Saturday, May 4, 2013

O'Sullivan on sabotage

Fran O'Sullivan is usually pretty blunt and to the point. And she doesn't mince her words this morning as she lays into Labour and the Greens; check this out:


New Zealand's leading business lobbyists tread a fine line as they publicly amp up their anger at being "ambushed" by the Opposition parties' plan to intervene in the electricity market.
It's blatantly obvious that Labour and the Greens have been attempting to short the returns the National-led Government expects to receive through next week's Mighty River Power float.
Despite referendums, court actions and now their attempt to undercut the Government's first power company float through their announcement they will slash electricity prices if they take power, it hasn't stopped the listing.
There certainly are genuine business concerns at the precedent the two parties have set by their announcement to set up NZ Power to constrain electricity market prices, without even discussing the proposed and complex policy with key players.
But tilting at the style of the political intervention and asking the two parties to withdraw their interventionist plan is a waste of space. Not because of their own rationale in doing so (this was soundly based). But because Labour leader David Shearer and Greens leader Russel Norman don't give a damn about such requests at the midway point of the electoral cycle.

Fran O'Sullivan is right on the money. David Shearer and Russel Norman don't give a stuff about the economic damage that they are doing. Their sole intention in announcing the NZ Power proposal when they did was to undermine the Mighty River Power sale process.

The Labour/Green tactic was economic sabotage; there is no other way to describe it. Political gain was placed ahead of New Zealand's economic success. 

What is even worse though is the affront to democracy. New Zealand went to the polls in November 2011. National laid out its plans for a mixed ownership model of SOE's. Labour and the Greens campaigned strongly against asset sales. The public voted.

The moment after the election when John Key was able to go to the Governor-General with the news that he could form a government was the moment that National had its mandate to implement the policies it campaigned on. It's not as if asset sales suddenly appeared from nowhere; Key and National were absolutely transparent about their intentions.

Since then we have seen Labour and the Greens manipulate the Citizen Initiated Referendum process by throwing their taxpayer-funded resources at an attempt to re-litigate the 2011 General Election result. That having failed to stop the Government doing exactly what it was elected to do, they have resorted to this latest cheap shot.

As we have said before, MMP isn't perfect, but it is the system of democracy that New Zealanders (including the Greens and Labour) have chosen. That the Greens and Labour are so bitter about the result that a democratic election under MMP dished up is telling.

As we close, we note that there will be an estimated $400m shortfall on returns from the MRP sale. The Government will have to make economies elsewhere in its books to cover this. So we would like to respectfully suggest that the first place where the Government needs to make economies is in the taxpayer funding of political parties; somewhere in the region of 33%, and applying to ALL political parties. By all means enable them to campaign, but make them do it on their own coin, not yours and ours.

19 comments:

Edward the Confessor said...

Your seething hatred of democracy is palpable in this post. How dare the opposition have policies! Cut their funding!

Despite your crowing, the sale has been a failure. The government knew this was going to happen, yet proceeded anyway. Are you sorry?

Keeping Stock said...

Telling lies has got you into trouble here before Edward, and it will get you into trouble again. I do not have a "seething hate of democracy"; in fact National was democratically elected. It is your mob that doesn't accept the outcome.

And you may have noticed that I called (tongue in cheek) for a cut to the taxpayer funding of ALL political parties, not just Labour and the Greens. I work hard for my money, and I pay a reasonably significant amount of tax both personally and via my businesses (you should see the GST bill that I have for payment next week!). I would far rather that money be spent on health, education and social services than on political posturing.

Angry Shareholder said...

"But tilting at the style of the political intervention and asking the two parties to withdraw their interventionist plan is a waste of space."

Boo hoo.

Edward the Confessor said...

The government keeps on cutting your taxes so you can buy flat screen tvs and take wee holidays to Fiji, instead of funding health, education and social services, so stop whining.

Keeping Stock said...

I can't remember which took place longer ago Edward; the last PAYE cut, or the purchase of a telly. Mind you; have you seen the prices of flat screens lately? Super cheap...thanks for the suggestion!

Anonymous said...

Ed is an envious fellow isn't he? If he could afford his own holidays and TV he may curb his desire to befoul your space IV2.

Cadwallader

Keeping Stock said...

He can obviously afford a computer and an internet connection Cadwallader, so things can't be too bad!

Balance Bear said...

Greedy Tory says:
Greens have just said they’ll put in place a policy that will
- screw 2 million workers in Kiwisaver (i.e. nearly ALL workers),
- chase investment away from NZ
- cost the govt billions in assets
- cost the govt hundreds of millions in annual dividiends
- cost the govt hundreds of millions in company tax
- cost the govt a hundred million in gst
- mean either massive govt service cuts or tax increases
- screw private companies like Trustpower who have spent 100 years building up generation assets
- screw ALL the ratepayers of Auckland, Tauranga, Christchurch and Dunedin, by much more than they will ever save in your power scheme.

Next time you bring out a sabotage scheme dressed in drag as a policy, spend more than one late evening making it up.

Then you might actually have time to think of the huge number of ramifications that you’ve missed.

And not make NZ think you’re a party that’s totally unsuitable to be part of government.





Rational Lefty says:
- screw 2 million workers in Kiwisaver (i.e. nearly ALL workers)
Kiwisaver is not obliged to buy shares in these companies. So you are making stuff up again.

- chase investment away from NZ

Private ownership of assets that belong to ALL New Zealanders is wrong. The high NZ dollar and lack of NZ production outside the milkshed industries is a result of the misguided efforts of you and your fellow free-market fundamentalist fools.

- cost the govt billions in assets

The GOVERNMENT does not OWN these assets. The people of New Zealand own them.

- cost the govt hundreds of millions in annual dividends

Giving money back to people rather than using the market to levy a surreptitious tax will indeed cost “the government”, but it will make the society healthier.

- cost the govt hundreds of millions in company tax

Same as above. You are using a surreptitious tax on all New Zealander’s use of power.

- cost the govt a hundred million in gst

Same argument in a different dress. You need to find a new one mate. This is getting OLD.

- mean either massive govt service cuts or tax increases

Yes. Tax increases. Out where they can be seen for what they are. Applied to the people who can and should ACTUALLY be paying taxes.

- screw private companies like Trustpower who have spent 100 years building up generation assets

On THIS there is a potential issue. There are very few such arrangements in New Zealand, and something in the policy might be adjusted to accommodate them. We’re down into the fine print now Photonz, and this was never about the fine print.

- screw ALL the ratepayers of Auckland, Tauranga, Christchurch and Dunedin, by much more than they will ever save in your power scheme.

You will have to explain this because I don’t have time to find what the heck you’re on about up there.

In short, you are violently opposed to honesty in government (transparency in taxation), New Zealand as a sovereign nation rather than a corporate entity, and the well-being of all New Zealanders over the few who are poised to make money from owning stuff that they should never be sold and the foreigners who are poised to do the same.

We understand that Tory contributer. It is disgusting and wrong and “right wing” but we DO understand it.

Tony Blake said...

Does electricity need to come down in price?
Yes.

"Fuel poverty in the land of plenty

Soaring electricity prices are causing more New Zealanders to struggle to heat cold, damp, unhealthy houses.

In July 2010, five-and-a-half-month-old Roretana Holland was found dead in the bed he was sharing with his four-year-old sister, at his parents’ home in Warspite Ave, Porirua. The coroner for the case, Ian Smith, warned once more about the dangers of cot death when sleeping arrangements are shared. Social deprivation, smoking in the household and excessive alcohol consumption were all there. But one part of the deprivation picture the coroner didn’t mention was why the children were sleeping together in the first place.

The four children shared a bedroom because the family had only a single oil heater to keep warm. The Holland household was one of the estimated 400,000 in New Zealand whose members are living in fuel poverty, where heating the home to a comfortable temperature eats up more than 10% of income. Pressure mounts to either skimp on heating or miss out on other essentials, instead. …

“Sadly, those on the lowest incomes pay the greatest proportion of their income – almost 13% – on household energy, yet we know that houses in New Zealand are still cold and damp with all the problems that ensue from that.”

Keeping Stock said...

So tell us this Tony; when will Labour and the Greens tell people like the Porirua family how much of the $300 per annum per household will be taken away again by increased costs for things such as their ETS?

Allan said...

God Tony you bleeding hearts really annoy me. Smoking, excess alcohol and lack of parental responsibility were the cause of the death of that child not the cost of electricity. Even if the prices were lower more money would have been spent on booze etc and not on caring for their kids. I am sick and tired of working my butt off and having excessive amounts of tax stolen from me to support useless, hopeless cases, who fail to take any responsibility for their actions or their breeding. Besides that as KS states any money saved by the nationalization of the Power Companies will be rapidly eaten up by the implementation of their idiotic ETS policies so it would be a case of 1 step forward and about 50 backwards for the long suffering taxpayers and other bludgers of this country.

Tony Blake said...

What do all the wankers that have been spouting on about the need for excessive profits have to say about this young child dying?

Phil O’Reilly?

Brian Gaynor?

Fran O’Sullivan?

A 5 month old toddler dies. The family spends 10% of its income on power.

10% of its income on power.

How much of your income do you spend on power Fran O’Sullivan?

God these people make me sick. They highlight the unhealth of our society. They are disgusting, with their concern for corporate profit at the expense of 5 month old children dying.

Fran O’Sullivan and her ilk should bugger off and live elsewhere – they are unwelcome in our world. Unwelcome. Just like Aaron Gilmore and the rest of the arseholes.

Tony Blake said...

Again, for Allan and KS, cos your greed is blinding you:

"The Holland household was one of the estimated 400,000 in New Zealand whose members are living in fuel poverty, where heating the home to a comfortable temperature eats up more than 10% of income."

Keeping Stock said...

Goodness Tony; such generalisations. You know very little about me. You don't know how much of my time and my income I give to causes dear to me and to the local community. You just make an assumption that because I support a political ideology different to yours that I am greedy and uncaring.

Sorry pal, but you couldn't be more wrong. I believe in giving people a hand up, not a hand out. Trapping people on welfare is not the way to empower them, or give them the hand up that they need. That's why our businesses have hired new staff over the last few years and grown our staff roughly 300% since 2008. If I was truly greedy, I wouldn't be taking new people on and paying them well above the minimum wage; I'd be making the staff we had work even harder so that I could pay myself more.

Stereotypes are dangerous beasts Tony; you need to take the ideological blinkers off, and understand that not everyone thinks the way that you expect them to, simply because of the politicians they support.

Have a nice day :)

Alex Coleman said...

Stereotypes are dangerous beasts Tony; you need to take the ideological blinkers off, and understand that not everyone thinks the way that you expect them to, simply because of the politicians they support.


Wise words I2. You might care tpo reflect on them with regard to not only this post, but the one in which you baselessly attack Helen Kelly's understanding of MMP.

In this post, you assume, and state as fact, that the NZPower policy is just sabotage blah blah blah. That is clearly an attack based on your belief about your opponents.

Compare the linked piece, for example, with the open letter written by the other business lobbyists, and ask yourself which is focused on politics, bile, and attacking opponents just for being opponents and assuming the worst about their motives, and which is discussing the policy in terms of, you know, policy:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/scorn-or-debate-what-nz-power-might-mean-weekend-review-ng-139607

Keith Wilson said...

This power debate has brought out that pathological side in the right, the side that hates the left, despises the poor and is desperate to kill anything that might disrupt their pursuit of ‘wealth’.

O’Sullivan’s pieces need to be analysed. They stink of coordination. Who in National did she chat to, what were the agreed lines? Yes, often the case with her but this really smells like PR.
So let’s be serious now. The Right are running a co-rdinated message calendar and Labour/Greens is going to be hit on a daily/bi-daily basis for the foreseeable future.

Their strategy is to saturate media coverage and to weaken the resolve of Greens/Labour politicians backing NZ Power.
And you are part of that nasty strategy.

Keeping Stock said...

You've busted me Keith. Fran O'Sullivan rang me in the dead of night on the secret phone-line that she and I have to tell me what to write this morning...

Believe that, and you'll believe anything :)

Anonymous said...

The electricity industry in NZ operates well. There are few issues with black-outs as there were when I was a child in the 1950s and repairs are attended to without undue delay if required. The price of electricity in NZ is not excessive to my mind. A lack of rational usage appears to be lacking though. The debate is not one of left v right as the Labour/Greens would have it. It is a debate pinioned on the need for all of us to accept simply:Things cost! I live alone in a very large house and for about 10 weeks of the year I take note of how much energy I consume and pre-plan which rooms to enter/heat etc.. TYpically my power and gas bills for twelve months is $1300 (get inclusive.) Bloody reasonable. My annual wine bill is 3 times that sum.

Cadwallader

bsprout said...

A voice of commonsense: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/scorn-or-debate-what-nz-power-might-mean-weekend-review-ng-139607