The whole thing is so complex I am in awe how John has simplified it,
Johnkey understands these things, didn't he work for one of those firms behind Enron?
Not that I’m defending asset sales, but I don’t think they are planning on actually shipping the power stations overseas.
No, just the extra profits from the “re-structured” pricing.
And, quite frankly, do think “publish and damn the consequences” is a big part of what’s wrong with tabloid media culture in the UK?
ooo goody can we also have a slippery slope argument as well.
It's a frigging meeting between two politicians that was staged event from go to whoa. They then said some stupid shit without making certain the mics were off or here's a thought going somewhere private.
How it isn't a proper subject for the public is beyond me but I'm sure you can come up with another slippery slope argument or a sneer about mere posters not being people with real jobs in the media.
Sure it would have cost money to defend and it would have cost brownie points with the man who is clearly going to be the next PM of NZ - but frankly we used to have a media willing to take that kind of punt for the public interest.
the public interest
now only refers to what we pay
I find the fascination about what Key and Banks talked about a diversion. Banks has been explicit on his views of democacy. He joined a party that in its manifesto says;
'Cannabis legislation is a human rights issue. ACT believes that the State should not interfere with the informed choices of adults which do not damage others. Freedom applies even if there is a strong view that the chosen conduct is self damaging.' from their website
Banks says there will be no consideration given to changing these laws while he is involved with ACT. So much for democracy or the beliefs of the party he is part of.
It would be understandable if Banks was against humans behaving as humans do when it comes to altering consiousness, but I believe he owns a few hotels dispensing harmful mind altering substances, so his opposition cannot be on on health grounds. I feel then he is concerned about the effect law changes would have on his business and this would be anti free trade. The implication that he seeks election to use the power as a lawmaker to protect his business couild be described as corrupt. And that the primeminister coludes in this and seeks to assist him in this demonstrates John Keys morallity. Not really the sort of behavior we need running the country.
John Key Inc is so many types of wrong Wrong WRONG!
Gah, leaders debate thingy, how did it get to the place where a PM sounds like an investment banker who sees people as lazy work dodgers who may well be another species for all the empathy he can muster.
So many things, the main thing, the main difference between the two is that one answered all questions clearly with steps they would take, the other obfuscated, leered, avoided and ranted petulantly (if I hear him say 9 years again).
63% in favour of Key, has Farrar got that many cellphones?
Oh and the Hobbit law was not your finest moment John and you should really know why. And why STV does not provide more women and minorities in parliament, pfffft
Key Inc. does not want to work with the Greens. Johnny wants Johnny wants Donny . What an Act. Spinners. Plus he prefers S an' M. Sadist? ;)
Oops SM, the funny thing was when he would expansively spread his hands and give the...look here's how it is, speech, all fake gravitas with the...what we need, speech.
Neither speech type produced one single, how, speech.
Better economy = low wages + halved mortgages - bludgers
Nice math, shame about the pointy tinfoil hat.
Better economy = low wages + halved mortgages – bludgers
+ razor wire installers + concrete wall contractors + security personnel
A shareholder, or group of shareholders, can sue the controlling shareholder for not maximising profits, thus putting more pressure on homes and business.
I believe that's not true - I asked that previously on here and Graeme said that wasn't the case.
I wouldn't mind some selling of our energy assets if there was some sort of national interest or business sense behind it. I find it strange that we own several energy companies - surely we should own one larger one, and have two or three private ones for competition. A bit of selling and buying to ensure that what we owe covers the whole country and allows competition across the whole country would make sense to me.
Selling energy assets to cover deferred maintenance on schools? The list of people that makes sense to is very short.
I believe that's not true
I believe you'll find our various international trade agreements complicate the situation, but wasn't there a case involving minority shareholders in Air NZ?
I wouldn't mind some selling of our energy assets if there was some sort of national interest or business sense behind it. I find it strange that we own several energy companies - surely we should own one larger one,
And then you go and spoil it all by saying something like "and have two or three private ones for competition." thus repeating the failed mantra that the private sector and the magic beans of "competition" will make power companies "efficient". It has been proven that this is, demonstrably, not true in the slightest. You cannot take money out of a system, as "profit" and still have that system run at maximum efficiency, you know, thermodynamics an' all that.
But this policy is truly awful.
Campbell has written a follow up analysis of the asset sale: it is truly worrying reading and I completely agree with you that even National, if they had not locked themselves and their credibility into this policy, would be having a serious rethink of it.
It's fine, JK was an investment banker, he said so last night.
Stuff headline: Goff alleges National has secret police plan.
Or maybe a panda eats, shoots and leaves?
Time for some finer detail. Who gets the hydro power stations? Who gets the aluminium smelter? Will we be bailing out Comalco? What does a 10% limit mean, how will it affect the share price, how he will he guarantee it, and if the Govt. will be retaining 51% will they be appointing the CEO and running the partially sold companies?
For some strange reason I am reminded of high country leases, the old battle.
When Key says money from the sales will go to water, who will benefit?
When Key says he takes advice from private entities, has he been talking with Fay?
What is the difference from the Crayfar farms Chinese deal?
Why has no one mentioned that Auckland Council leased it's bus lanes to an off shore firm and that failed because they would not invest in buses or drivers? And only wanted to run the profitable bus lanes so we propped them up anyway?
Who else has Key been talking with regarding asset sales, any offshore banks?
Will they grant iron sand mining as part of the sale agreements, i.e. what component parts of the assets include prospecting rights?
Why no referendum?
What does a 10% limit mean
I can answer that one. It means nothing. If 10 guys who are all mates get 4.9% each, that means that 49% is owned by something that works like a single entity, no matter what the theoretical limits on individual power are. There is never a safeguard against private deals between private owners. It's hard enough to safeguard against the government making private deals, any attempt to be privy to such things leads to potential criminal charges, as the teapot tape saga clearly showed.
Will I be granted recorce concent to build a Small nuclear powered generator.
Will the 21st century schools be built from the proceeds of asset sales, be built in east Porirua, and will they have espresso machines and leather armchairs in the staff room.
If 10 guys who are all mates
Establish 10 companies in New Zealand. Each company is a separate entity. Each company has a board of directors who happen to all be the same people. The companies have zero assets. Each company borrows money from an overseas investor to buy shares in Genesis Energy. The overseas investor is the same for each company.
"Will the 21st century schools be built from the proceeds of asset sales, be built in east Porirua, and will they have espresso machines and leather armchairs in the staff room."
No, but they may have a sort of fast-ish broader bandie thingy, that we may have had for them sooner had Telecom not been, erm, privatimised.
Yes, many arrangements would work.
But, uh, we don't know any of this since the Ombudsman has said we can't see the documents. However she will confirm that Treasury was not asked about the 10% cap. This will be because some one just made it up at Tuesday lunchtime but Key apparently "shrugged" off any concerns about it. WTF, we don't actually work for you bub. You do have to tell us stuff occasionally.
Interesting reports about the lack of Nats talking to media. A cunning plan and very sensible in this government's case
Completely brilliant - I've never heard that version before. Thanks for sharing! Still giggling at it.
No problem. I pretty much lost it the first time I heard it, too. And that was before my train commute took me through Watford Junction on a regular basis ...