Hard News: A week being a long time in politics
333 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
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 -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
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? ;)
-
merc,
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. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Better economy = low wages + halved mortgages – bludgers
+ razor wire installers + concrete wall contractors + security personnel
-
Supplementary Member. -
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
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?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
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.
-
HenryB, in reply to
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.
-
merc,
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?
-
-
merc,
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? -
BenWilson, in reply to
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.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
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.
-
merc, in reply to
"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.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
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 -
Caleb D'Anvers, in reply to
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 ...
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Where's WikiLeaks when we most need it?
-
merc, in reply to
"Interesting reports about the lack of Nats talking to media."
Never complain, never explain.
Henry Ford -
Hebe, in reply to
Interesting reports about the lack of Nats talking to media.
It's the old campaign game of "Hide the Weasel".
-
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".
I never said it made them more efficient, just that I'm happy with such a large market as electricity in NZ, for there to be some competition. I don't believe that unfettered market capitalism is a good model, but nor would I be in favour of a government monopoly where you could only get your electricity from one supplier. Hence if there was a govt owned option and a private option, that would be a good mix for me. I like to be able to choose between a few options as to where I get my services from - I just switched to powershop from meridian electricity just last week.
My only proviso is that the market be sufficiently regulated to ensure that we move to sustainable generation, that supply be sufficiently guaranteed, and that the companies not be assholes to us.
If private companies can't invest sufficiently to provide sufficient service and make a reasonable profit, tough bikkies for them, but I doubt very much that capitalism can't find a good middle ground to deliver electricity to us and make money.
-
I don't believe that unfettered market capitalism is a good model, but nor would I be in favour of a government monopoly where you could only get your electricity from one supplier.
I'm not sure how happily the two can co-exist, given that government suppliers can leverage government support to give them a colossal advantage over private. Private electricity supply is not illegal in this country, so there must be a reason that it doesn't just spontaneously form - the main one I see is that such projects are highly risky, with low return, for long periods of time, so investors just aren't to be found. Once they are built, and have a proven revenue stream, like our current ones, of course plenty of people are happy to privatize those profits.
-
merc, in reply to
Once they are built, and have a proven revenue stream, like our current ones, of course plenty of people are happy to privatize those profits.
There is the nub. It's about initial investment, who carries the can and who profits from it. Privatise the profit, publicise the debt. Clyde is a very good example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Dam owned by Contact Energy now, Origin Energy (Au) has a 51% holding. Now take a look at all those power stations it owns in NZ (9).
Read how much money the NZ tax payer put into developing those power stations. Read National's involvement.
Follow the money ;-)
History
Contact Energy was incorporated on 8 November 1995 and became a state owned enterprise on 18 November 1995.[4] Contact commenced operations on 1 February 1996, acquiring assets from ECNZ with a payment of $1.6 billion.[4] As the founding chief executive, Paul Anthony was instrumental in establishing the corporation distinct from ECNZ.
In 1999, the company was sold in a public offering of shares, with 40% purchased by Edison Mission Energy (EME) as cornerstone shareholder. EME subsequently increased its shareholding to 51%.
Following financial difficulties elsewhere in its business, EME onsold its shareholding to Origin Energy in 2004.
During the 2008 financial crisis, Contact decided to increase prices by up to 12%, while doubling its directors' fees. As a result, it lost more than 40000 customers in six months - 10% of the total. Its profit was halved. Contact calls this the worst blow to its reputation in the company's history.[5][6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_Energy
Deja voodoo.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.