THE SELL-OFF DEBATE CONTINUES: The election may be over but the debate over asset sales continues. Does National have a mandate for asset sales? Will their coalition partners United Future, ACT and possibly the Maori parties be a great influence on what is sold? Will the opposition hold much sway? What protections will be in place to make sure the majority stake in the assets stay in Kiwi hands?
A TIME FOR GIVING: Tis’ the season for giving. But are we only opening our wallets for more crap we don’t need or are we helping our fellow man? Are we a charitable nation? Are our corporations giving? What about the common man? Are we generous? Should we be encouraging one another to give either with time or money? Is it time to offer tax credits to encourage us to give?
LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 7th of December. Our Panel: Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, Labour MP Andrew Little, National MP David Bennett.
Trev – I find it interesting that the left claim the Nats don’t have a mandate despite the most people voting the the Nats ever. As was debated endlessly – the contest of ideas – partial sell down vs no sale of assets ever.
Sorry but you know in elections it is winner takes all. And in this case the winner is the Nats who were honest and said if we win we will sell. Can I quote Michhael Cullen here and say what he famously sneered once upon a time – actually I don’t need to you have got the message.
In respect of giving – I think NZ has given till it bleeds. Look no further than the generousity of the people and corporations for the victims of Christchurch and Pike River. But we as a country have also got sick of giving to those who are not making the effort to own their own lives and sponge off the taxpayer for their existance. One of the tough calls sitting out there is yes we will help people when they are down as a country through welfare, but not as a lifestyle choice. And I think you can take it as read that your ill considered policy on being more generous to the welfare classes went down like a bucket of cold sick to those of us who bust out gut working hard and making the right life choices but getting constantly called a sponger by your party when you whined constantly about a Fair tax system. Here is something for nothing Trev – those of us working 50 odd hours a week (husband and wife with kids) and paying $40,000 or more in taxes are paying more than their share already and we get more than a little annoyed being told we are getting richer at the expense of others. We – the middle classes are already paying way more than our fair share – so when it comes to generousity at Christmas I think I’ll stick to the needs of my family and those closest to me.
Many in our country this Christmas will barely be able to have treats for Christmas let alone give. I think of single Superannuants, the older single unemployed, the invalids and the working families on minimum wage.
Renumeration for many people is no way reflective of the cost of living in this country the only way they survive is because the Govt gives welfare to employers. That is working for families. Working for families enables employers to pay low wages. Without working for families the working poor would be on the street.
I am sad as a senior that our standard of living for so many has sunk so low. Never in my lifetime have I seen such a huge gap between the haves and the have nots. Our country is split right down the middle. 50% of us dont give a hoot about the poor according the the polls. I guess they were the ones who voted for returning the Govt who will will sell our family silver to retain their tax cuts for the rich. Who will sell the family silver to their mates. ( the average mum and dad have no money to buy shares)
I can’t believe how many people have fallen for JKs spin.
Monty I know you have shares in Contact and are no doubt dying to buy more, but the sale of ‘necessary- for -life’ assets should never have been included as a simple ‘policy” of a party in an election, the ‘sale ‘should be decided by referendum only.
The election itself is important enough. Once every three years we are entitled to vote and make the serious and important decision concerning who should govern us. That is quite enough to think about , without the inclusion of having to consider a ‘death penalty’ for some in our thinking(ie. those who can’t afford heat under asset stripping).
As I was voting I knew I was voting for the party I preferred, as well as considering my electorate vote. However, I knew I was having no voice really in the ‘asset’ vote, it just seemed that way, not like having a real vote for MMP in the referendum I also had to think about.
You state that’winner takes all’. This is not a game, nor should it be a war. Your purile,simplistic,glee is out of place. The eventual raising of electricity prices for your profit and delight is unpardonable, as this will undoubtably hasten the demise of many who cannot afford adequate heating. Shame on you for not thinking of your fellow humans as you justify your greed.
Sica – you keep talking about the prices rising under the partial mixed ownership model – but you conveniently fail to explain then why electricity went up a massive 72% under labour over nine years.
The asets will still be there in 20 years time and still be providing electricity to the public much the same as BP Mobil Caltex Gull and Z provide the fuel for our cars. People will beome more efficient with their energy use as prices do inevitably rise, but you are talking cliches when you say people will not be able to afford electricity. When I was a student in the 1980′s we couldnt afford electricity – it has always been and will always be a issue for some people.
Like it or not the election is a winner takes all. It was the case during the Labour years, and now is during the National years. That is what elections are about. There might be agreement behind the scenes in select committees but in the cut and thurst and key issues those with the votes get to decide. Why should for example the Nats now say oh we won’t partially sell the assets becausee the left dont like us to. In fact National now has a moral obligation to fulfill their election promises and that includes the partial sell down. Scream all you like on the left, but those who woted for the Nats knew they were giving them the mandate. I love success and I love the fact I will be able to buy shares into (and hold long term) shares in our infrastructure companies. Should i be denied that opportunity now because Labour who lost the election have a objection which was supported by the minority?
Have no problem with the mandate argument Monty. Just haven’t heard an explanation of how it benefits NZ to reduce its dividends AND see those lost dividends leave our economy and enter an overseas economy. Money-flow within our economy is crucial during economic hard times. This is why, like it or not, tax breaks for lower incomes is better during recessions because they spend the money on luxuries like food, medical trips, clothes. Higher incomes reduce debt (which is important) BUT removes money from the economy when it needs it most. You cant remove money from circulation in the economy AND promise to create jobs.
You’re not saying you support partial asset sales because you see an opportunity for a good return for yourself (clarification not accusation).
“In fact National now has a moral obligation to fulfill their election promises ” Yikes, you didn’t mind the broken promises of term one.