Asset Sales on the Horizon

Our mate Trevor is the guy on the cherrypicker, nailing the last of the banner up.

Labour won't sell the silverware. Brash has been a strong advocate of mass privatisation in the past, but for populist reasons has said he doesn't want to do it any more.

What do you think? Would Brash, elected to power, do what he really believes is right for New Zealand?

Or would he stick with his promises?

My bet goes on the former, and his wobbliness around the issues means most Kiwis probably agree with me. The PM's media release is here.

Comments

[RWDB]

Helen's press release goes on and on about the perils of "foreign ownership".

Pandering to xenophobia are we?

[Tony]

I do hope the media ask Brash some questions on this. Their policy is vague. We wont sell this particular asset "this term" (e.g Kiwibank). Well when will you sell them, your second term? Do you believe in asset sales or not? If you do, why not just say so? More smoke and mirrors.

This election is totally bizaar. We have the major oposition party not willing to campaign on what they believe or want to do. Are they ashamed of what they believe?

[anon]

WHy did Labour allow its holding in Air NZ to be diluted?

What about NZ post selling ots courier business to a joint venture with DHL?- does that cound as an asset sale?

Why do we own a dirty polluting coal company, that contibutes to Global Warming....

[whaleoil]

Some questions for Helen,

Which party sold Telecom?
Which party sold NZ Rail?
Which party had more asset sales than any other ever?

LABOUR

[Jordan]

When captured by a fringe group which now makes up (what's left of) the ACT Party, whaleoil.

We've learned our lessons.

And, for pete's sake, get your facts right. National sold NZ Rail, in 1993.

[Insolent Prick]

What's your fucking point, Jordan? Don Brash has made very clear which assets will not be sold, and which are of no benefit to the taxpayer. Just because the Labour Party lies about his position being unclear does not make that position unclear.

Coming from a party that broke every promise it ever made to the voters from 1984-1990, it's very rich for you to talk about broken promises.

Don Brash is a straight-up guy. He doesn't lie or fabricate. Compare that to your own Party leader, your finance minister, your education minister, and the rest of your frigging cabinet.

No comparison at all, really.

[Insolent Prick]

And no, Jordan. You can't claim that Labour was captured by a "fringe group". The entire Labour caucus signed up to the key economic reforms of the 1980s, irrespective of the fact that there were no such promises made to the electorate about them.

David Lange himself makes clear that Helen Clark did not engage in a single economic policy debate. That does not say to me that Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas captured the Party. That says to me that Helen Clark was very happy with the direction of the Party.

[GPT]

Jordon you guys must be fairly desperate when you have to make up what National might do as Government. If Labour is the next Government they might put up taxes even more, make it compulsory to join a union (actually I guess that's already done), make the Treaty supreme law - you can't vote Labour they might do all sorts of horrible things.

Still, I guess beating up on strawmen is a great deal easier...

[peter mck]

can one of you silly socialists explain to me the logic of the gummint vehicle testing - the government exists to Govern - not manage - even Anderton could not justify to a friend the logic of owning vehicle testing - and then just expand the logic a little further - if you economically illiterate socialists can (which given your pathetic arguements I doubt.

[Tony]

Insolent Prick, have you read their policy. I'm sorry, but they are not clear at all. Saying you wont sell a state asset in your first term isn't being clear at all. It begs more questions. Which term will you sell it in? Your second term? Why not state very clearly whether they will or wont sell it? Do they or don't they believe in selling it? And the policy is silent on State Housing which is is a crucial area.

[Jake]

"Coming from a party that broke every promise it ever made to the voters from 1984-1990, it's very rich for you to talk about broken promises."

Labour have had a pretty good track record on ‘promise keeping’ in the last 6 years? Better than anyone else in recent history… isnt that what people should be focused on?

"David Lange himself makes clear that Helen Clark did not engage in a single economic policy debate. That does not say to me that Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas captured the Party. That says to me that Helen Clark was very happy with the direction of the Party."

Very happy? lol. Helen confesses in Brian Edward’s ‘portrait of a prime minister’ that she was a survivor, she justified keeping her head down so she could make it long enough to be in a position to make the changes she wanted. Shes done that, quiet assent is not ‘being very happy’.

[tim barclay]

Silverware?? That got sold off by the 4th Labour Government. The SOEs left are more like a pile of old rope. I would sell TVNZ is a nano second, and National Radio can be gifted to Trades Hall it's their mouthpiece anyway. The rest I would bundle up and give them to the first american Billionare who wants the damn things and a good thing too. What use are they really.

[Whaleoil]

Just reading Mrs Davis' press release...she bangs on about the "hidden agenda"...is this another Americans funding Nats BS spin exercise?

If it is hidden how come she knows about it. Can't be that hidden.

[tristan]

um excuse me before you blame this labour government for the previous one...

maybe you should consider the mistakes that the national has made in the past ... muldoon anyone? wage freeze? importan bans? think big?

[Gooner]

Asset sales are silly. We should be keeping all our state assets. We should definitely not be flogging off state assets to overseas owners.

However, state liabilites should be "gone by lunchtime". On trademe if necessary.

[geniusNZ]

Indeed, keep the good stuff sell the bad stuff.

[Insolent Prick]

No, Tony. The policy is very clear. Nothing sold this term. If there is a policy to sell it next term, that will be raised and discussed next election.

It is perfectly clear, as long as you don't have an ideological, commie pinko socialist barrel to push, and are deliberately trying to paint the policy as unclear.

Unless you're absolutely stupid, which is equally possible, and just can't understand basic logic.

[dogsbody]

Jordan,

As an economist perhaps you could explain why selling off state owned "assets" would be a bad thing; assuming that a market price is achieved.

The state would, by definition, be no worse off exchanging assets for cash, any more than a shareholder is worse off selling shares for cash. This is because all anticipated future earnings from the asset or share are included in the sale price, discounted for time and risk.

So, financially, the state (the taxpayers) are no worse off for selling "assets."
Indeed, allowing competitive enterprises to run the assets will typically result in a better deal for end users.

[Paul]

He he he,

this one's a great giggle.

those on the right, you can almost see the vein popping in their necks, espousing the moral indignation of state owned assets, with the occasional "no you did it first, I'll tell mummy"

While us on the left defend what we hold to be true.

"ideological, commie pinko socialist barrel"

Limpy, would this be the oppostie of "ideological , chip-on-shoulder, neocon-checkbook me me me world"

[Paul]

Of course it's good the see the economic guru define small assests as not assets.

Some farms and a stake in a coal company when sold on behalf of the state aren't real assets.

Give this boy the balanace sheet and we'll be one creative country. the mob should hire this guy, I can see it now, "Drigs are a cash flow issue" or " smoking someone should be deductable, afterall theres the washin up bill".