Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9

1771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#658906 20-Jul-2012 09:45

John2010:
Brendan: My partner recently received a survey from the National Party in the mail box.

It's a curious thing on closer inspection - it wants you to tick the three issues that are important to you, and provides a list.

All of the options are pretty clearly stated, and clear in their meaning. Except one.

Selling minority shares in four energy SOEs and Air New Zealand

Now, the thing I note about this one 'issue' is how ambiguously it is worded. It is worded so that it can be interpreted in two mutually exclusive ways:
1. it's important to sell the assets, and I am interested in this.
2. the selling is important because it shouldn't happen.

Is national trying to 'game' the survey such that the results can be interpreted in any way they wish? Imagine all the people who might interpret it as (2) above and these are counted as 'support' for the sale.

Why are they ramming it through - there is no doubt it not wanted? Why this ambiguous 'survey'? Why a survey now, at all (timing)?

The question seems perfectly clear to me. Is selling the shares an important issue for you or not? If your partner thinks the same as you do, and it is hard to imagine that they would not else life would be hell in your household, then the issue is important to them. So the answer is "Yes".

Now from your view point I can understand your suspicion due to the far left's dependance on indoctination, guided democracy, distortions, misrepresentations, tricking of the gullible, etc, but I think your suspicion in the above case is completely misguided.

I think you're being very naive, if you think answering 'yes' to that question will not be included in the 'people voting in favour' of column.

khull

1245 posts

Uber Geek

#658911 20-Jul-2012 09:49

keewee01:
johnr: Brendan are you calling the people that voted for national stupid?

I think a more accurate statement would be that those who strongly opposed asset sales, but still voted National were foolish.

Now that would make an interesting straw poll... curious to see how it stacks up.

Funnily enough I call National voters Republicans.

SaltyNZ

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#658912 20-Jul-2012 09:50

Zeon: Can someone tell me why the government should be involved

Because the government is (in theory) not out to make maximum short term profits at any cost, unlike a for-profit company.

relatively low barriers to entry?

(Inigo Montoya voice:) I do not think it means what you think it means.

Or, to put it another way, yeah, I was cleaning out the couch the other day and found a spare billion dollars. I should invest!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

nutbugs

269 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#658915 20-Jul-2012 09:56

Is national trying to 'game' the survey such that the results can be interpreted in any way they wish?

Of course they are - as does every political party wanting to present their position in the best light. These "surveys" are always presented in a way that makes it easy to sidestep any negative response so they can claim the majority support the latest hair brained scheme! :)

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#658936 20-Jul-2012 10:19

jonb:
John2010:
The question seems perfectly clear to me. Is selling the shares an important issue for you or not? If your partner thinks the same as you do, and it is hard to imagine that they would not else life would be hell in your household, then the issue is important to them. So the answer is "Yes".

Now from your view point I can understand your suspicion due to the far left's dependance on indoctination, guided democracy, distortions, misrepresentations, tricking of the gullible, etc, but I think your suspicion in the above case is completely misguided.

I think you're being very naive, if you think answering 'yes' to that question will not be included in the 'people voting in favour' of column.

You are entitled claim I am "very naive", however, the question asked is perfectly clear and if the responses were to be incorrectly used then that would be the time to become concerned.

I am positive that if you are sure of your own and the original poster's suspicious stance, then I can assure you that you will get far more political milage using the facts as they turn out to be, should your suspicions be realised, rather than just prejudging now that the responses are going to be, or are likely to be used in an improper way.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#658940 20-Jul-2012 10:27

John2010:
jonb:
John2010:
The question seems perfectly clear to me. Is selling the shares an important issue for you or not? If your partner thinks the same as you do, and it is hard to imagine that they would not else life would be hell in your household, then the issue is important to them. So the answer is "Yes".

Now from your view point I can understand your suspicion due to the far left's dependance on indoctination, guided democracy, distortions, misrepresentations, tricking of the gullible, etc, but I think your suspicion in the above case is completely misguided.

I think you're being very naive, if you think answering 'yes' to that question will not be included in the 'people voting in favour' of column.

You are entitled claim I am "very naive", however, the question asked is perfectly clear and if the responses were to be incorrectly used then that would be the time to become concerned.

I am positive that if you are sure of your own and the original poster's suspicious stance, then I can assure you that you will get far more political milage using the facts as they turn out to be, should your suspicions be realised, rather than just prejudging now that the responses are going to be, or are likely to be used in an improper way.

The question is clear, but not specific. The problem arises that the same answer can be ambiguously used to support which ever side of the argument you want it to - and hence it is a farce.

The next question should have been, If 'Yes' then are you Pro or Anti the partial asset sales.

gundar

488 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#658954 20-Jul-2012 10:51

To my knowledge and memory, National was the only party that refused to work with Winston.

Instant win.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#658958 20-Jul-2012 10:57

khull:
keewee01:
johnr: Brendan are you calling the people that voted for national stupid?

I think a more accurate statement would be that those who strongly opposed asset sales, but still voted National were foolish.

Now that would make an interesting straw poll... curious to see how it stacks up.

Funnily enough I call National voters Republicans.

I have a name for Labour and Green voters....

those with opposing views to myself.

Shall we leave the name calling being us?

jonb

1771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#658959 20-Jul-2012 10:59

gundar: To my knowledge and memory, National was the only party that refused to work with Winston.

Instant win.

I'm sure they'd change their mind pretty quickly if it was down to having them in their coalition to be able to form a government, or no longer be in power (Just like what labour would do, too.)Once you get beyond the personalities, the political stance of both parties is actually quite similar. Much more so than National-Maori party.

Back on topic, the question is ambiguous, so in order to answer it you need to note the motives of the questioner.

If the same question was asked in a Labour party survey, you should be equally as sceptical.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#659017 20-Jul-2012 12:34

Brendan: My partner recently received a survey from the National Party in the mail box.

It's a curious thing on closer inspection - it wants you to tick the three issues that are important to you, and provides a list.

All of the options are pretty clearly stated, and clear in their meaning. Except one.

Selling minority shares in four energy SOEs and Air New Zealand

Now, the thing I note about this one 'issue' is how ambiguously it is worded. It is worded so that it can be interpreted in two mutually exclusive ways:
1. it's important to sell the assets, and I am interested in this.
2. the selling is important because it shouldn't happen.

Is national trying to 'game' the survey such that the results can be interpreted in any way they wish? Imagine all the people who might interpret it as (2) above and these are counted as 'support' for the sale.?

Why are they ramming it through - there is no doubt it not wanted? Why this ambiguous 'survey'? Why a survey now, at all (timing)?

The survey question simply asks whether the issue is important to you or not; regardless of your views on the issue. The only data they can gather from this question is the extrapolated portion of population actually care about the issue.

I think the timing of the survey is very important because of the media coverage on the 'level of disagreement' from the New Zealand population, in my opinion, is overblown. The number of people who actually mind or truly understand the implications of the SOE partial sales is likely very small. A few loud minorities have gained media attention in y opinion.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#659060 20-Jul-2012 13:30

1080p: ...I think the timing of the survey is very important because of the media coverage on the 'level of disagreement' from the New Zealand population, in my opinion, is overblown. The number of people who actually mind or truly understand the implications of the SOE partial sales is likely very small. A few loud minorities have gained media attention in y opinion.

+1

And the same loud minorities turn up wherever there is a cause that suits them to promote. Usual irrational activist stuff and puff, and the followers with a ring in their nose and no economic, social or business sense get led to the cleaners by them.

I'll give them credit that on the "assets" matter they have given up claiming there is any social need to keep them, in the main now claiming they should be kept for their dividends. Should that argument have any merit then any sensible investor will know that if one is going to hold a portfolio of stocks then it should be diversified to mamage risk and maximise the return. At the moment the portfolio is not diversified it being strongly energy biased (and that predominantly electricity generation), risky (Air NZ), and a dog (Kiwibank, which in over 10 years has never returned a dividend and soaked over half a billion dollars - as of end 2010 - out of taxpayers' pockets to keep it going, and still crying out for more).

So lets hear from them, if they think their argument is rational and not just based on emotional attachment (a guaranteed failure attitude for an investor to hold), as to how the "asset" portfolio should be managed to maximise return with appropriate risk - what should be sold and what should be purchased (or for the far left what should be nationalised), and how big to create such a sound portfolio.

When I have asked that question privately of the "don't sell our family silver" claimers I have just got a blank stare, they have no concept whatever as to what was meant, so their claim was irrational

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#659061 20-Jul-2012 13:31

It's a survey to produce statistics which as wel all know can be massaged to prove whatever they feel like. There is not going to be any outcome which will be beneficial to anyone other than the party and their supporters.

My g/f got the survey and I'm fairly confident that she didn't vote for them. Given the irrelevancy of it all, it went into the round file.

The immense profit Telecom (at least until recently) suggest to me how incompetent the government is\was at running a large corporation. Whether they should continue to do so in the existing cases and actually get people that know what they're doing to be in charge is beyond my ken. I don't know one way or another if it's a "good thing" or not, but I know that I don't trust largely unqualified MPs to make the big decisions. Given that they don't listen to the public, I don't see how anyone can win.

@KnightNZ

Byrned

455 posts

Ultimate Geek

#659064 20-Jul-2012 13:37

SaltyNZ:
Zeon: Can someone tell me why the government should be involved

Because the government is (in theory) not out to make maximum short term profits at any cost, unlike a for-profit company.

I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways, and you have taken an incredibly narrow view of this.

Firstly, one of the main arguments behind why we shouldn't have asset sales is because future dividends will be lost. Dividends can only be paid if a profit is made, hence your argument is invalid.

Secondly, successful companies take a long term view, so it's not profits at any cost. Lets use a company that just happens to be a power company as an example. Contact energy's prices weren't competitive as they increased the rate at which they paid their directors, and maintained their dividend streams to shareholders, at the same time as the market was becoming more competitive. Results was that customers left. They reacted and are now one of the cheaper companies (not the cheapest - depends on where you live). If it didn't do this, its share price would've fallen and perhaps become a traget to be taken over.

This is a result of the free market, and oversight by regulators. Who owns it does not make a difference. But being listed on the sharemakret does require more oversight than either a private company (SOE or private). It will also expand our capital markets, which is a good thing (unless you believe the Government should own everything). I believe it will also encourage innovation amongst the companies as they respond to the desires of their customers as they try to grow their businesses, and hopefully they'll expand into markets overseas, exporting kiwi innovation and bring in some export dollars.

The stupid thing is, this has become such a big issue and it's really not. It has become an emotive issue. If you haven't guessed by now I'm in favour of this, but if it wasn't happening it wouldn't worry me. So some schools won't get upgraded straight away. Maybe Kiwirail doesn't get the extra money it needs right away. Personally I would rather see the political capital that is being used on this instead being used for massive tax breaks and other incentives for overseas tech companies to setup R&D and manufacturing facilities in NZ. Sure you don't get the tax off of the companies but you get the PAYE off the employees and GST take as well. Unfortunately I think too many people will scream that this is the right looking after big business rather than see it as a way to get overseas business to invest.

As for the OP - I guess like many survey question it can be taken many ways, but I do see it as a are you in favour or now.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#659074 20-Jul-2012 13:51

My partner and I were talking over this issue last night, and I think that a lot of the Nay-sayers are actually talking down the potential share prices to snap them up at a cheaper price!

I for one will be purchasing shares should the become available at a lower than market rate as I see it as a fairly safe bet. These companies can't fail!

trig42

5809 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#659103 20-Jul-2012 14:18

Yes and No.

While I agree that NZ should not have voted them in when they disclosed they were going to sell the assets, they did. And why they did that puzzled me a lot because clearly the majority do not want this.

So I arrived at this: People are stupid.

Just came into this, saw it earlier today but generally steer clear of anything political on internet forums, but, this statement annoys the p@!s out of me.

How do you know 'clearly the majority do not want this'? Because a vocal crowd is jumping up and down?
I think National got in at the last election with the largest share of the vote ever in an MMP election.
There will be a chance for all the bleaters (the so called majority) to remedy this in 2014, if they can be bothered showing up to the polling booth. Until then, let the government, which went to the polls for a mandate, govern.

Yes, I did vote National. I was aware at the time what a Partial Sell Down of State Owned Assets was. I don't think I am stupid.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9