"Is anyone else puzzled by poll results that show most New Zealanders don’t want the sale of state assets, yet most New Zealanders will vote for a National government?
It doesn’t add up. JOIN THE DOTS NEW ZEALANDERS. If we don’t want state assets sold, then don’t vote for the party that wants to sell state assets.
If New Zealanders are thinking we can have it both ways, that retaining a majority share of fifty one per cent in state assets means that we’re not really selling the assets, then think again. Minority share holders have rights, particularly those holding over twenty five percent. Their ownership cannot be prejudiced by the decisions of the majority share holders. RETAINING A FIFTY ONE PERCENT SHARE IN THE ASSET MEANS WE HAVE SOLD THE ASSET."
Denny at Look Up At The Sky, describes the truly strange situation we find ourselves in right now. We don't want to sell, yet we seem to be going to vote to sell.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXEZgh-l1uk
Jeanette Fitzsimons explains why NZ must vote against asset sales especially Solid Energy
Please share this widely if you care about the future of NZ
Perhaps a poll comparing those who don't want to sell 100% with those who are happy with selling a minority share up to 49% would be useful?
Political capital, aint it a bitch?
The simple reality is that NZers think that National can lead and the left can't, that's as complicated as it gets.
The left have only offered "we won't do that" and seriously think that equates to sound policy and good leadership?
The more the media and the political left try to demonize Key, the more they will drive people to vote national.
Nzers are sick of being told what to think, and the arrogance and 'born to lead' nonsense from the left is (quite incredibly) still alive and kicking.
I don't like the fact that National has such weak opposition, and I certainly don't like the idea of asset sales, but those concerns pail into insignificance compared to the possibility of the current Labour party and Winton friggin Peters forming a government.
That was 'Winston' friggin Peters!!
I am sure 'Winton' is a fine location! :)
Shunda - despite National's stated intention to sell assets, you'd still vote for them?
I'm astonished!
saltcellar - I doubt it. Everyone has seen through the 'we're only selling a little bit' argument. The danger is, that the minority shareholders will have leverage to influence the companies, especially where they have the international court to back up their claims of disadvantage as a result of public pressure. If NZlanders decide they don't want to dig up lignite after all, NZ will end up in that court and compensation payed to the foreign shareholders will be paid from the public purse that's us tax-payers!
As well, National intends to sell more assets than just the few named so far. Bright future, eh!
Shunda said, "The left have only offered "we won't do that" and seriously think that equates to sound policy and good leadership?"
That's complete nonsense, Shunda! Labour, the party you love to hate, have presented many real and bold policies. Have you not heard of the Capital Gains Tax proposal? Have you not been listening to discussions around the retirement age? How on earth can you say, " The left have only offered "we won't do that"
Oh come on Robert!, Labour can promise the world due to their miserable polling, but unfortunately can not deliver it (and know they won't have to worry about delivering it).
And why do you equate me seeing the reality of the situation as a vote for National?
It's time to get real Robert, until that happens there won't be a viable alternative to the staus quo.
I am worried about you on election night, I am concerned you are placing yourself in a bit of a bubble of irrational optimism.
And for the record, I plan to vote Labour in my electorate, because I see their candidate as the better option.
Party vote undecided (but won't be Labour!!)
And Robert, I am a little shocked that you see the blatantly corrupt and racist Mr Peters as a useful ally, because unlike Key, there is a hell of a lot of real evidence that Mr Peters is a scum bag.
Shunda - seems to me that Labour aren't 'promising the world', but instead are offering some quite difficult solutions to the problems ahead. Hardly a lolly-scramble Goff's putting out there!
You don't think that Goff will rule out asset sales? Your disbelief allows you to favour Key, who that makes it clear that he will? Topsy-turvey, your world :-)
Welcome to reality.
You may see it as topsy turvey, I just see it as the way it is.
Doesn't mean I like it, but pretending it 'aint so' is hardly going to change the current situation.
You yourself are actually doing the same thing, there are aspects of the Green party that are clearly at odds with what I learned on my trip to Riverton.
Why is it ok for you and not for me?
Reality is a funny thing, for instance, the past few months I have seen first hand the pain and heartache that the Pike river disaster placed on the families of the dead, I have heard how they feel about the govt and the corporate ethics that are responsible for their situation.
Where are the politicians? where are the journalists?
More interested in cups of tea from a Key, you see.
It makes me sick, there are real issues that won't be touched because it is all just a wee bit too close to reality.
saltcellar at 11.13am said:
"Perhaps a poll comparing those who don't want to sell 100% with those who are happy with selling a minority share up to 49% would be useful?"
robertguyton at 11.58am said:
"saltcellar - I doubt it."
I agree, Robert. Safer to assume the numbers are the same rather than risk losing our arguement by letting people say what they think.
Shunda - your beef seems to be with politics and politicians, rather than parties and policies. Is that a fair statement?
green4evaandvariousotherpremutations
saltcellar/you said, 'perhaps', which I took to mean you were not certain, undecided, vascillating perhaps, and so answered, 'I doubt it' in an equally non-committal way. Not a 'no', but a 'maybe'.
There's a difference between 49% and 100%, for sure, but as '100%' isn't being discussed, I'm not sure why saltcellar sees the need to make the comparison. Do you? My point is, the poll asked about '49%'.
What is even odder RG is that BillE is planning on selling them to our retirement fund so that we end up in the interestingly circuitous situation of buying something we already own so that we can then pay our retirement investment funds more than it cost us to own them so that our retirement funds can pay for our retirement and the retirement fund administrators a nice profit and BillE can then spend our retirement funds on something else. It is a devious waay for govt to get its hands on our retirement savings without having to pay interest - we will pay the interest through our power bills.
This is even stupider than selling assets.
Darkhorse - I'd pay for tickets for a debate between your dark self and BillE.
Any chance of setting up such an entertainment? While you're at it, invite Key and take him apart as hors d'oeuvres.
Post a Comment