Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

455 posts

Ultimate Geek

#659119 20-Jul-2012 14:31

trig42:
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.

heh - I went past this one thinking "I'll let it pass" but I agree with you.

Does it just make one uninformed if they are against the majority of voters, or does it make one in denial? Or is it just arrogance?

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#659153 20-Jul-2012 14:59

Byrned:

Long post about Salty's invalid narrow minded argument.

Actually I am in favor of the sale. Firstly it's only a partial sale and the government retains a controlling interest so if there are any dividends we still get some.

Secondly when preaching the free market it is wise to consider the Californian electricity industry. Full privatization was disastrous. Companies indeed put short term interests ahead of long term public benefit and soaring prices and long rolling blackouts were the result.

The partial sale gives us a good balance. Some up front assistance to clear debt as well as some long term benefit retained, and the govnment can still check the worst excesses of short sighted management. But the person that I was answering was asking a "why wouldn't you?" question, and that is one very good reason why not, especially for critical infrastructure like electricity generation and distribution.

The government should retan a controlling interest in at least one telco, water supply, and bank, too, for the same reason. Not to make a huge profit, but to help stabilize a critical sector so as not to let it get out of control and collapse.

Regulation is another option but does nothing to help new products and services to market. It's regressive.

Edit -- iPad autocorrect fail.

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

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

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#659172 20-Jul-2012 15:32

It's pretty simple really. National was voted in on this policy, so they have a mandate to do it. Where were these protesters at the election. I don't really agree with it,as I don't think it solves any problems, but they were voted in on it. The good thing with it is that it will give kiwisaver something to invest in locally.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659342 20-Jul-2012 22:49

dickytim: I disagree Brandon.

Asset sales do work, Labour and the Greens just want you to believe they don't, they refer to Queensland rail as their example but completely forget Tesltra, SEC (State Electricity Commision in Victoria), QANTAS and a number of other companies in Australia.

I was wondering when the conspiracy theorists would arrive. I see i have attracted quite a few. I'll soon be accused of being a 'leftist' or something no doubt...

Asset sales don't work here in New Zealand. We've had them before and the only people that were happy with them were the Yanks.

I voted for National on the selling off of these assets in the election and pulled my vote from Act to try and seal it.

National creamed Labour in the election so I would suggest the protests etc against asset sales are the loud majority as the silent majority are busy at work!

We have two opposing majorities? Fascinating.

Alternatively, we had a lot of people who wanted National to run the country but also didn't want them to sell the assets. Polls at the time were quite clear - asset sales even amoungst long term National supporters were unpopular IIRC.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659343 20-Jul-2012 22:50

gzt:
Brendan: 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.

In the first term National was moderated by the balance of power in parliament and Key's own sensible strategy of not relying on Act so as not to be identified with their policies. Some voters may have half-expected another half-agreement with the Greens and continued coalition with the Maori party like last time. This time around the Maori party is a more reliable National support partner without Harawira. Another big factor - a fair number of usually Labour supporting voters not voting at all this time around.

Interesting POV. Thanks.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659344 20-Jul-2012 22:52

ajw: What gets me is the 800,000 or so lazy people who didn't bother to get off their complacent backsides and vote at the last election but are now moaning about asset sales. I am against asset sales and voted at the last election.

And now we have the psychic.

Please provide scientific and peer reviewed proof that the "800,0000" who did not vote are the same people who are now "moaning" amout asset sales.

I'll not hold my breath eh.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659345 20-Jul-2012 22:54

SaltyNZ: The one we received asked what was the most important *local* issue. Being a Rodney resident, I replied 'The fact that your government endorses a dawn raid by police armed with automatic weapons in helicopters to arrest a man accused of helping other people copy DVDs.'

Honestly, if that s*** doesn't scare you...

Lol, yes that is a whole other thread on it's own. The collusion of our government in bully-boy illegal raids at the say so of the yanks.

Brilliant. But best in another thread.

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.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659347 20-Jul-2012 23:00

Zeon: Can someone tell me why the government should be involved in a sector that has many competitors and relatively low barriers to entry? They should all be completely sold and no more of the government demanding big dividends which is probably a major driver in pushing up prices and not letting the companies be competitive.

Ahh, the infamous Market Economy cult shows its head again.

Please demonstrate the Government DEMANDING big dividends. Official sources only.

Please demonstrate that the Government is not allowing the many already private companies to be competitive.

It's another post I will not hold my breath waiting for...

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659351 20-Jul-2012 23:05

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.

Keep your ad hominem and strawmen arguments to yourself. I am not impressed by them or by you.

You do not get to assert what does or does not happen in my household.

And you do not get to substitute actual argument with political slurs and lies.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659352 20-Jul-2012 23:07

nutbugs:

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! :)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see it...

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659358 20-Jul-2012 23:21

stevenz:
The immense profit Telecom (at least until recently) suggest to me how incompetent the government is\was at running a large corporation.

Hold on. When owned by the government (the people of NZ), it was not supposed to make a profit. If it did so, they were over charging for a public service.

When privately held, yes it is supposed to make a profit as the shareholders demand that.

What I am pointing out is you actually had two different entities (before and after the sale) run with entirely different goals in mind. You cant compare them on terms that favor a profit motive when the other was clearly not a for profit entity.

(And yes, I do understand there was a transitional period when it was a bit of both).

Also, it seems commerce is ALSO no way to run a large company: witness the many and varied and on-going mismanagement of the same in the recent and current 'financial crisii' around the world. Hardly a ringing endorsement of this system of resource and production....

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.

Politicians are not qualified to fix or run anything except a political campaign. I think the piss poor performance from ALL parties in this country over the last 30 years shows that quite well. All they do is fiddle around the edges and find scape goats.

Sadly enough, the same is true for big business.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659362 20-Jul-2012 23:31

trig42:
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?

Because it was all over the news at the time. Polls were taken. Here's an article I found with a simple google search - and there were many others: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5993822/Voters-turned-off-by-SOE-retirement-policies

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.

I am reassured.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#659363 20-Jul-2012 23:35

mattwnz: It's pretty simple really. National was voted in on this policy, so they have a mandate to do it. Where were these protesters at the election. I don't really agree with it,as I don't think it solves any problems, but they were voted in on it. The good thing with it is that it will give kiwisaver something to invest in locally.

Polls taken at the time were that 69% of voters were not in favor of asset sales.

It's very easy too find. Another article: Kiwis prefer capital gains tax over asset sales - poll - Story - Inside Politics - Politics - 3 News amoungst many others.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#659367 20-Jul-2012 23:46

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.

I have had this discussion many times. I consider the other reasons that National are in power more important than my own personal belief that I would prefer us to find a way proceed without asset sales, however, I do trust the leadership, I don't have the full story or time to research myself, so in the end what it came down to, was I like what National offer and no party does everything I wanted, but it was sooo sooo soo much better than what we had before.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#659368 20-Jul-2012 23:48

jonb:
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.

I believe there is very little chance of National and WP working together, I think they would simply have worked harder to get with the Greens or found another way.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9