s was a prevailing behaviour of corporate raiders to buy at a discount and asset strip, I struggle to understand how the same issues could plague a minority float where asset stripping couldn’t happen, and a deep discount price to one party could occur.

            The key argument against partial privatisation is the halving of dividends from these firms as government income, which of course comes down to whether you think the government should realise 49% of their value now and forgo 49% of the dividend, or whether it should continue to draw the full dividend and patch the budget up with debt financing from other sources. That is purely an ideology debate. In the same way some parties can ignore the economic benefits of mining….

            • Jared 3.2.1.1.1.1
              19 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

              Freudian slip, that should read “where asset stripping couldn’t happen, and a deep discount price to one party couldn’t occur.” the edit function wouldn’t work

              • Pascal's bookie …
                19 June 2012 at 8:49 pm

                I don’t remember that being the anti-argument in the eighties. There wasn’t much debate, Douglas presented much of it as a fait accompli, shit just got done, and while opposition tried to find its voice, he did more shit.

                But that’s not really the point. The point is what real people actually think. And I doubt very much that most people think the asset sales were a dumb idea because of asset strippers.

                Also, the argument you make about today isn’t really an ideological one. An ideological argument would be something like “The state shouldn’t own power companies”, or the opposite.

                That opposite case is being made in the form of ‘strategic assets’. The counter argument to that (an ideological arg in favour of sales) isn’t really being made. The right seem to have given up making the ideological arguments against state ownership. I guess this is due to polling rather than any change of heart on their side

                Possibly, too, the ideological arguments apply only to full privatisation which would make using them for a partial sale counter productive. If the state shouldn’t be owning these assets, then why should it retain a controlling stake? Likewise, if state companies distort the market, then why should we list a number of very large entities onto the NZSX that will have an implied govt guarantee? Awkward.

                Which relates to my point in that the right has lost that argument and accepts that people think privatisation is bad. Which is why they are resorting to the stuff about “Labour did it too but now they changed their mind. Not fair!”

                What is stupid about that argument is that it shifts it back to an ideological field where the right has already lost the fight in terms of what the electorate thinks and feels. It’s just reminding people about it all, and that National and Labour disagree.

                I suspect they are doing so because the non-ideological arguments (interest vs dividends) isn’t as strong as they would have hoped. Add to this the other aspects of the sale that they have had to include in an attempt to make it palatable (bonus shares, limits on o’seas owners and other things that reduce the return to the crowm from the sale) and the practical argument field also starts to look weak.

                And so we get the nyah nyah nyah stuff.

                Bit sad really.

                But it’s ok. The PM says people will warm to the idea once they start to see the benefits.

                Like they did in the nineties I guess.

            • felix 3.2.1.1.1.2
              19 June 2012 at 8:41 pm

              “which of course comes down to whether you think the government should realise 49% of their value now and forgo 49% of the dividend”

              Which sounds nice, especially considering that it’s bullshit.

              We’re talking about 5 billion dollars. That’s fuck all. Do you know how much the govt is borrowing at present? Do you know how long it takes them to spend 5 billion dollars? It’s months, not years.

              And for a few months of cashflow you want us to give up half (but probably all eventually, as you note above) of our oil, our gas, our geothermal electricity generation plants, our hydro-electric dam networks, our wind farms, and much more.

              For ever.

              As the world runs out of energy, you want us to get rid of ours in return for a few months worth of cash.

              Stupidest idea ever.

              • Socialist Paddy …
                19 June 2012 at 8:49 pm

                As the world runs out of energy, you want us to get rid of ours in return for a few months worth of cash.
                Stupidest idea ever.

                Aye.

                Why are we even debating this shit.  The answer is so clear, except to the exceptionally stupid or the exceptionally greedy … 

              • Jared …
                19 June 2012 at 8:49 pm

                Gone forever?
                Hardly

                • Socialist Paddy …
                  19 June 2012 at 8:53 pm

                  Yep we can buy them back.

                  We can go up to those share holding bastards and say “please missah, can we have our assets back?  We will pay you plenty for them”.

                  And those bastards will then say

                  “Sure you can, but you will have to pay us back what we invested and a shit load more than that because what we own is so valuable”. 

                  So yeah they can come back.  But buying back premo strategically significant assets aint going to be cheap.

                  • Jared …
                    19 June 2012 at 8:58 pm

                    The Market Price reflects its earnings potential at the time of listing, and of course, assuming an efficient market theory, any price at a future point in time, will reflect future earnings potential. The government could always add an amendment that they have first right of refusal of any future sale of shares, and could force shareholders to sell back holdings at a fair price under existing market laws.

                    • Socialist Paddy …
                      19 June 2012 at 9:05 pm

                      Geez Jared.

                      We live in a world where business advisers do not know about peak oil.  They will advise the Government to sell at a cheap price, then in 5 years time when not even the most stupid of right wingers can ignore peak oil the price of a stable continuous supply of energy will skyrocket and so will the share price.

                      Efficient market theories have only ever favored wealthy individuals.

                      Are you a neoliberal economic textbook? You sound like one. 

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    19 June 2012 at 11:48 pm

                    Or we could tell Labour to grow a bloody spine and nationalise them.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      20 June 2012 at 12:35 am

                      Been trying that for the last few weeks – they don’t appear to be listening. Haven’t heard anything about it from the Greens either. In fact, I’ve only heard it from the Alliance.

                    • Rodel …
                      20 June 2012 at 1:01 am

                      When Labour makes that bold (heaven forbid) statement my respect
                      for them will be re-ignited. If they continue to talk about mere wishy washy referendums (a) I’m unimpresed.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      20 June 2012 at 4:22 am

                      We could tell Labour to grow a spine but I think it would be a waste of breath. Deep down, I think their movers and shakers love the market and would be too gutless to go against the provisions of the TPPA anyway.

          • TheContrarian 3.2.1.1.2
            19 June 2012 at 8:32 pm

            Jah well, nonetheless – Ryall was right in what he said about Labour but wrong about thinking sales are a good idea now.
            (remember also, National’s BNZ sale was a good idea in 1992 – the BNZ was bleeding money and the government was holding a ton of shares. Unlike the assets of today which hold no debt)

      • Policy Parrot 3.2.2
        19 June 2012 at 8:13 pm

        Pity the internet wasn’t really around then.
        Then we’d be able to ask Ryall (pre-Oct 1990 version) what he thought of asset sales.
        I know his party claimed they wanted “a decent society”. Bit like “A Brighter Future” really.

    • felix 3.3
      19 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

      “And yet you ignore the fact that in reality, Labour privatised BNZ by floating it in the first place, so much for squeaky clean”

      Careful Jared, your mates don’t like it when people refer to selling part shares as “privatisation”.

      It is though, and it’s good to finally see one of you admit it. Cheers for pointing out what the next step is too btw.

      • mickysavage 3.3.1
        19 June 2012 at 8:29 pm

        Yep, Labour should never have floated BNZ.  No argument there.

        As soon as you float anything you get a bunch of blood sucking professional directors descend on the joint and start making plans for maximizing the short term cash flow to the detriment of everything else just so they can justify a hike in their directors fees.

  4. Georgecom 4
    19 June 2012 at 8:08 pm

    “In just three years, Labour sold over 15 state assets for almost $10 billion to the highest bidders”, he said”

    Yes Tony, they did. We then put the bastards out to pasture for 9 years. The bastards who fulfilled the privatisation agenda then went and formed the party who has been your natural ally in power for the past 15 years until Hide-Brash-Banks flushed the remnants down the toilet.

    So really Tony, what is your point.

    That right wing pocket liners have been selling state assets for quarter of a century and lining pockets, or is there another message you are trying to tell us?

  5. Adrian 5
    19 June 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Shearer has to grow a pair and say that Labour is taking them back because to sell them is theft.

    • TheContrarian 5.1
      19 June 2012 at 8:47 pm

      To sell them may not be clever, but it aint theft

      • vto 5.1.1
        19 June 2012 at 8:51 pm

        best you look up the definition of theft

        • TheContrarian 5.1.1.1
          19 June 2012 at 8:53 pm

          “Theft: the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession.”

          It would be theft if National hadn’t explicitly said this is what they’d do.

          • vto 5.1.1.1.1
            19 June 2012 at 9:06 pm

            Exactly. The dishonesty is rife and shit-stinking up the whole place.

            Dishonest in saying it is financially beneficial.

            Dishonest in saying that power prices will reduce.

            Dishonest in saying that Mums and Dads will own the shares.

            Dishonest in saying that govt will keep 51% ownership.

            Dishonest in saying that more people want the sales than don’t.

            Dishonest in claiming a mandate.

            Dishonest in claiming an increased majority at the election in support.

            Perhaps you could outline the honest components put forward by John Key and Tony Ryall…

            • TheContrarian 5.1.1.1.1.1
              19 June 2012 at 9:14 pm

              They key point:
              Dishonest in claiming a mandate.

              National have as much mandate as any other party since 1996. A mandate is gained through winning a parliamentary election which National did. Therefore they have a mandate to carry out the policies they campaigned on – one of which is asset sales. I don’t like asset sales but I recognise National were delivered the mandate to do so.
              To say they don’t have a mandate on this is a wasted argument – attack the real problem which is whether or not National have a mandate to sell asset but whether they should carry it out.

              • vto …
                19 June 2012 at 9:18 pm

                National has a mandate for asset sales like Act has a mandate for flat tax policies. Full blown argument over that one.

                What about the other six dishonesties? ? ?

                Only need one to make it theft – keep going.

                • TheContrarian …
                  19 June 2012 at 9:24 pm

                  I don’t want to get into the other dishonesty’s listed because the key for me is whether or not they have that mandate – which they do.
                  It sucks, you don’t have to agree with the policy but the have the mandate nonetheless. So they key is to drop the “no mandate” argument because is it is unsound and plant your soap-box on what the implementation of this mandate means….which you have listed.

                  • vto …
                    20 June 2012 at 8:42 am

                    “I don’t want to get into the other dishonesty’s listed because the key for me is whether or not they have that mandate ”

                    You don’t want to get into the other dishonesties listed? But you were discussing whether or not this privatisation of electricity was theft or not. Theft has a large dollop of dishonesty. Do you just jump out of debate when it all gets too hard or uncomfortable for you? It would be worth knowing so a gauge can be made on whether it worth engaging with you or not. On this one, not.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 June 2012 at 8:55 am

                      Exactly. And it could be considered it theft had National not actively campaigned on it and said “hahaha fuckers, you voted us in and now we are going to sell out from under you”.
                      But they didn’t do that – they up front said what there plans were and now they are the government.
                      If you consider it theft make a police complaint..

                      “Do you just jump out of debate when it all gets too hard or uncomfortable for you?”

                      No I jumped because I wanted jump in the sack with my wife. I am sure you need no further description of what followed…but I’d rather do that than debate with people who think enacting policies based on campaign promises during an election campaign is naked theft.
                      Hell, I don’t support asset sales but I realise they have the mandate to do so.
                       

                    • vto …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:02 am

                      Your line of argument – that it is not theft because the thief advised beforehand that he was going to thieve your property – is shallow and doesn’t actually work. Also, it does not address the dishonesties presented by this government in support of removing ownership.

                      Theft turns on the dishonest taking of property. I have outlined where there has been dishonesty in that process.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:09 am

                      ” it is not theft because the thief advised beforehand that he was going to thieve your property ”

                      No, that is your misunderstanding.

                      The election handed the government the legal right to sell these assets as per NZ law and democratic process.  They are not just ‘saying’ they are going to do something, the election gave them the legal right to do so.

                      If you think it is illegal then make your complaint, I am sure the Greens, Labour, NZ First and Mana would support you if you had a legal case.  

                    • vto …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:20 am

                      You are avoiding the very particular point about theft, its definition, and the applicability of the dishonesty involved. An election doesn’t make those dishonesties honest. An election has no impact whatsoever on the applicability of “theft”, as was the point way back.

                      As for the police, I think you once that said you worked on Lambton Quay. Mind popping down to the coppers for me? I am in the boondox, nearest copper 50 miles.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:33 am

                      I don’t like repeating myself but I feel I have to…

                      “The election handed the government the legal right to sell these assets as per NZ law and democratic process.  They are not just ‘saying’ they are going to do something, the election gave them the legal right to do so”

                      It isn’t theft if you grant someone the legal right to take it – which the election did.

                      I work within shouting distance of the central police station but you’re the one who think a law has been broken so you do the complaint. But believe me when I say if this was an issue of legality the opposition would be all over it.

                    • vto …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:43 am

                      I think we’re talking past each other.

                      edit: theft requires two things – dishonesty and taking.

                      You refer to the taking, which is fine. Govt takes it and the taking is legal. But it is the dishonesty component you miss. Put the two together.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 June 2012 at 9:49 am

                      Oh well. I have work to do any way. (re: talking past each other.)

                      BTW – thanks for not throwing out ad homs. Glad to have a discussion with someone that doesn’t end in them accusing me of being a troy, conservative something or another simply because I disagree.

                      Have a good day, yo.

                • Jared …
                  19 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

                  Dishonest in saying that Mums and Dads will own the shares.
                  – I can assure that working in the financial services industry that there is definite interest across the board from financial advisers

                  Dishonest in saying that govt will keep 51% ownership.
                  – National could have sold down Air NZ – haven’t, who knows what they will do, who knows what Labour will do, you can’t hold either to their promises

                  Dishonest in saying that more people want the sales than don’t.
                  – look at the election results

                  Dishonest in claiming a mandate.
                  – look at the election results

                  Dishonest in claiming an increased majority at the election in support.
                  – look at the election results

                  • vto …
                    19 June 2012 at 9:44 pm

                    “Dishonest in saying that Mums and Dads will own the shares.
                    – I can assure that working in the financial services industry that there is definite interest across the board from financial advisers”

                    That’s not what I was referring to. Key knows full well they will end upin foreign hands, i.e. dishonest. Time will tell. Also, why no legislation setting that in place? Lies.

                    “Dishonest in saying that govt will keep 51% ownership.
                    – National could have sold down Air NZ – haven’t, who knows what they will do, who knows what Labour will do, you can’t hold either to their promises”

                    Pathetic. There is no cap to any party’s ownership – only control, which is entirely different. If you are in the financial services “industry” (whatever that is) then you will recognise this lie.

                    “Dishonest in saying that more people want the sales than don’t.
                    – look at the election results”

                    What for? More people don’t want the sales yet Key says the opposite. In fact he did it again today, referring to some farmers gathering as if it is some sort of poll ha ha ha. This is Key being dishonest again.

                    “Dishonest in claiming a mandate.
                    – look at the election results”

                    Big huge argument over that one – see elsewhere for arguments.

                    “Dishonest in claiming an increased majority at the election in support.
                    – look at the election results”

                    Dishonest again – look at the election results. The majority shrunk you fool. Lies.

                    But anyway, that is just the dishonesty side of the ledger. Perhaps you Jared can outline the honesty in these sales??? I’m all ears so fire away …

                    Oh, by the way Jared, you must have forgotten these two dishonesties. Or is that just you being dishonest as well ..

                    Dishonest in saying it is financially beneficial.

                    Dishonest in saying that power prices will reduce.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    20 June 2012 at 12:06 am

                    Financial investors are not necessarily (and probably even “not significantly”) mums and dads, in the folksy politician sense of the word meaning “median family swing voters”.

                    Talking about what the government “could have” done to further screw over an electorate that clearly disagreed with asset sales but still wanted a significant National bloc is incredibly disingenuous.

                    (and yes, polling suggested that the majority of voters did not want asset sales- and polling tends to over-represent elderly and wealthy voters, ie. people predisposed to vote National, Act, NZ First, or maybe Labour, so it’s likely that in terms of eligible voters, much more opposed the asset sales- they just either didn’t vote, or voted National despite disliking that policy for unrelated reasons)

                    It’s purely counterfactual to suggest that a government can have a mandate for an unpopular policy by winning an election. You get a mandate by the majority or relevant parts of the population supporting something. (by relevant, I generally mean “grassroots stakeholders”, eg. Maori on the issue of Maori representation or issues relating to Te Puni Kokere or Whanau Ora) National had a mandate to govern, but not a mandate for privatisation- whether partial or not.

                    Even if you want to argue that campaigning for something and winning despite it gives you a mandate, (which is ridiculous, that’s like arguing that arthritis caused you to win a race) National does not have a mandate under those standards, as United Future did not campaign for asset sales- their sole viable candidate merely equivocated on the issue during the election to leave room for the inevitable backroom dealing. And even then it’s still arguable that this does not represent a mandate, as both Act and United Future are electorate-only parties, who do not represent the party vote at all and thus none of their MPs can be relied upon to reflect public support in a way that represents all of the country accurately.

                    Face it, this is a policy that is about ideology and barely-disguised theft of resources from the general public on behalf of the (at least somewhat) wealthy, not public support, the budget, (which it demonstrably hurts on any reasonable timescale) the economy, or ownership of assets by ordinary kiwis. (We already owned them- purchasing something you already own collectively is nothing but redistributing assets- in this case to people wealthy enough to invest in them)

              • Draco T Bastard …
                19 June 2012 at 9:27 pm

                A mandate is gained through winning a parliamentary election which National did.

                No they didn’t.

                Therefore they have a mandate to carry out the policies they campaigned on – one of which is asset sales.

                No they don’t.

                The only reason this is going through is because of UF and UF didn’t campaign on selling them.

                • Ed …
                  19 June 2012 at 11:29 pm

                  In 2008, National got 1,053,398 party votes, and 58 seats
                  In 2011, National got 1,058, 636 party votes and 59 seats
                  Meanwhile, ACT got cannibalised by National and dropped from 5 seats to 1.

                  Only National spin could see that as a massive win

                  • Armchair Critic …
                    19 June 2012 at 11:54 pm

                    From what I can see, the percentage of registered voters who voted National decreased from 2008 to 2011.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      20 June 2012 at 12:20 am

                      This is correct, even though the raw number who voted for National went up slightly. Anyone who analysed the vote even slightly knows that National only got into power because the Labour vote was depressed- in short, National didn’t win, Labour lost.

                  • prism …
                    20 June 2012 at 9:58 am

                    Ed
                    It’s good to see the figures that back my own thinking. Massive swing, bah!
                    And those who repeat such myths – baa,baa. (To go with the dog of Ryall’s phony phinancial phix).

                  • Fortran …
                    20 June 2012 at 2:37 pm

                    Ed

                    Get real Ntional won under the MMP voted for system.
                    Change the system if you do not like it.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  19 June 2012 at 11:58 pm

                  Um, under a democratic system they do thanks to the morons who didn’t vote. They’re the people you should be blaming.

                • TheContrarian …
                  20 June 2012 at 8:34 am

                  National didn’t win the election?
                  Better update the wikipedia page pronto and advise them of the coup.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2011

                  • vto …
                    20 June 2012 at 8:38 am

                    ffs contrarian, National did not win the election. National, Act, UF and Maori Party together formed a government i.e. it was all of them together who won the election. Following your logic you could equally state that United Future won the election.

                    surely that is not too hard to grasp

                    • TheContrarian …
                      20 June 2012 at 8:50 am

                      Sorry, I was being slightly facetious. What I meant was national gained a mandate through a successful and lawful parliamentary process and its ability to form a government so it can enact policies it campaigned on. 

          • Murray Olsen 5.1.1.1.2
            20 June 2012 at 4:26 am

            Just because they told us they were going to do it doesn’t stop it being theft. It’s theft by false pretenses and is blatant, given that they’ve given about half a dozen different stories about what they plan to do with the money.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2
        19 June 2012 at 8:55 pm

        Yes, actually, it is – the people don’t want to sell and selling something that you don’t own without the owner wanting you to is theft.

        • TheContrarian 5.1.2.1
          19 June 2012 at 9:00 pm

          make your police complaint then. Good luck with it

        • Jared 5.1.2.2
          19 June 2012 at 9:03 pm

          The people? I seem to remember the last election delivering a result to National on a scale never seen before by a party since MMP was introduced, a result from an election that National campaigned on Asset Sales. So don’t try and tell me the people don’t want it, some don’t want it, not all, and certainly not a discernible majority

          • prism 5.1.2.2.1
            19 June 2012 at 9:13 pm

            Jared Just because National party zombies voted them in again because it’s a tradition, or whatever doesn’t mean that NACTs policies are automatically good for us all, or wise, or effective. You just can’t put your brain away for a year after making your New Year’s resolutions on January 1. No you have to think each day. Get it!

            • Jared 5.1.2.2.1.1
              19 June 2012 at 9:20 pm

              The Zombies are the core voters, the ones that contributed to National gaining just 27 seats back in 2002, how do you explain the doubling in support?

              Also, you assume that somehow a parties policy is always good for us, wise, or effective.
              I disagree with a number of policies across the board, including some of Nationals, doesn’t mean that because you think a policy is not good for us, unwise, or ineffective that others agree with you. Hence why an election is a good way to gauge support of specific policies is it not?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                19 June 2012 at 9:28 pm

                Hence why an election is a good way to gauge support of specific policies is it not?

                err no. I think you are thinking of referenda?

          • Armchair Critic 5.1.2.2.2
            19 June 2012 at 9:15 pm

            Unless you believe that when people vote for a party, they fully support all of that party’s policies, your comment is bullshit. And if you believe that, you are seriously deluded.

            • TheContrarian 5.1.2.2.2.1
              19 June 2012 at 9:17 pm

              Problem with that though is the people voted for a government that campaigned on asset sale
              Even Labour campaigned on “A vote for National is a vote for Asset Sales”.

              • Armchair Critic …
                19 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

                TC it’s pretty simple. Jared’s contention is that voting for a particular party is a total endorsement of all their policies. My contention is that voting for a particular party is something less specific and more individual, from an ingrained habit to a carefully considered and thoughtful decision based on an in depth analysis of the party’s policies, but most often a broad acceptance of the party’s key policy platforms.
                If you are sure that no one who voted National in 2011 opposes asset sales, I’m sure you are wrong.

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.2.3
            19 June 2012 at 9:22 pm

            Here’s a point: If UF didn’t vote to support the sales then the sales wouldn’t go through and UF didn’t campaign on selling the assets but on having a discussion about it (and are now trying to prevent us having that discussion). See, what that actually shows is a lack of support for sales.

            • TheContrarian 5.1.2.2.3.1
              19 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

              Jah sure but nonetheless they had the discussion and never ruled it out…so it’s a moot point.
              Anyway, good luck arguing, I am going to go drink beer and hang out with the wife.

              Good night everybody.

              “Good night Contrarian!”

              …still got it….

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                20 June 2012 at 12:22 am

                No, WE are having the discussion. If UF wants a “debate” during the campaign, that implies that they want Parliament to listen to what regular people and experts on the results of privatisation say- both of whom are solidly against this policy.

                They cannot then turn around and say “debate done, we don’t care about what they think” and expect to ever be taken seriously again. (not that anyone other than the few unfortunate voters stuck in Ohariu where enough of the electorate has the lamentable combination of more dollars than sense that causes them to vote for Peter Dunne ever did take him seriously)

  6. captain hook 6
    19 June 2012 at 8:56 pm

    it is theft if it doesn’t belong to you.
    Those assets belong to the people of new zealand and not some tinpot gang of manques, upstarts and parvenus who won the last popularity contest.

  7. Carol 7
    19 June 2012 at 9:02 pm

    And I thought Key and co have said many times that they are always positive, while Labour is always negative and attacking their opposition…?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      20 June 2012 at 1:15 am

      National says many things – they’re usually lying when they say them.

  8. prism 8
    19 June 2012 at 9:07 pm

    This approach of politicians saying they did it first or before or something is so childish that they should have to sit in the naughty seat for a week and not be allowed to vote or say anything.

  9. fatty 9
    19 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

    the stupidity of the red team doesn’t justify the greed of the blue team

  10. Rodel 10
    20 June 2012 at 1:04 am

    Matheww Whitehead
    When Labour makes that bold (heaven forbid) statement my respect
    for them will be re-ignited. If they continue to talk about mere wishy washy referendums (a) I’m unimpresed.

  11. captain hook 11
    20 June 2012 at 8:19 am

    how many new shirts has tony ryall bought since he has been in government?

  12. Adrian 12
    20 June 2012 at 8:58 am

    Its theft from those who will benefit most from future ownership… the disenfranchised under 18s. Hence, theft.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.